Post yer ERPO stories here...

[Javelin Man]

I would hate to give the police free reign of my house, but if they come with a paper, I would let them in and excuse myself to go out to the barn to clean some horse stalls or work on a car. That way they can't accuse me of interfering with police as they try to open the safes. And good luck carrying them up the basement steps.

[schmieg]

Of course I'm not a lawyer. I am a shopper, however.
Here's a device that one can place on solid exterior doors.
There's also security film that will prevent/delay window penetrations.

Unless Clinton and Reno are nearby, this may buy time enough to get legal representation and/or a local news crew to the door. But who knows what ex-military vehicles your county SWAT team has at the ready?

May buy some time, but few homes have doors as solid as that one, even for exterior doors.

[Chuck]

I would hate to give the police free reign of my house, but if they come with a paper, I would let them in and excuse myself to go out to the barn to clean some horse stalls or work on a car. That way they can't accuse me of interfering with police as they try to open the safes. And good luck carrying them up the basement steps.

My guess is you'd be handcuffed for "officer safety" until they left.
No way would they allow you to go to the barn while they searched your house for guns.

[Brian D.]

Aw c'mon Chuck, I wanted Javelin Man to find out about "officer safety" the hard way! Spoil sport!

[bignflnut]

What’s more, after the first red flag gets beaten back, I suspect any judge worth their salt will look at subsequent filings against the same person with a heaping helping of skepticism.

In the 3rd of a series of articles instructing people to accept ERPOs at their door so that they can fight in court after admittedly having numerous Rights disregarded, Boch attacks his own audience as unhinged because they express a willingness to fight and die for what they believe, in fact, what we constantly praise veterans for defending, while being handsomely paid. What distinguishes the homeowner from the official who ordains himself with a badge and taxpayer funded paycheck?

His counter is that justice will win out in the courts, encouraging gun owners to be docile and compliant when the troopers arrive without warning.

Not only that, but don’t make all gun owners look bad by going down in a blaze of glory over something that can be fixed in court in the near future. Trust me, you won’t look like a patriot hero to Joe and Jane Sixpack across America. Instead you’ll legitimize the fiction of why we have these unconstitutional laws in the first place. They’ll assume gun owners really are simply just one bad day away from going off the deep end and killing someone.

Throw self-defense out the window, because the government cannot be tyrannical, it is always reasonable, and people who defend their own homes are "going off the deep end".

Who is legitimizing a fiction? Gary Wllis?

[WhyNot]

Not quoting the current problemos in TX, AZ, NY, MA, HI, BYE, I say NAY NAY, Mokalakabesay Isl. , or the Milky White Way...

What about good ol' Ohio?

Remember.... SB 19 OUR current ERPO Red/purple/magenta bill? WHASSUP??

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92919&hilit=+Obhof" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bignflnut]

Eagle County Sheriff James van Beek argues in a Facebook post that the ERPO process makes gun owners "guilty until proven innocent." He notes that when the subject of an ERPO tries to have it terminated, "the burden of proof is not on the petitioner (the accuser), as in every other legal case, but instead, is placed on the respondent (defendant) to prove that the accusations are wrong." He observes that "proving one's sanity could be very difficult, as it is highly subjective." Nor is "proving one's sanity," however that's defined, enough to prevail, since a person may be considered a threat even if he does not qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis.

Van Beek also worries that "if a person is truly in a mental crisis, this aggressive approach will create even greater stress, possibly resulting in a violent overreaction, as their personal property has been taken, without a crime ever having been committed." When police seize guns from the subject of a temporary ERPO, Van Beek notes, it happens "with no warning or ability to defend themselves against the charges." Furthermore, he says, the possibility of that outcome may deter troubled people from seeking professional help.

[bignflnut]

Let's guess the often heard objections to this next story:

A. This can never happen in #Meirca!

B. Yeah, that slice of the government beast is tainted, but not my department, we're clean/incorruptible.

C. This isn't an RKBA story!

Let's start with C.

If this is happening, why can't/won't ERPOs be exactly the same? Because of some reverence for gun owning families?

Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services—the state agency that provides child protective services—has a practice of obtaining blank emergency custody orders pre-signed by judges. Social workers then fill out the documents with the necessary information after they've been signed by a judge and then use them to take custody of children from parents who have come under investigation. Let me repeat that: no judge actually reviews these orders, or the evidence used to justify separating a family, before signing them.

SNIP

Defenders of the practice said it was necessary to address off-hours investigations. While family court judges deal with custody issues during the day, random district judges are assigned to consider these matters on nights and weekends. Social workers were apparently too lazy to visit these judges at their homes and were technologically incapable of using e-signatures, so it became common practice to have the judges pre-sign the documents.

The Blaze notes that Kentucky officials clearly abused this loophole, highlighting a case in which a social worker allegedly used a re-signed form to take custody of three kids. It had been the judge's understanding that only one of the kids would be removed from the home.

Separating children from their parents is one of the most traumatizing forms of coercion the state can exercise against a family. The social workers and judges highlighted by WDRB-41 used that power carelessly and to horrifying effect.

Again, if you're a single issue voter/family/organization, the issue is Liberty.

[bignflnut]

How could it be any other way?

The Montgomery County Republican was leaving his Capitol office when three attendees of Rep. Daryl Metcalfe’s annual pro-gun rally, which attracts hundreds of ardent Second Amendment supporters, walked in.

Stephens, a former federal gun crimes prosecutor, is the prime sponsor of a proposal state firearms groups are lining up to oppose — an extreme risk protection order law.

It would allow family or police to petition a judge to temporarily confiscate firearms from an individual deemed at risk of harming himself or others.

SNIP

Let’s say you have a family member going through a rough time. Maybe she just lost her job, or had a loved one die unexpectedly.

That family member starts saying that life doesn’t seem worth living. Perhaps she even went out and bought a gun, despite never expressing an interest in firearms before.

Under Stephens’ proposal, a family member could then ask a court to review a request to have her gun or guns taken away for between three months to a year.

SNIP

In Stephens’ current bill, a petitioner’s evidence can include a recent purchase of a gun, as well as suicidal threats, acts of violence, animal abuse, or “any additional information the court finds to be reliable.”

Police may also request a removal order themselves if a friend or someone unrelated to the individual asks law enforcement to intervene.

If a judge reviews the case and agrees with the evidence, she can either set a hearing to take place within 10 days, or issue an interim order for high-risk cases that goes into effect immediately. That temporary order could be in place for at most five days.

SNIP

In Pennsylvania, there’s already a way for courts to confiscate firearms from a person in crisis. But it’s strict and not designed to explicitly address firearm ownership.

By what’s known as a “302,” a person can be involuntarily committed by their family, a doctor, or law enforcement for mental health treatment.

There is also no ability to appeal the commitment, and by state and federal law, someone who’s been involuntarily committed can never own a gun again.

Looking at the process as a whole, Stephens said his bill takes a situation without any due process and adds it with a hearing in front of a judge.

“In some ways, people want it both ways. They say they want due process. Well, due process in America is judicial review in many instances,” Stephens said. “Well then when we give them judicial review, they say ‘Well, what if it’s a bad judge?’

“OK, what do you want? Do you want due process or not, because that’s what due process is in America.”

According to the State Police, there are 868,423 mental health records in Pennsylvania’s instant background check system that bar a person from owning a firearm. Multiple records can apply to a single person.

“Gun owners across Pennsylvania don’t realize that they can be disarmed for life without a judge ever saying a word,” Stephens said. “So when you compare [extreme risk protection orders] with what the status quo is, it’s a win for gun owners.”

Enjoy the cognitive dissonance.
Star chamber non adversarial proceedings where one can't cross examine witnesses or challenge any evidence is now due process.
But, hey, due process isn't 2A/RKBA, so pro gun orgs ought not be involved.

