There seems to be some confusion about a couple of things in the general public about the recently passed Extreme Risk Protection Order law referred to as the “red-flag” law. For one, it is claimed that the accused is guaranteed the ability to defend himself and the other is that the ERPO is about safety.

The first is easily shown false by copying and pasting directly from H4760, Section 131T: “(a) Upon the filing of a petition pursuant to section 131R, the court may issue an emergency extreme risk protection order without notice to the respondent and prior to the hearing required pursuant to subsection (a) of section 131S if the court finds reasonable cause to conclude that the respondent poses a risk of causing bodily injury to self or others by being in possession of a license to carry firearms or a firearm identification card or having in his control, ownership or possession a firearm, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, weapon or ammunition.”

Furthermore, upon appeal the accused must forfeit their rights and property. Guilty until proven innocent is due process?

The second is proven false by going through the process step by step. Step 1, the accused is brought to court. Step 2, the accused is found to be a threat to himself and/or others. Step 3, LTC and all known firearms are forfeited. Step 4, the accused is then allowed to walk freely about society as a deemed threat to himself and/or others.

How can this be about safety when a known threat is allowed to roam freely around the very people he is deemed a threat to?