Crimes, of course, have specific elements. In order to make an arrest or acquire a search warrant, police need to cite specific facts that establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. Moreover, a “probable cause” standard makes no sense in this context. This means that the petitioner need not establish proof that the respondent poses a “risk” in order for the court to issue a confiscation order.
The Biden administration proposes a “probable cause” evidentiary standard for the ex parte gun confiscation order procedure. This one-sided procedure is ripe for abuse. There is no opportunity for the respondent to challenge the veracity of the petitioner’s statements. The court is only presented the statements of the individual petitioning to strip the respondent of their rights. The Biden gun confiscation order language provides that a,Ĭourt shall issue an emergency ex parte extreme risk protection order upon submission of an application by a petitioner, supported by an affidavit or sworn oral statement of the petitioner or other witness, that provides specific facts establishing probable cause that the respondent’s possession or receipt of a firearm will pose a of personal injury or death to the respondent or another person.Īn ex parte hearing takes places without notice to respondent and without their ability to participate at the proceedings. A respondent’s firearms are, of course, their property Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Fourteenth Amendment context, a liberty. Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In District of Columbia v. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. By releasing this model language, the Biden administration has endorsed these unconstitutional measures. Those subject to these orders are stripped of their rights without being convicted of any crime. Regardless of the marketing, such laws empower the government to extinguish a person’s Second Amendment rights and confiscate their firearms without due process. On June 7, the DOJ released model state gun confiscation order legislation - sometimes referred to as “extreme risk protection order,” “gun violence restraining order,” or “red flag” legislation. Moreover, contrary to recent messaging, Garland and the DOJ appear to support an increase in civilian-police confrontations – so long as the civilian involved is not actually suspected of having committed any crime. In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” Since then DOJ has made clear that Garland’s selective definition of “civil rights” has no room for the Second Amendment or even basic due process under the law.
0 kommentar(er)
