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

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:18 am

Florida’s state legislature passed a slew of new gun laws following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Included in the legislation were risk protection orders (RPOs). Now, a month after the legislation’s passage, the Broward Sheriff’s Office has made an arrest thanks to the new law.

A man by the name of Jerron Smith, who was out on bond after being charged with attempted murder, was arrested after refusing to comply with an RPO.

Here’s more from Local 10 News.

According to Coleman-Wright, BSO applied for a temporary RPO against Jerron Smith, 31, on Wednesday.

A Broward County judge granted the temporary RPO on Thursday, which required Smith to surrender his firearms and ammunition to law enforcement.

Detectives and deputies from the BSO’s Civil Division and its SWAT team went to Smith’s home, in the 200 block of Southwest Third Street in Deerfield Beach, shortly before 6 p.m. Thursday to serve the order, but Smith refused to turn over his weapons and ammunition and would not allow authorities inside his home, Coleman-Wright said.

Authorities later seized the weapons and ammunition after obtaining a search warrant.


Somebody find "Prohibited Person" in any Constitution.
Why we treat firearms as some special piece of property that needs all this much more regulation is beyond me.
“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: 6407
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby Bruenor » Fri Apr 20, 2018 9:42 pm

Heres a nice one from PA's legislation..
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Leg ... 41&pn=1677

e) Evidence.--In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence, including, but not limited to, any of the following:


(8) The respondent's ownership, access to or intent to possess firearms.


(13) Evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm by the respondent.


Looks like we all qualify.
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: 6238
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Sat May 05, 2018 9:31 am

Implications of “mental-health purges” aka: “gun violence restraining orders” from a friend in a position to know:

“In the former Soviet Union, this was commonly known amongst the general population as ‘going crazy.’

Many a Russian thus suddenly ‘went crazy,’ was then visited by the KGB, and subsequently disappeared for prolonged periods.

Most were never seen again!

The State alone (KGB) decided who was ‘crazy,’ and who wasn’t, and there was no such thing as an appeal process, nor a ‘second opinion!’


SNIP


What liberal snowflakes in our generation don’t realize is that the exact same anti-gun laws they are currently promoting will be expanded and applied here, just as they were there.

After all law-abiding gun-owners have been eliminated, no leftist government has ever retained their ‘useful idiots’ after their ‘usefulness’ has been exhausted.

The only solace is in knowing that liberal morons will ultimately suffer the same fate as the law-abiding and brave.

No, you say? This law is only about taking the guns away from crazy people.


Image
Graphic from this 2016 article...but you get the point...due process is entirely avoided.
“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: 6407
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 May 29, 2018 12:02 pm

By Ruby Henley

The Massachusetts House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would give judges the power to seize weapons from individuals reported as a danger to themselves or others. It would allow family members, roommates, current and former romantic partners, and police officials to petition a court to take away a gun owner’s weapons for a year.

Of course, objections by the National Rifle Association and local gun owners have filled the air without recognition by supporters of the bill. The state Senate, controlled by Democrats, and Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, are giddy with their newly minted power in passing “red flag” legislation

The NRA has labeled the bill as a gun grab. It is clear this legislation will “allow firearms to be seized from individuals following baseless accusations without proper due process,” the NRA announced. But most American people do not need anyone to tell them this, as we know without a doubt what this means to our Second Amendment Right – we are losing ground in maintaining what we hold dear.


So, that would be interesting, because the NRA is pushing ERPOs from what I can see...

Lately, the NRA has relied heavily on videos to communicate with the public and its supporters, and video is how it announced its position on legislation to temporarily remove guns from people thought to pose a threat.

"We need to stop dangerous people before they act," says Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders."

On the surface, this is good news for gun control groups, which have been campaigning for such laws in states around the country. They say this kind of law might have allowed an early intervention to stop the troubled young man who killed 17 people in Parkland, Fla., last month.


Gun control groups have assumed the NRA opposes such laws, which are often referred to generically as "red flag laws."


I think this is the issue at hand:
The Massachusetts legislature has passed H.4517, a bill that allows for the temporary removal of firearms from people who are considered "high risk."

