extreme risk protection orders

[dorminWS]

I'm thinking I'll send this to all my legislators. But they are all solidly in opposition to Gov. Northam's anti-gun proposals anyway.
……………………….………………………………………………………………..
The proposal for “extreme risk protection orders” is, in my opinion, one of the more repugnant of an extremely repugnant group of legislative proposals.

Extreme risk protection orders, as I understand from Secretary Moran’s roundtable in Abingdon, would allow a third party (Moran said this would be limited to a police officer or prosecutor) to petition a judge for a warrant to seize legally owned guns if someone is determined to be an immediate threat to themselves or others. The subject of the order would not be present when the warrant is sought and would have no opportunity for a hearing or representation. This, said Moran, was permissible because other states have done it, and because the order could only be sought by police or prosecutors.
I asked a legislator and practicing attorney if he knew of any other circumstance where an agent of the state could, absent a prior criminal act by the possessor of property, take that property without a hearing. He answered that he could think of none. Yes, they sometimes confiscate cars, but (1) It requires a prior criminal act (such as DUI, for example) by the operator, and (2) there is NO Constitutional right to own, possess, or operate a car. I had asked because I couldn’t think of one, either. And the property in the case of these proposed extreme risk protection orders is not just ANY old property; it is property to which there is a Constitutionally protected right to the un-infringed right to its possession and use.

In addition to that, it seems to me that restricting the people who can request an extreme risk protection orders to police and prosecutors is clearly not protective enough of Second Amendment rights. Police and prosecutors, after all, are people who are in the enforcement business and many of them may well have a bias toward erring on the side of caution when it comes to charging individuals. With all respect to those people, the concern must certainly be that at least some of them would be too “trigger happy” on extreme risk protection orders; and in the all-too-likely case of a prosecutor with a strong bias against Second Amendment freedoms, the opportunities for abuse would be rife. And they are likely to be not trained for, experienced at or in the habit being impartial finders of fact as a judge would be. Finally, limiting requests for extreme risk protection orders to police or prosecutors still won’t stop bad faith reports by people with grudges seeking to punish law abiding gun owners; it will only move the “swearing match” from one in front of an experienced, accredited finder of fact to one before a cop or prosecutor. It is, in short, so little protection as to be a mere fig leaf to mask naked contempt for gun rights.

[SHMIV]

Armed, law-abiding citizens are an "extreme risk" to power hungry tyrants, which is why we have a 2nd Amendment, to begin with.

Who gets to define the terms "immediate" and "threat"?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[rifle]

I'm no lawyer by any means, but I don't see how this arbitrary determination by a third party is not a violation of Article 1, Section 11 and probably Section 10 of the Virginia Constitution. Section 10 can be vague with the phrase "ought not to be granted" when in my opinion should state "shall not be granted". However I do see a strong case for Section 10 being violated by the way this "3rd party determination" is being presented. The abuse of this, if enacted, will be wide-spread.

And Moran's response that it "was permissible because other states have done it", is bs and is a blatant deflection. We do not operate under other state's charters.

[domin8ss]

This is clearly a gun grab. To oppose this, I think Virginia should do as Utah. Whenever an order of protection is granted, it also serves as a 120 day concealed carry permit with no background check, no course, no fingerprints, no photo, no application, and no government issued permission slip. 120 is a deliberate length of time, too. It allows the person the protection order was granted for plenty of time to attend a class and apply for a permit with plenty of time for the state to issue it.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[SHMIV]

Yeah, but Virginia has been infiltrated by carpet baggers. Sadly, until we get some solid conservatives back in office, in this State, things will probably get worse, before they get better.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dusterdude]

Yep,we're doomed

Sent from my LG-US601 using Tapatalk