Red Flag or Extreme Riske Protection Order Requirements For Consideration In Any Court.

I am a non-attorney suggesting as a friend of the court:

Any court considering an Extreme Risk Protection Order must

 look for guidance from the Supreme Court's recent decision in

 New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.

 Ct. 2111 (2022). In Bruen, the Court recognized that "the

 Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right

 to keep and bear arms for self-defense." Bruen, at 2125.

Further, in following the lead of District of Columbia v.

 Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the Bruen court reiterated

 that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an

 individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively

 protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation

 the government must demonstrate that the regulation is

 consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm

 regulation." That tradition must be from the period the

 Second Amendment was created. Bruen, at 2126.

Also, it is of import for the an Extreme Risk Protection

 Order to review the United States Supreme Court's

 interpretation of the value of the Second Amendment. In

 McDonald v. City of Chicago, [*2]Ill, 561 U.S. 742, 780, 130

 S. Ct. 3020 (2020) the United States Supreme Court declared

 that the Second Amendment is not a "second-class right,

 subject to an entirely different body of rules than the

 other Bill of Rights guarantees." McDonald at 780.

Most recently, in New York Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.

 v. Bruen, supra, the Supreme Court reaffirmed McDonald.

 Here, the Court stressed that "[t]he constitutional right to

 bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class

 right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than

 the other Bill of Rights guarantees.'" Bruen at 2156, 

 quoting McDonald, supra, at 780.