“I’m proud of the members of the House for passing this bill which will save lives,” House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo said. “In Massachusetts, we have the most effective gun laws in the nation. Now, we have a new way to keep people safe and prevent senseless tragedies. I thank Chairman Naughton, Representative Decker, my colleagues in the House and the students who raised their voices for their work on this crucial, life-saving measure.”

Representative David Linsky said Massachusetts is proof that strong, common sense gun laws work.


So, where does the vaunted NRA stand?
House Bill 4517, a committee substitute for House Bill 3610, includes even less due process than the bill it replaces. It would allow for a very broadly defined group of “family or household member[s]” to petition for the issuance of protective orders to infringe upon Second Amendment rights of those they believe pose a risk. If the respondent does not attend the initial hearing for whatever reason, the protective order is automatically issued. These protective orders would last for one year, with no provisions for appeal. The respondent has no right to counsel and the burden of proof for an order to be granted is very low. Once the protective order expires, law enforcement is still not to return the seized firearms or any permits unless they find the respondent “suitable” to possess them.

In addition, H.4517 would subject stun guns to the same licensing requirements as handguns in order for citizens to own or carry. Such restrictions will only serve to increase the red tape and cost for law-abiding citizens to acquire these self-defense devices without affecting criminals. With the stun gun ban being struck down recently, it is time to allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry these devices for self-defense without any last-ditch efforts to deny or discourage the exercise of this right.

Again, please contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE H.4517. In addition, you may click here to find your state Representative.


So, now, neither side can trust the NRA on ERPO's! Way to go Chris & Frenchie!

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: 6407
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:33 am

The Rhode Island General Assembly has approved, and Gov. Gina Raimondo is poised to sign, legislation making it easier for police to remove guns from violence-prone individuals at “imminent″ risk of killing themselves or others.

Democrat Raimondo is expected to sign the so-called “red flag″ bill on Friday morning, along with a bill to ban on the kinds of “bump-stock″ devices that enabled a lone gunman to kill 58 concert-goers in Las Vegas last October.

The final votes cast Thursday make Rhode Island the latest state to adopt stricter gun laws in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre, and the high-school shootings that left a trail of death in Parkland, Fla. and Sante Fe, Texas. The House voted 63-to-7 and the Senate 35-to-1 on their matching “red flag’ bills.

They were almost unimaginable as recently as two years ago at the Rhode Island State House, where the gun lobby has powerful supporters and lobbyists, including a former House speaker whose portrait literally loomed, from the wall, over past hearings on stymied gun-control measures.
“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: 6407
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 Jun 08, 2018 1:07 pm

Cuomo proposed legislation that would make it even easier for someone to raise a ‘red flag’ on a student. However, he also proposed giving teachers the right to petition to have firearms removed from a student’s house.

He complained that as New York’s red flag laws are currently written, teachers cannot demand that law enforcement authorities remove firearms from a student’s home. He wants to give them that power.

Make no mistake, that power would provide leftist teachers in the state of New York with the ability to not just remove firearms from the possession of a student, but from their parents’ possession, even if there is no indication that the parents are doing anything wrong or untoward.

To quote Cuomo himself, the bill “gives them a vehicle” to do something about students who they ‘suspect’ are a risk.

Of course, the New York governor completely ignores that there are many things that a teacher could do to make sure students don’t get their hands on firearms, including simply letting their parents know that they are worried.


It's like Cuomo was in on the meeting with Trump/Pence.
“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: 6407
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 Jun 28, 2018 9:34 am

AUSTIN -- In the wake of the deadly school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas lawmakers are looking at solutions to keep something like that from happening again.

Public testimony unfolded at a hearing Monday to discuss potential “red flag" laws, which would allow citizens to file a petition to have a firearm taken away from a potentially dangerous person, and safe storage laws, which hold gun owners legally responsible if a child gets ahold of their loaded firearm.

SNIP

"This is for people who are in a crisis and exhibiting dangerous behavior," said Elva Mendoza with Texas Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

While protective orders already prohibit someone from buying or owning guns, she said they don't do enough, and feels a red flag law could help.

"This is a tool that can be used when family members or law enforcement notice someone that is making threatening remarks, behaviors, exhibiting troublesome and worrisome signs," said Mendoza.

Travis County Probate Judge Guy Herman presides over mental health cases, and testified that federal law doesn't allow someone deemed mentally ill to buy or own a firearm, but not Texas state law.

He feels a red flag law could fill that gap.

"I don't want to see another Santa Fe happen," said Herman.
“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: 6407
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 Jul 20, 2018 9:51 am

The estimated legal cost in overturning an extreme protection order is around $10,000 with no guarantee that the person will get their rights restored or property returned.

Considering the length of time it takes to appeal the order in addition to the cost of fighting the order, many people will not or cannot challenge the stripping of their rights. This legal situation is especially evident in the more impoverished communities where someone might have to choose between eating and fighting for his or her rights.

The second bill signed by the Republican Governor would put in place a 72-hour waiting period to purchase any firearm within the state. Republicans in the state argue that the 72-hour waiting would not prevent any violent crime, and studies seem to back up their argument. Studies done by the Rand Corporation shows that gun waiting periods do not reduce violent crimes.

In fact, the gun waiting period has made victims of violent crimes more at risk. One case was the situation of Carol Bowne in New Jersey. Browne had a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, Michael Eitel. Browne did not believe a piece of paper was going to stop Eitel and decided to she needed to have the means to protect herself.


Illionis has a "Republican Governor"?
“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: 6407
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby Bruenor » Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:57 am

bignflnut wrote:Illionis has a "Republican Governor"?


I'm sure he's at least as republican as Kasich......
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: 6238
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby M-Quigley » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:12 am

From the link:

A judge does have to approve the order, but according to the latest statistic, judges on average approve 95% of all order brought in front of them.


Considering the backlash they would face if they don't approve one and something bad happens, I'm surprised it isn't 100%
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 3002
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: Post yer ERPO stories here...

Postby bignflnut » Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:24 am

The chances of Texas passing a so-called "red flag" law after the Santa Fe school shooting continued to drop Friday as Gov. Greg Abbott said he saw a "coalescence" against the proposal.

As part of his school safety plan released after the May 18 massacre, the Republican governor asked the Legislature to consider such a law, which would allow courts to order the seizure or surrender of guns from people who are deemed an imminent threat by a judge. But even then, Abbott's request for lawmakers to study the proposal drew the ire of some Second Amendment hardliners in the governor's party, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared Tuesday that he has never supported a "red flag" law and suggested it would be dead on arrival in the Senate.


Hey Abbott!
Ya done read the tea leaves wrong on this one...get a backbone, ya ninny!
"If you go back and look at what I said in my plan, I suggested what the Legislature consider — whether or not the existing protective order laws in the state of Texas were adequate or whether or not they should be amended to add emergency risk protective orders," Abbott said. "And it seems like there's coalescence around the notion of not supporting what's categorized as a 'red flag' law. What is important is ... that we work together as a legislative body towards solution to make our schools safer and to make our communities safer."

SNIP

On Friday, Abbott reiterated that his request for lawmakers to consider a "red flag" law was not meant to be a personal endorsement of the proposal. "That's correct, and also as you know, I made that clear," Abbott told reporters, alluding to June tweet where he told a critic he does not "advocate red flag laws" in his school safety plan, "only that is something the legislature can consider."


Sure, backpedal all you want...goodbye Senatorial/national campaign...
“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: 6407
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 Sep 04, 2018 9:38 am

And, with a disturbing number of Wyoming lawmakers refusing to answer our survey precisely because they don’t want to promise to oppose this dangerous legislation, this is a threat we have to take very seriously!

That’s why I’ve had our Policy Advisor, Aaron Dorr, prepare this video update for you — to explain what these bills are, how they impact you, and how you can help us stop them.

Watch the video update here.
“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: 6407
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 Nov 06, 2018 10:21 am

Foxbaltimore.com is reporting that a Maryland resident was killed by police as they tried to enforce a “Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order” at 5:17 am in the morning on Monday, November 5th, 2018.

SNIP

Maryland Governor Hogan disregarded veto requests and signed “red flag” bill (HB 1302) in Spring of 2018. Under that bill as it became law, virtually anyone can ask a law enforcement officer to file an ex parte petition with a state district court judge or commissioner and allege that the gun owner poses an immediate danger to himself/herself or others because (and only because) he or she possesses firearms. If the court issues the order, the police can show up on the doorstep and seize the person’s firearms without notice or warning.


Couple ERPOs with less than a heartbeat compliance expectations and guess what happens?
“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: 6407
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Previous

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests