In reading the text of S.7, it does not appear to me that this proposed law is actually a "National Red Flag Law" per se. My take is that S.7 would allow states to be eligible to receive law enforcement grants to carry out their own red flag laws providing that those state red flag laws meet the minimum standards of S.7.
Extreme Risk Protection order = ERPO
A few of the minimum state legislative standards required by S.7 as I read it:
allows for temporary ERPO with a required hearing within 14 days
must provide date of hearing at the same time as the temporary ERPO is served
requires a "probable cause" evidentiary level before a judge can issue a temporary ERPO
requires "clear and convincing evidence" for a court to issue an ERPO, which may not exceed 12 months
requires sworn affidavits or sworn testimony before considering a temporary ERPO or ERPO
requires states establish a felony criminal offense for a petitioner making false allegations or false statements when petitioning for an ERPO
states who have already established ERPO laws, and wishing to receive grants must apply evidentiary requirements similar to those in S.7
IMO, S.7 still allows states to establish legislation that violates the 4th and 5th Amendments. I would oppose it for those reasons alone. S.7 does not appear to me to establish an ERPO nationally however. It does set minimum standards for state ERPO legislation in order for the states to receive related law enforcement grants.
Would S.7 require stricter evidentiary standards than the proposed LB58 in Nebraska? I don't know, but if LB58 doesn't require probable cause or clear and convincing evidentiary standards, it would not meet the requirements of S.7.
Just my opinion, and IANAL or a constitutional scholar.
Ghost
