Why the NRA Opposes Rubio’s ERPO Bill

Opinion

Ban Guns Red Flag Laws
Why the NRA Opposes Rubio's ERPO Bill

Washington D.C. – -(AmmoLand.com)- When discussing “red flag” gun laws (the technical term is usually an Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO), one of the questions is why the NRA opposes many of the measures that are currently being passed. Well, it’s one of the classic cases of anti-Second Amendment extremists taking advantage of the good intentions of many people, including Second Amendment supporters.

Here’s the deal: When mass shootings happen, the anti-Second Amendment extremists pounce. There is a huge emotional groundswell that leads to many attacks against the NRA and other groups that support the Second Amendment. Politicians like Chris Murphy and Kamala Harris seize on the chance to attack our rights and demonize us as child killers and domestic terrorists for opposing the sweeping collective punishments that they would impose if they had the power to do so. That dehumanization campaign is working to an extent.

In the wake of the Parkland shooting, David French outlined a way to implement ERPOs in National Review. Now, before we hear a cry of “Negotiating Rights Away,” actually read the whole article first, as well as his response to a critique.

The key here is that French proposed very strong due process protections:

  1. Only allowing a limited number of close people to be able to file a report.
  2. Those filing the report would have to include clear and convincing evidence.
  3. The person reported would have to have a chance to respond to the allegation.
  4. The order would lapse after a set period of time.

The NRA’s position on ERPOs, as outlined by this fact sheet, is very similar to French’s outline of balancing the need to cut off a dangerously mentally ill individual who could carry out a mass shooting, and our Second Amendment and due process rights. That should clear up the misrepresentations, which have not only come from the expected direction of anti-Second Amendment extremists, but also from some Second Amendment supporters.

On the other hand, Rubio’s bill has a lot of problems.  Here are some of them:

  • It does not require a referral for mental health treatment as a result of an ERPO. Let’s face it, if there is clear and convincing evidence someone is having a mental health crisis that makes him (or her) dangerous, then an ERPO is just slapping a band-aid on malignant melanoma.
  • The bill also has an overly broad definition of family member, to include roommates within the past year or a former dating partner. That leaves open the possibility of the ERPO being used as a means to get revenge for a bad end to such a relationship.
  • A new federal offense is created for having guns after an ERPO is issued, without any protections for due process. No evidence is required to make an individual a prohibited person, and they don’t even have a chance to respond to the allegations. A mere telephone conversation could result in a court order for the immediate surrender of firearms.
  • There is no deadline for the return of surrendered firearms, nor are there any requirements to ensure that surrendered firearms are kept safely. In other words, those firearms could be damaged or ruined, and there would be no recourse for a person who is found to not be a danger after a court hearing.

Look, it goes without saying that ERPOs are not exactly a good thing for Second Amendment supporters to discuss. Like NICS, it is the best of a bad lot when it comes to addressing a real problem. Ideally, we’d have no need for ERPOs because there would be no stigma for seeking mental health treatment, or because potential locations for mass shootings would be harder targets, or because the shooters will not gain notoriety for those actions. But we’re not in an ideal world.

Just as Second Amendment supporters need to suck it up and fix NICS, Second Amendment supporters must also buckle down, and come up with ways to implement EPROs that respect due process and which don’t serve as a tool for permanent gun confiscation. If we don’t engage and come up with a good process, unreasonable anti-Second Amendment extremists will come up with versions that will be truly awful. It sucks to have to make that tradeoff, but the alternative could see anti-Second Amendment extremists get the power to take everything we have gained, including the Heller and McDonald decisions, away.  Fight on.


Harold Hu, chison
Harold Hutchison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

38
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
23 Comment threads
15 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
34 Comment authors
Son_of_LibertyCarl "Bear" BussjaegerrastomcatCharles Moore Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Son_of_Liberty
Guest
Son_of_Liberty

I have a few issues with ERPOs.. with the biggest of them being anonymous reporting. This is dangerous. Not just because of assholes. Let me give you an example. Say, someone’s daughter, sister, wife, etc. finds out they have a stalker. They can’t really do anything if they don’t have a description or name of the person, and even if they do, restraining orders are only deterrents. So this woman decides she needs protection, and buys a gun. If the stalker finds out, what’s stopping them from petitioning for an ERPO? ERPO laws usually don’t call for a substantial amount… Read more »

Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger
Guest
Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger

“In the event of an emergency, ex parte order…”

Full stop. Ex parte means no due process. The VNRA endorses ex parte orders. I don’t:

