HOME | DD

OmnibusIntelligence — Proponents of Gun Confiscation 3

Published: 2020-05-05 03:44:01 +0000 UTC; Views: 305; Favourites: 1; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description Acting U.S. President Donald J. Trump, in Direct Violation of Due Process and Guarantees Afforded to Prospective Gun Owners by Virtue of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, as Well as the Fourth Amendment Within the Bill of Rights That Unequivocally States That People Possess the Inalienable Right to Be Secure in Their Persons, Places of Residence, Papers, and Effects, Against Unwarranted Searches and Seizures; Expresses Support for Confiscating Firearms From Individuals Deemed by Authorities to Be an Imminent Threat to the Safety and Security of the Most Vulnerable Segments of Society, Specifically as It Pertains to Academic Institutions and Educational Facilities in the Wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Mass Casualty Event¹ That Occurred in Parkland, Florida; on February 14th of 2018


The gist of the President’s statement cataloged as a response to comments from Vice President Mike Pence, who was quoted with the following:

“Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms, but any weapons.”

In contrast, Trump’s retort emphasized the necessity of law enforcement agencies to exercise preemptive authoritative measures and actively target segments of the civilian population identified as imminent threats to themselves or others based primarily on the opinions of their peers, immediate or extended family, and/ or police officers, a fact evidenced in the utterances below:


“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, then go to court. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… to go to court would have taken a long time. Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

¹ The events that occurred on the premises of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida; became the foundation for the U.S. Federal Government’s adoption of Red Flag Ordinances – legislative directives that permit law enforcement agencies, immediate or extended family members, or concerned citizens to actively petition a state’s judiciary assembly to confiscate firearms from an individual deemed to be a danger to the community based solely on their potential to engage in or participate in criminal acts or exhibit violent tendency. Orders issued under the pretext of these stipulations, also known as “risk-based gun removal laws,” are ubiquitous with the terminology appearing below:


Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs): A descriptor used to refer to the restrictive mandate in the states of Colorado, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.


Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs): A term used to describe the ordinance in the state of California.


Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm: Endemic to the state of Indiana.


Risk Protection Orders: Commonly used as a point of reference in trial proceedings in the state of Florida.


As of January 1st of 2020, the following states and/ or intergovernmental municipalities have formally adopted Red Flag legislation as a means of deterring gun violence:


California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Hawaii

Illinois

Indiana

Maryland

Massachusetts

Nevada

New Jersey

New York

Oregon

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington

LINKED ARTICLES OF REFERENCE:

thehill.com/homenews/administr…

www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxgybg… - VIDEO




Related content
Comments: 0