Combat Handguns – March-April 2020
English | 101 pages | pdf | 112.67 MBGUN RIGHTS ADVOCATE
DAVE WORKMAN has said that when the National Rifle Association and American Civil Liberties Union both oppose a proposed law, it’s safe to assume there is something really wrong with the proposal. That turns out to be very much the case with so-called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), known colloquially as “redflag” laws, as they are currently being presented to the American public.
When a bill was introduced in Rhode Island to establish red-flag laws, the local ACLU chapter opposed it alongside the NRA. Here’s what concerned those ACLU leaders about the legislation: “While the ACLU of Rhode Island recognizes the bill’s laudable goal, we are deeply concerned about its breadth, its impact on civil liberties and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one. The court order authorized by this legislation could be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others. The order could be issued without any evidence that the person ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm. The court order would require the confiscation for at least a year of any firearms lawfully owned by the person and place the burden on him or her to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they should be returned after that time. If denied, the person would have to wait another year to petition for return of his or her property. The person could be subjected to a coerced mental health evaluation, and the court decision on that and all these other matters would be made at a hearing where the person would not be entitled to appointed counsel.”
Download from: