The video states that people who present a danger to themselves or to others should not have firearms, but only after a court has found them so. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance.
The video states that RPOs should be used to remove firearms from people found to be dangerous to themselves or to others, but only after due process. I agree with the NRA on this exact stance, but only if they mean true due process. Before the firearms are removed, the accused needs to have his day in court, protected from an arbitrary State by counsel.
Encouraging ERPOs with due process is like encouraging Marxism with true equality and human rights. It hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to ever happen. Marxism is not about true equality and human rights. ERPOs are not about due process. Both are about raw, immediate exercise of power.
With due process, it's fairly unlikely for local or state guv to enact an ERPO. This is due to the inescapable law of CAUSE and EFFECT. Getting around due process and giving guv more "tools" for power is the reason (the CAUSE) for wanting ERPO in the first place.
I'm not aware of any real-life shootings caused by a lack of ERPO. Instead, what happened in Florida was government abuse of power and disdain for existing law by agreeing to end the "school to prison pipeline" and ignore crimes and problems involving certain groups of young people. This allowed the to-be-shooter to continue despite repeated incidents. He was free to continue because officials deliberately ignored the law, not because they lacked tools.
We are not guaranteed absolute safety; only a chance at liberty, if we are smart and hold onto what we have. Nor would chipping away at that liberty make us any safer at all. It's fake, and a trap that great men have already warned us about.
ERPO is all about removing due process, not ensuring it. The talk of encouraging implementation of ERPO with all the due process and fine print is (for want of a more polite real-world term) BS or Ballistic Statistics as I call it here. ERPOs may happen, the due process and fine print ain't ever gonna. Therefore NRA is promoting an ambiguous stance on an issue that will cause us net harm.
ERPO deserves and requires 100% firm consistent opposition, not ambiguity and fine print. It's an issue that can only be won by strong opposition. NRA has chosen a very weak and conflicted stance. This, in addition to their distinction of helping get the bump stock ban started. Literally NRA either started or was early in supporting 2/3 of the gun control "Triad" of last year.
Therefore, I'm against NRA's approach on both these issues, and likewise against Eye's MoreGuvPower Lite stance on RPO. The Constitution limits power for a reason. I'm an NRA member, and usually a big fan of Eye95 too. But ideas are important. This is what makes or breaks us. Support liberty 100% and ENTIRELY shun the fake traps that offer quite a bit more safety for just a little freedom, or that claim to successfully promote two self-contradictory items. More power for the guv unfortunately means fewer protections for you and me.
The other big question is how the heck can we really effect change in the NRA? I'm also with the GOA and heartily recommend supporting and promoting them or a similar org with uncompromising positions. But I would like to see the NRA either grow that muscle finally, or else focus on their wonderful membership paraphernalia and make way for an uncompromising org to take the lead on 2A policy.