“The only thing ERPOs do that CURRENT LAWS AND TOOLS don’t do is violate human/civil rights without due process, with no notice. Anonymously. And then leave the possibly now angered subjects on the loose with access to other lethal weapons.”
http://zelmanpartisans.com/?p=5788

tomcat
Guest
tomcat

Another one hit out of the park by Harold Hutchinson. As usual it is a foul ball. He is fed and pampered by the negotiating
rights away organization and he keeps churning them out one after the other. Red flag laws are unnecessary and are for one purpose, to get our guns off the street. It has been said time and time again that there are already laws in place to take care of mentally ill people. Taking the guns solve nothing. It is the person, stupid, not the tool.

Mack The Knife
Guest
Mack The Knife

Rubio and Scott are both huge disappointments here in Florida.

Robert Messmer
Guest
Robert Messmer

I would add: 5. If the court finds against the victim, oops I mean the subject, the subject will be confined for evaluation by competent medical personnel. Upon findings from medical personnel in not more than 72 hours the subject if found not to be a threat to others will be returned home, the ERPO cancelled and wiped from his record. Since the government has no right or authority to prevent someone from committing suicide (My body, my choice) self harm is not subject to ERPO. 6. Anyone filing a false report will be forced to pay double all legal… Read more »

Patriot guy
Guest
Patriot guy

Why is it when one talks to old timers, that back in the 1940’s and 1950’s, one could walk into a hardware store, gun shop, department store, pick out a handgun, pay for it and walk out with no nics, background check, no government interference, and no problems like today. Background checks = gun registration = gun. confiscation. = you locked away forever in a New World Order. concentration death camp.

Bruce Dzamba
Guest
Bruce Dzamba

Well boys and girls…..time to start writing the president and your two Senators and let them know how you feel…..

Michael J
Guest
Michael J

Red flag laws are the perfect combination of relieving law abiding citizens of due process and taking private property.
This law was superbly crafted by the left that costs the accusers nothing and the accused everything.
What politician, bureaucrat, judge or law enforcement is going to risk being wrong especially when they don’t have to be right? It costs them nothing to er in the name of public
safety.

JPM
Guest
JPM

“… one of the questions is why the NRA opposes many of the measures currently being passed.” A better question is, Why isn’t the NRA opposing any and all measures being passed? There are no good Red Flag laws at this time. They are ALL open to abuse and they ALL violate the second, fourth and fifth Amendments to the Constitution. NRA, compromising away the rights of members and citizens for decades. Gracias LaPierre and your hand-picked crooked get-rich cronies.

duh duh
Guest
duh duh

You normally engage a FOAMING RAGING RABID DOG like what ?

Give examples .

John
Guest
John

Whenever the citizenry chooses safety over Liberty, the Republic is lost. The ERPO does just that. President Trump advocated such when egregiously stating “Take the guns first, due process second”. Same concept, different wording. This is exactly what ERPO does, it tears at the core of our fundamental Rights. Proponents of these orders admit abuses are evident, they will happen. Anyone been through divorce court and have unfounded allegations to defend against….these abuses pale in comparison to ERPO’s. Anytime a citizen’s Rigjts are chilled first; no hearing first, no due process first, no innocent until proven guilty first, no burden… Read more »

Charles Valenzuela
Guest
Charles Valenzuela

Why do I have to “suck it up and fix NICS”? I don’t LIKE NICS. I think NICS is unconstitutional. There shouldn’t BE any NICS. NICS is an infringement of my rights. NICS should be abolished, not “fixed”. ERPO’s? None of that crap either. If someone is mentally ill they should be transported to a mental health facility and remain there until they are well again. Notice no one wants to take their car keys away. No one wants to confiscate their vehicle, or their axe collection. No one wants to commit them to an institution for evaluation or incarceration.… Read more »

Bruce Dzamba
Guest
Bruce Dzamba

I have to agree with Charles on this!

Charles Moore
Guest
Charles Moore

There might not be any NICS in Missouri soon. – Another Charles.

Grizguy
Guest
Grizguy

IF someone poses an extreme risk to themselves and others, such that their Second Amendment Rights must be violated, they should also have their automobiles, bats, knives and other weapons confiscated as well. Any Red Flag law that does not take ALL WEAPONS, is unconstitutional gun control masked as a public safety law!! How many advocates of Red Flag laws would support them if THEY could have their automobiles etc. confiscated.

