Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|Comment by: PHORTO (3/8/2019)|
|"Critics of the bill, also known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), have said it is unconstitutional."|
And it is. The due process burden for removing rights and property requires an adversarial hearing, not an ex parte hearing. The respondent must be given the opportunity to face accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and present witnesses and evidence in his own behalf, with a subsequent ruling that establishes probable cause for a search and seizure warrant. To constitutionally suspend a subject's rights, an actual crime (or criminal/violent mental history) must have occurred to begin that process, not a POTENTIAL crime.
No executive, legislature or court has the power to circumvent that constitutional guarantee.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATEDemocrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.