Post yer ERPO stories here...

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:08 am

We know it’s the first case of its kind in Broward County and we think it’s the first one in Florida, under the new law,” Cirullo said. “Up until the introduction of this law last week, there was no process for us to protect the public in this kind of situation.”

In Florida, prior to passing the new gun control law, people deemed psychologically unfit could be involuntarily hospitalized under what is called the Baker Act. During this involuntary admission to a hospital, the person is evaluated to determine if they are a risk to themselves or others.

Only after they had been psychologically evaluated and deemed a threat could the government then move in to temporarily disarm them. Now, however, this tiny bit of due process is no longer necessary and “experts” can simply deem someone a threat and take their guns.

Although the 56-year-old man was subsequently Baker Act-ed, his guns were taken before this happened.

To illustrate the insidious nature of Florida’s new bill and its rights-violating implications, prior to the new legislation, if police would have done what they did to this 56-year-old man—taken his guns with no due process—they would be fired and fined up to $5,000.

It is important to note that this man was certainly acting strangely and, according to the Sun-Sentinal, he told officers he “was being targeted and burglarized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a neighbor who lives in (his) building,” the judge wrote in his order. “(He) could not describe the neighbor but stated that the neighbor ‘shape shift, he can change heights and I’m not sure where he comes from’ and ‘to be honest, he looks like Osama Bin Laden.'”

He also turned off all of his power to the apartment he lived in. By all means, he was acting very strangely. However, he still deserved due process.

It will now be up to the man to prove that he is healthy enough to ever be able to get his guns back again.


How long will it be till "crazy" is defined as whatever is against the PC views of the day?

I know, that due process thing in the 5th and 14th Amendments...that's not what 2A orgs talk about....

This is that thing Trump said, where they take da guns first, and due process comes later. But he's just playing chess, ya'all...

Image
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:35 am

Here's an advertisement for gun confiscations...

Whether you call it a “red flag” law or “Extreme Risk Protection Order,” laws that allow people to petition a court to remove someone’s access to firearms are gaining traction.

The rules vary in the five states that have these laws. Some states only allow law enforcement to request them. In Washington state, family and even friends can request Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

You don’t need a lawyer to get one. You can access the petition online and file it with the court. But if you need help, the King County Regional Domestic Firearms Unit can walk you through the process.

“It’s basically a two-part process,” program manager Sandra Shanahan said,” so people would come in, they would fill out the forms identifying who they are, who they’re filing against, what the concerns are, and then provide a narrative of the behavioral crisis that they’ve observed that leads them to be fearful for this person’s safety or the safety of others. They would see a commissioner or a judge that same day and they could get an emergency order that’s in place for two weeks. Then the other party gets served and then they would come back two weeks later and the court would hear it [in order] to see if there is merit, and if they should enter the order for a longer period.”


Shanahan says the law has protections in place so a person can’t just easily strip away someone’s Second Amendment rights.

“They still have to see a judge, they still have to present their case and have facts that provide enough of a basis for the court to act. The person who is restrained does have the right to come in and respond to it — argue against it. This isn’t people just coming in and willy-nilly getting firearms taken away. There is a vetting process to make sure its sufficient under the law.”


Oh, thank you massa. We can come argue to a judge, without a jury, competent legal representation, or any knowledge of the evidence presented against us, much less cross examination of it or it's presenter...are you not generous?

Due process has been dumbed down to a judge rubber stamping a warrant.

Shannahan says this is just as much about preventing suicide as it is stopping murders or mass shootings.

“With all of the focus on Parkland, I don’t want anybody to forget the importance of ERPOs as a tool to prevent potential suicides. We don’t want this to further stigmatize people. It’s really an opportunity to get help and assistance and we want it to be in as non-stigmatizing of a way as possible.”

Wyatt says ERPO’s don’t just mean you have to surrender your existing weapons. You also can’t buy a gun while it’s in effect.


There's the Dogooderism that is used to justify these liberty stripping laws. Like you actually care if people die. You're not going to help these people get their lives on track, you can't handle your own kid's life.

CS Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

King County courts have handled approximately 30 of these cases since the law took effect in 2016, with the new firearms unit handling about 10 since the start of this year. Of those, all but one have resulted in the person losing their gun rights for the full year.

