Post by Admin on Apr 26, 2019 11:16:41 GMT
USSCA Reaffirms It Stance Against Red Flag Laws
USSCA Reaffirms It Stance Against Red Flag LawsU.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-The gun world was once again lit on fire at a miscommunication by the largest concealed carry insurance companies in the country. The USCCA is the leading provider of concealed carry insurance. The purpose of the insurance is to provide legal service in case a gun owner is forced to defend themselves against an attacker. The USCCA will cover all legal bills from criminal and civil prosecution. On Monday morning a USCCA member contacted them through Facebook to state their dissatisfaction that the USCCA coverage didn't include fighting against extreme risk protection orders (ERPO)that are better known as “red flag” laws. An ERPO is a court order that is issued in a judge in a secret hearing to confiscate the targets guns. All it takes is a family member, or roommate to say you are a danger to yourself or others. These have been controversial since the target of the ERPO are not aware that there is even a hearing. Civil liberties activist claim that these orders and unconstitutional because of the lack of due process. The USCCA social care advisor responded with the scripted response: “If you are not presenting to be a danger to yourself or others and are acting lawfully, there should be no reason to be concerned that your firearms would be temporarily confiscated from you.” “This law does not promote ‘gun-grabbing’ but more so keeping firearms out of the hands of people that may be potentially dangerous.” The social care supervisor approved the canned response, but it went against the official stance of the USCCA on ERPOs. It was a decision by a single employee. The USCCA told AmmoLand that they had counseled the employee and are taking steps to reaffirm their stance internally. The company's official stance is that they are against “red flag laws”, the founder and president of the USCCA, Tim Schmidt, took responsibility for the mixup. He acknowledged that the statement was akin to saying “Hey, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you should be fine with giving up your fourth amendment rights.”
USSCA Reaffirms It Stance Against Red Flag LawsU.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-The gun world was once again lit on fire at a miscommunication by the largest concealed carry insurance companies in the country. The USCCA is the leading provider of concealed carry insurance. The purpose of the insurance is to provide legal service in case a gun owner is forced to defend themselves against an attacker. The USCCA will cover all legal bills from criminal and civil prosecution. On Monday morning a USCCA member contacted them through Facebook to state their dissatisfaction that the USCCA coverage didn't include fighting against extreme risk protection orders (ERPO)that are better known as “red flag” laws. An ERPO is a court order that is issued in a judge in a secret hearing to confiscate the targets guns. All it takes is a family member, or roommate to say you are a danger to yourself or others. These have been controversial since the target of the ERPO are not aware that there is even a hearing. Civil liberties activist claim that these orders and unconstitutional because of the lack of due process. The USCCA social care advisor responded with the scripted response: “If you are not presenting to be a danger to yourself or others and are acting lawfully, there should be no reason to be concerned that your firearms would be temporarily confiscated from you.” “This law does not promote ‘gun-grabbing’ but more so keeping firearms out of the hands of people that may be potentially dangerous.” The social care supervisor approved the canned response, but it went against the official stance of the USCCA on ERPOs. It was a decision by a single employee. The USCCA told AmmoLand that they had counseled the employee and are taking steps to reaffirm their stance internally. The company's official stance is that they are against “red flag laws”, the founder and president of the USCCA, Tim Schmidt, took responsibility for the mixup. He acknowledged that the statement was akin to saying “Hey, if you’ve got nothing to hide, then you should be fine with giving up your fourth amendment rights.”
In a video released by the USCCA Schmidt chalked up the mishap to a failure in training. He vowed to make sure that the 24 full-time staff monitoring social media have the correct information. Schmidt went on the record in January of 2018 stating that he personally believed that ERPOs are unconstitutional. He called them “anti-freedom tactics to seize guns.” He also believes that the majority of ERPOs excutived are unfounded. In the August 2017 edition of the USCCA official magazine, “Concealed Carry,” the company officially came out against “red flag” laws. With all the history of the USCCA opposition to ERPOs, it isn't entirely clear on the supervisor came up with the statement. The USCCA for their part is working on integrating protections against ERPOs into future membership agreements. Schmidt points out that the USCCA Legal Defense Foundation will be there to help out gun owners “who find themselves in the crosshairs of unmeritorious prosecution.” Schmidt states that he understands the frustration of the USCCA membership over the statement, but has asked those people to look at the history of the USCCA as a whole.
THIS IS YOUR FORUM TOO! So post your reaktions below PLS. What do you think about this?