Robert
Guest
Robert

Nra dont agree??? Odd they seemed to agree to bann bumpstocks

Gary Ramey
Guest
Gary Ramey

The Author is part of the problem.
You cannot negotiate away rights for fear that something worse will happen.
As a “Historian”, he of all people should know that heading down this road leads to tyranny.

The Green WatchDog
Guest
The Green WatchDog

I do support what David French proposes. Protection orders are for the well being of our society. Across theU.S., I am confident that we can implement these orders and have a win-win for all. Hear It, See It, Report It.

The Green Douche Bag
Guest
The Green Douche Bag

ERPO are an infringement on the right of the people. Period. There is already such a thing as being deemed a danger to yourself and others. NO on ERPO

hippybiker
Guest
hippybiker

Green dog crap. Your village called. They want their idiot back!

ras
Guest
ras

hippybiker, you hit home run.

SeenitAll
Guest
SeenitAll

Another “trade liberty for safety” troll.

Kuhnkat
Guest
Kuhnkat

How many mass shootings have happened after people saw/heard and reported only for the authorities to not take action???

These orders are too easily turned to political/religious/personal suppression.

Robert J. Lucas
Guest
Robert J. Lucas

New Mental Institutions need to be built to house people who think this way.
What do you not understand on what the framer’s wrote in the original documents?

JoeUSooner
Guest
JoeUSooner

I am quite ok with ERPOs that do indeed fully – completely! – protect “due process.”

I violently oppose ERPOs that – in any way – violate “due process.”

The difference is incredibly important.

Get Out
Guest
Get Out

Instead of pushing the gun control agenda known as ERPO’s just ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS and these unconstitutional ERPO’s wouldn’t be needed.

The FBI admitted, it did not respond appropriately to a timely warning from a “person close to Nikolas Cruz.” According the FBI, that person provided “information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Charles Moore
Guest
Charles Moore

Ever heard of “swatting?” This is the “New and Improved” version.

Quatermain
Guest
Quatermain

Once again Harold Hutchinson goes mushy and urges acquiescence to obviously unconstitutional legislation. With “friends”like Harold we need no enemies. I think he would enjoy turning up the heat and watching the frogs come to a boil. If we lose the Second Amendment it will be solely because we did not use it.

Oldvet
Guest
Oldvet

You don’t suppose GWD is a pen name for Harold Hutchinson ?

Quatermain
Guest
Quatermain

I wouldn’t put it past him to try to boost himself due to the panning he gets here.

Get Out
Guest
Get Out

The way these ERPO laws are being written is ludicrous and since there are no consequences should someone file an ERPO out of spite. These ERPO’s violate and deny law abiding citizens to many of our rights and never even got past the first vote.

Gene Ralno
Guest
Gene Ralno

Since we’re dealing with mentally troubled persons, the law should include analysis by licensed psychiatrists. Doubtlessly, we all know of judges and law officers who are far from qualified for such professional undertakings. I also doubt that they’d volunteer to diagnose mental illness if their jobs depended on doing it correctly. Justice requires that the accused be afforded at least a modicum of professional analysis and an official opinion by two or more psychiatrists. Leftists screech in the streets if denied a full measure of due process but close their eyes on the subject of self-defense by firearm. These laws… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

Yeah that’s going to be a big no for me… got a lot of Sheriff’s saying no to red flag laws so that will just a flat no on the whole idea.

Gas Block in WA
Guest
Gas Block in WA

This type of un-constitutional snake-speak is precisely why I will never donate to the NRA again.

The NRA has turned into another enemy of the Republic.

Thomas
Guest
Thomas

Well, NRA is opposing them so I guess you didn’t read this.

DaveinFL
Guest
DaveinFL

Actually I guess you didn’t read this. The NRA proposed its own ERPO! They just oppose any that doesn’t agree with theirs.

The first thing the NRA says is ‘It’s not the gun, it’s the person’ that causes shootings and they are right. So how come with the NRA proposed ERPO it is the guns, not the person that get removed?

Darkman
Guest
Darkman

It MUST be understood. To rely on ANY Politician or Judge to preserve the Rights afforded in the Constitution Is a FOOL’S errand. The very reason the Founders Established the Bill Of Rights was because they Understood that as times change people who disagree with those Rights would try to Amend or Remove them. The People who believe those Rights should be Upheld and Preserved MUST Choose. Live Free or Live Repressed. The idea that preserving those Rights through the Act of supporting and voting for a particular politician has long since been proven to be folly. Keep Your Powder… Read more »

m.
Guest
m.

a Constitution-traitor will say & do anything