How could it be any other way? They've stacked the deck.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:16 am

OBTW, here's the NRA's own NRA/ILA head honcho Chrissy Cox promoting ERPOs.

The NRA is shifting its position on GVROs, and I’m seeing some grumbling on gun-rights websites and message boards. These complaints are misplaced. The NRA has made a wise, principled decision that will save lives while protecting individual liberty.

To understand why the shift was necessary, it’s important to remember three critical realities. First, while overall gun violence is down, mass shootings are on the rise. Second, time and again state and federal law-enforcement bureaucracies have failed to protect the public. And third, mass shooters (and suicidal individuals) typically exhibit troubling and dangerous behavior before they fire a single fatal shot.

Responding to the mass-shooting epidemic by demanding that the FBI or any other law-enforcement agency “do better” is necessary but demonstrably inadequate. Conservatives and libertarians should understand that seeking the solution to a national problem through better-performing bureaucracies is a fool’s errand. Those bureaucracies can improve, certainly, but dangerous people will always fall through the cracks.

Moreover, we also know that the preferred progressive responses — an assault-weapons ban, for example — would serve mainly to unconstitutionally restrict the self-defense options of millions of law-abiding citizens while putting only the smallest speed bump in the path of a determined mass killer. Such a ban would also do nothing to address gun suicides — the leading cause of gun death, by far.

The GVRO, by contrast, is evidence-based, individually targeted (mass seizures would be impossible), appealable, and empowering. Rather than calling a federal tip line or leaving matters in the hands of the often-overworked, sometimes-incompetent local police, a family can bring evidence to a courthouse and have guaranteed access to a local judge. That judge can have the power to force the police to act. But that power isn’t unchecked. The gun owner can contest the claims against him, and he should be able to appeal any adverse ruling.

In other words, the GVRO — properly drafted — is the essence of constitutional conservatism. It empowers families, it provides a precise, constitutional process, and it diminishes dependence on a vast, centralized federal authority.


Grumble, indeed!
You know nothing about protecting individual liberty.
Slavery=Liberty?
State Power = Safer Society?
Has anyone seen or read 1984?
The NRA is not the gun owner's friend.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:08 pm

Welcome to Bizzaro World, where the ACLU of Rhode Island and RI Second Amendment Coalition are allied against RI Police Chiefs' Association who brought ERPO legislation (which Trump has encouraged).

Funny, the NRA recently selected this gun group as their chosen state front...so we'll see how quickly they change their tune...

ACLU of Rhode Island Raises Red Flags Over “Red Flag” Gun Legislation

The ACLU analysis notes that the court order authorized by the legislation could be issued without any indication that the person poses an imminent threat to others, and without any evidence that he or she ever committed, or has even threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm. Further, the court decision would be made at a hearing where the person would not be entitled to appointed counsel. Under the legislation, a court order would require the confiscation for at least a year of any firearms lawfully owned by the person, place the burden on him or her to prove that they should be returned after that time, potentially subject him or her to a coerced mental health evaluation, and give police broad authority to search their property for firearms.

Among the other points raised by the ACLU’s analysis:

The standard for seeking and issuing an order is so broad it could routinely be used against people who engage in “overblown political rhetoric” on social media or against alleged gang members when police want to find a shortcut to seize lawfully-owned weapons from them.
Even before a court hearing is held, and a decision is made, on a petition for an ERPO, police could be required to warn potentially hundreds of people that the individual might pose a significant danger to them.
Without the presence of counsel, individuals who have no intent to commit violent crimes could nonetheless unwittingly incriminate themselves for lesser offenses.

The heart of the legislation’s ERPO process requires speculation – on the part of both the petitioner and judges – about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But, the ACLU analysis notes: “Psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. The result will likely be a significant impact on the rights of many innocent individuals in the hope of preventing a tragedy.”



Prediction: That "Trump Slump" in gun sales seems to have ended today with the Omnibus Bill passing.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Tue Apr 03, 2018 8:05 am

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) used an April 2 Fox News Liveappearance to announce that she is preparing to introduce legislation to create a federal law allowing firearm confiscation orders.

Such laws, generally referred to as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, are already in place in California, Indiana, Oregon, and other states, and Dingell believes the ability to seize firearms is crucial for pubic safety.

