And that's a very excellent start. But the #1 priority in my judgement is eliminating (or altering) Red Flag laws. That's the one thing that could affect me, personally, through no fault or action of my own. The proceeding should, at very least, no longer be "ex parte." The respondent's counsel should be present to argue against the petition. In addition, the respondent should be offered the option of "alternative storage" of their property. That property should no longer be seized/confiscated by LE. There should be facilities, similar to those "Metro Storage" locker places designed specifically for the storage of firearms and ammo (one such example being
Gunsitters in PA). The respondent takes all their guns/ammo to that facility and pays for a specialized locker. The locker has 2 separate locking ports on it where padlocks can be put through. The respondent puts his padlock on and the authority ordering the ERPO puts on theirs. They then go to the formal hearing and, by the end of it all (i.e. summary adjudication after all appeals, etc.), the party that doesn't prevail has to take their lock off first. Pure and simple.
If it can be, at all. Human Nature is what it is, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely!. One good place to start is with the caliber of the candidate that applies for the job. I would have them be subject to intense examinations as to their moral character and honesty/integrity. I'd also prefer candidates that are willing to "seek perfection" in what they do, as most business people strive for that. Always, be better at what you do. Don't rely on a "tolerance of mediocrity as a LEO" to not bother to be better. Be innovative, yes, but *always* within the ROE (ie. not trampling upon anyone's civil and constitutional rights, in the process, just to facilitate their job). I'd actually prefer to see a bare minimum requirement of a Bachelor's degree if that isn't a requirement already.
The problem being, as stated earlier, the available pool of candidates willing to accept the job with those requirements and with the risks previously mentioned would sink to almost nothing. Nobody would be cray cray enough to take the job under those conditions. Witness all the veteran LEOs leaving the job at present. We may very well have to go to a "conscription" system where candidates might be "drafted" for a fixed term of years (5 maybe) to serve as LEOs in the same way the Military folks used to be... of course, subject to the same scrutiny requirements as above (i,e, no "4F"s allowed). Now, for that, I'd be willing to offer much bigger compensation. And should the LEO be KIA'd or severely injured, I'd have the family's house "Tunnel-to-Towered" immediately.
But again, who would replace them, if at all possible? I fear you might have to fire enough of them to cause a severe deficit in the ranks of active LEOs. I mean, we could be talking "Defund the Police" levels of departures. If anything, it should be done by attrition (although one could "incentivize" attrition via bad assignments, etc. in some cases). It's how we did it in the corporate world. I'd only "fire" a LEO if it were "for cause" and the cause is severe enough to be "criminal" (i.e. prison time).