[WhyNot]

ONCE AGAINE!!!! <golf clap>

MOMS DEMANDS ACTIONS activism rules the day! Perhaps...the trend continues... arm chair warriors and internet keyboard activists HAVE NOT YET LEARNED the extremely valuable lesson.

Activism has been DOMINATED by the following actions;

-calling Reps
-mailing real letters to same
-marches and rallies

[bignflnut]

"If you haven't read the bill, the bill is a train wreck of how the mechanics of it work," says Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams.

Reams isn't a firebrand or a lofty polemicist, but he has nevertheless emerged as a key figure in the growing opposition to Colorado's red flag law. He made national headlines in March when he declared he would go to jail for contempt of court before he served an ERPO.

"That's a sacrifice that I'll be forced to make," Reams told CNN on March 31. When pushed further, he replied simply, "I'm not bluffing."

Like all red flag opponents, Reams believes the law undermines rights protected by the Constitution, which puts him in direct conflict with his sworn oath to defend it. "I would much rather not be in this situation where I am looking at a law that violates the Constitution," Reams says. "That puts me in a tough predicament."

Reams is also concerned with avoiding legal exposure. The liability of a potential legal challenge will place his office in the crosshairs. A lawsuit would likely target his office, not the court that issued the ERPO or the legislators who passed the bill.

"They would be suing the law enforcement agency that violated their constitutional rights," says Reams. "I'm the one who owns the liability."

Ten other Colorado sheriffs have publicly communicated their refusal to issue an ERPO. As of this writing, over 50 Colorado sheriffs have expressed varying shades of opposition to H.B.1177.

"How many judges are going to send all the sheriffs in Colorado who are standing up to this to jail?" said Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell, who, during an interview with CNN, also stated his intentions to not execute an ERPO within his district.

Most of the enthusiasm for opposing the red flag bill is emanating from Colorado's rural corners. The vast majority of Second Amendment sanctuary counties are located on the western slope of Continental Divide and the eastern plains that border with Kansas.

"Folks out here take their gun rights seriously," Reams says.

From a practical standpoint, many of these counties simply don't have the infrastructure to comply with the red flag law. "If we were to confiscate and hold 20 guns and rifles, that would max out our space," says Delta County Sheriff Mark Taylor.

"Even if the county owned a 10-by-20-foot storage shed, we still wouldn't have enough room to store these folks' guns," says Delta County Commissioner Don Suppes. Like many other Second Amendment sanctuary counties, Delta included language in its resolution denying the allocation of funding for increased capacity related to ERPOs.

It's fun to see Colorado defying the feds on ganja and now this open defiance from many sheriffs...

[bignflnut]

Here are 20 quick minutes about ERPOs, the role of Sheriffs, bump stocks, how to back up your local magistrate, etc...

Discussed with a local to the hosts (Idaho) sheriff and a guns rights actiist (Arizona by phone)

[High Power]

Here are 20 quick minutes about ERPOs, the role of Sheriffs, bump stocks, how to back up your local magistrate, etc...

Discussed with a local to the hosts (Idaho) sheriff and a guns rights actiist (Arizona by phone)

That was an excellent video!

I don't think there are very many Sheriffs in Ohio like Sheriff Skyles. And I'm also talking about the Republican Sheriffs.

IMHO, there would be too many in this state that would be too willing to enforce the stupid red flag laws.

[High Power]

Here are 20 quick minutes about ERPOs, the role of Sheriffs, bump stocks, how to back up your local magistrate, etc...

Discussed with a local to the hosts (Idaho) sheriff and a guns rights actiist (Arizona by phone)

PS: Unless I missed something, they neglected to say that there are no penalties for making false accusations.

Mrs. Kravitz ought to lose her house, her car, her retirement fund and her kids' college fund.

[bignflnut]

You make a good point.
There's never even a discussion of the person making the baseless accusation, much less any evidence being required.