During live broadcast Dingell said, “Rep. Fred Upton (R) and I are looking at introducing … legislation … at the national level.” She added, “I grew up in a home where a man shouldn’t have had access to a gun, and I remember some very frightening moments, and there was ability to deal with it. A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have tool that they can take that gun away.”

Dingell stressed that seizure of firearms must occur in a way that protects due process, but she did not explain how such protection is possible. In California an order to take guns can be issued without the gun owner even knowing. And in Indiana, the state on which Dingell is basing her federal legislation, individuals who have their guns seized have approximately 14 days to go to court to “make a case” to get them back.

The Salt Lake Tribune summed up the Indiana law, “In Indiana, law enforcement can confiscate weapons without a judge’s order. The gun owner must ask the court to get the weapons returned.”
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby Bruenor » Tue Apr 03, 2018 9:28 am

What is wrong with those people in Michigan.. 3 Dingells in a row. why ? What have they done good for Michigan over the last 84 years :smh:

John David Dingell Sr. (February 2, 1894 – September 19, 1955) was an American politician who represented Michigan's 15th congressional district from 1933 to 1955. He was a member of the Democratic Party.

John David Dingell Jr. (born July 8, 1926) is an American politician who was a member of the United States House of Representatives from December 13, 1955, until January 3, 2015. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Deborah Ann Dingell /ˈdɪŋɡəl/ (née Insley; born November 23, 1953) is an American Democratic Party politician who has been the United States Representative for Michigan's 12th congressional district since 2015. She succeeded her husband, John Dingell, in Congress
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby catfish86 » Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:33 am

Then you factor into it the comments of one of the View's cohosts that Christians like VP Mike Pence and myself are mentally ill because we talk to an unseen God and claim he speaks back to us. What is the definition of mental illness or danger to society. Hitler declared the Jews a danger to society, disarmed them, then rounded them up and killed as many as he could.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:26 pm

catfish86 wrote:What is the definition of mental illness or danger to society.


There you go.
Religious beliefs certainly would apply, yes? And society has been whipped up against a few "peaceful" religions, right?
Mentally unfit? Sounds like Eugenics, but trust us, we're professionals!
Only have to convince a single judge, btw.
How many rubber stamps can a judge make happen?
The dots are indeed connecting, not that we had any problem with any of them being established.

You think mental illness is a problem now, wait till people realize that seeking treatment will get property impounded or Rights revoked.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby catfish86 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:50 pm

Don't worry they are as trustworthy as the FISA judges I am sure...
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby Bruenor » Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:13 pm

bignflnut wrote:You think mental illness is a problem now, wait till people realize that seeking treatment will get property impounded or Rights revoked.


I believe there are, or were a lot of ex military veterans who won't seek treatment for PTSD for that exact reason..
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby High Power » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:27 am

If you want to see a bunch of flakes in action, go attend a meeting of the Ohio Board of Psychology. The meetings are all open to the public.

These same bozos are the ones that are supposed to oversee the so-called mental health professionals in Ohio. Some of these same so-called mental health professionals are the ones that could determine whether or not someone is mentally fit to own a firearm.

If you don't think that is disturbing, just talk to anyone who has ever been evaluated by a psychologist in a child custody dispute. It doesn't take much coxing from an estranged spouse to accuse the other one of being crazy for the court to order an evaluation.

On another note, expect the mental health community push for evaluations of potential gun buyers. They are loving this entire debate because it could potentially mean lots of money in their pocket.

Just like the child custody evaluations; the courts/police departments will use the same psychologist, over and over again. They use the ones who give them the evaluation that they want.

If a negative evaluation is ever contested in court, the cops will talk about what a stellar reputation Dr. So-and-so has with the court, how experienced he or she is and that the gun buyer is just angry cause they can't buy a gun.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
High Power
 
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:03 pm

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Thu Apr 05, 2018 8:14 am

catfish86 wrote:Don't worry they are as trustworthy as the FISA judges I am sure...


High Power wrote:Just like the child custody evaluations; the courts/police departments will use the same psychologist, over and over again. They use the ones who give them the evaluation that they want.


Shall we speak ill of judges who game the system? This board has always been sensitive about "cop-bashing", wonder if there are any judges who'd like to cry foul.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:13 am

Because he said three stupid, deliberately offensive things about mass shootings on Reddit, Chris Velasquez became an early target of a new Florida law authorizing "risk protection orders" (RPOs) that bar people from buying or possessing guns. Last month, based on a police affidavit that falsely portrayed Velasquez as a ticking time bomb who had threatened to attack schools, a judge issued a temporary RPO against him. Yesterday, after taking a closer look at the evidence, the same judge declined to extend the RPO for a year.

SNIP

Panter refused to accept Velasquez's explanation or his assurances, and over the course of the interview he pressured, cajoled, and manipulated him into agreeing with statements that made it seem like Velasquez genuinely admired Paddock and Cruz, that he identified with Cruz because both of them had been bullied as kids, and that he had repeatedly fantasized about returning to his former middle school or high school in Orlando and shooting it up. These exchanges give you a sense of Panter's method:

SNIP

When you read the transcript of the interview, you do not get the impression that Velasquez has ever seriously contemplated committing a crime of this sort, let alone made any plans or taken any steps in that direction. He calls the Parkland massacre "a senseless tragedy" and notes that a mass shooter may get his "15 minutes of fame" but will "eventually be remembered as a piece of crap." He says he has fired a gun, his father's revolver, just once in his life and was indifferent to the experience.

"He's never owned a weapon, never tried to buy one," says Kendra Parris, Velasquez's lawyer. "He didn't have any intent or plans. He's got no history of violence, no interactions with law enforcement before. He didn't have any disciplinary issues in school. He's really kind of this quiet, shy, mellow kid." Panter apparently agreed. "You're an awesome dude," he tells Velasquez toward the end of the interview. "You're a nice guy."

Panter nevertheless forced Velasquez to undergo a psychiatric assessment, as authorized by the Florida Mental Health Act (a.k.a. the Baker Act) when police have "reason to believe" someone has a mental illness that makes him dangerous to himself or others. The psychiatrist concluded that Velasquez did not meet the criteria for involuntary treatment, which would have required showing by "clear and convincing evidence" that, because of mental illness, there was a "substantial likelihood" that he would "inflict serious bodily harm" on himself or others "in the near future," based on "recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm."


If my lawyer was named Kendra Parris, I'd know I was sunk...

Freedom of speech is toast.
2nd, 4th, 5th, 14th...

But there's a series of summer parades coming up...
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:45 am

Tallahassee Police are seeking a court order to have multiple guns taken away from a man with a history of mental illness and making threats to hurt others.

The filing Friday morning is the first in Leon County under a new law enacted following the Valentine’s Day massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School intended to give law enforcement more power to take firearms from people with mental health issues.

TPD’s attorney Teresa Flury filed the petition against 21-year-old Christopher Mark Newhouse Jr. A judge has not yet ruled on the petition.

Newhouse, as documented in the filing, has made threats to kill police officers, himself and others as far back as April 2017. Newhouse owns an AR-15, and two other semi-automatic rifles, according to the petition.

SNIP

After being involuntarily committed in February, a psychologist found that Newhouse suffers from psychosis and should not possess firearms or other weapons.

A month later he was Baker Acted again for being suicidal.


Due process is dead.
How would one ever get out from under the weight of these determinations?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby Bruenor » Tue Apr 10, 2018 5:55 am

of the 10-20 who had their firearms seized.,. how many shouldn't have and what was the average cost to them to restore their rights and get their property back ?
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ss ... lag_l.html
City Council on Monday urged the Ohio General Assembly to adopt "red flag" laws that allow police or family members to seek to have guns confiscated from individuals dangerous to themselves or others.

The resolution, adopted 17-0, was pushed by Ward 6 Councilman Blaine Griffin. All other members signed on as sponsors. While the legislation encourages the state to act, it is non-binding.

Griffin said that while other broader gun-control issues may be debated over time, this measure seemed like a focused step that could reduce incidents of violence and suicide.


The resolution noted specifically that in Connecticut research over a five-year period showed the law was credited with preventing a gun suicide for every 10 to 20 seizures.

During a meeting Monday afternoon of council's Finance Committee, Griffin noted that the issue appears to have bi-partisan support in Ohio.
Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Next

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest