Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

http://www.whio.com/news/local/gun-law- ... 3DpaAaIxN/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not really a surprise that Kasich would agree with whatever the panel came up with, but the link also describes what the panel agreed on, and what they couldn't agree on, and who was part of the panel.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the ERPO's could answer this for me, but if I had a relative that I felt was a danger to himself or others, and got an ERPO, all that would do at most is the cops would confiscate the guns he or she has right now. It does nothing to control the person themselves for that period of time the ERPO is in effect. If the person was truly such an imminent danger, they could just go get a gun somewhere, or use some other method to do whatever it was someone was afraid they would do.

And what are the standards for getting an ERPO against someone? There's a wide gap between Uncle Joe is mad at his ex versus Uncle Joe says he's going to shoot his ex, for example.

The info sent to the NICS system now is way behind the curve in some cases, and those are convictions. How is the ERPO orders going to be any better? Plus, it's not like someone who desires to commit murder couldn't just get more guns on the street instead of a dealer even if the NICS system was accurate.

M-Quigley wrote:Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about the ERPO's could answer this for me, but if I had a relative that I felt was a danger to himself or others, and got an ERPO, all that would do at most is the cops would confiscate the guns he or she has right now. It does nothing to control the person themselves for that period of time the ERPO is in effect. If the person was truly such an imminent danger, they could just go get a gun somewhere, or use some other method to do whatever it was someone was afraid they would do.

And that's one criticism of ERPOs because if you look at the language being introduced around the country it's almost identical. IMO it doesn't diminish the value of an ERPO in and of itself but it's critical that people understand what an ERPO is and what it is not.

Specifically, yes, it will remove any firearms the person currently owns, at least it should, and it will cause their CHL to be suspended, which involves turning the physical plastic in. It should also cause the person to become a prohibited person for a period of time so that any sale run through a background check should fail. Will it stop everyone from getting a gun? No. That doesn't mean that ERPOs don't have their place in certain circumstances.

That's all well and good but the problem is from a legal standpoint taking guns and prohibiting possession is the extent of it. Nothing in the process requires the authorities, the courts, or the petitioner to do anything more. "Welp, guns are gone. Next case!" If I'm a danger to myself, why is that? Is it because I'm a severe alcoholic? Is it because I have mental health issues? ERPOs do nothing about the underlying cause. To your point, we took a crazy guy's gun away. That's terrific and maybe it stops him from shooting someone but he's still nuts and goes and bludgeons his wife to death with a hammer. Are we supposed to feel better that instead of killing three people he only killed one?

If as a society we have decided someone is too dangerous to have a gun for reasons other than criminal convictions we have a moral obligation to get that person the help they need, not just say "no guns for you" and pat ourselves on the back as we walk away. We should probably also take away their right to vote for the duration of the order as well.

"I've vetted this with my friends who are strong gun-rights, 2nd amendment people and they don't have any problem with these issues," Henne said.

Any of you friends with Henne?

Oh, I really believe it when they say that officials who don't enter criminal convictions into the database in a timely fashion will be punished, somehow. Sure, sure.

djthomas wrote:
We should probably also take away their right to vote for the duration of the order as well.

That is a requirement that should be added to every one of these feel good, do nothing, the constitution be danged, crackpot proposals.

Not that it would actually make the world a safer place but to send a clear message to these lefty loons how fragile are the rights that they hold to be inviolate when we start messing with the rights of others without strict adherence to due process.

My problem with the ERPOs is from a constitutional and rights standpoint. From what I understand, you are not given any chance to defend yourself in court when it is enacted. To me that means your rights are removed and property is confiscated without being given due process to defend yourself against your accusers, you are assumed to be guilty. Then you have to prove that your are now innocent. How do you prove you aren't something? Court appointed shrink must clear you? What if they are against the Second Amendment. Sorry, you want to own a gun so you must be crazy and a threat. Very third world country.

^ Me too.

I hope the ACLU gets involved here in Ohio in opposition of the ERPO just as they have in other states.

Well, color me jaded, but...

In my family law practice, I've represented plenty of clients against whom allegations of domestic violence, assault, mental health issues, and even child sexual abuse have been made. Sometimes, there's some evidence to support the claims. Too frequently, there's nothing but the bare assertions of the reporting party. Nevertheless, the person against whom these claims are made are generally immediately put in the position of defending themselves against the allegations, lose civil rights because of TPO's, are denied parenting rights, and sometimes even visitation with, their children when parenting rights are suspended, and must expend hundreds (and more likely thousands) of dollars to get out from underneath the charges. At least in the early stages, the amount of substantive evidence (or lack thereof) to support these claims is entirely dismissed based exclusively on "the seriousness of the charge" and the "need to protect [insert family member or society or whatever]".

Frankly, my problem with so-called "ERPO's" is that they will be used in exactly the same fashion, with few if any safeguards, and no consequences to those that might abuse the process.

And to be blunt, the mantra of "if we can save just one life" sways me not one, tiny bit.

dl1911 wrote:Court appointed shrink must clear you? What if they are against the Second Amendment. Sorry, you want to own a gun so you must be crazy and a threat.

dl1911:

I was on a Social Security Disability for quite some time. As part of a "recheck", they had me see a State-appointed shrink.

His office was depressing, and the other clientele in there made me very happy to be carrying. (No signage at all.)

SO, comes to a question: "Do you own guns?" I told him yes, at which point he asked "How many?" I paused to add 'em up ( ), and he said "Enough that you can't tell me how many right off?" He was starting to worry, presumably about how many I had on right then.

Told him that I was a mostly-retired rent-a-cop, and you tend to acquire them. His color came back ....

Back in 1967, the State decided that everybody ("Special Officer" and other working LEO's) had to do an OPOTA course, so I guess this guy didn't know about a "Grandfather" clause in that rule - while a lot of us were trained, etc., up to a fairly lightweight (but better than nothing) standard, older guys didn't have to take the course. I missed that one by about six months, and had to take the course, but there were a lot of guys out there who were just certified because they asked for it. Bet that would have upset the guy ....

I passed the re-evaluation. Whew....

Probably should have said "no", but I figured he just might be capable of figuring that out.

Back to topic: These feel-good types don't understand the issues....

Regards,

djthomas wrote:If as a society we have decided someone is too dangerous to have a gun for reasons other than criminal convictions we have a moral obligation to get that person the help they need, not just say "no guns for you" and pat ourselves on the back as we walk away. We should probably also take away their right to vote for the duration of the order as well.

Not directed at DJT (huh, look at that), but to jump off of this point...

As long as we're making do-gooder legislation like ERPOs, what is restraining government officials from forcing institutionalization or simply taking people off the streets for a "cooling off period", having rejected the concept of examining and cross examining the "evidence/witnesses" being presented against the accused? Because if they're a danger, we can't possibly let them stay in public. That guy has been known to do some midnight gardening, after all...

Is it that far a leap from here, having stripped property from people on such a flimsy basis?

Turn the nation into a group of snitches that can take property and personal freedom from each other, that's healthy for society?
What could possibly go wrong?

djthomas wrote:
If as a society we have decided someone is too dangerous to have a gun for reasons other than criminal convictions we have a moral obligation to get that person the help they need, not just say "no guns for you" and pat ourselves on the back as we walk away. We should probably also take away their right to vote for the duration of the order as well.

The right to vote should be easier to take away since there is no constitutional 'right to vote'.

bignflnut wrote:

djthomas wrote:If as a society we have decided someone is too dangerous to have a gun for reasons other than criminal convictions we have a moral obligation to get that person the help they need, not just say "no guns for you" and pat ourselves on the back as we walk away. We should probably also take away their right to vote for the duration of the order as well.

Not directed at DJT (huh, look at that), but to jump off of this point...

As long as we're making do-gooder legislation like ERPOs, what is restraining government officials from forcing institutionalization or simply taking people off the streets for a "cooling off period", having rejected the concept of examining and cross examining the "evidence/witnesses" being presented against the accused? Because if they're a danger, we can't possibly let them stay in public. That guy has been known to do some midnight gardening, after all...

Is it that far a leap from here, having stripped property from people on such a flimsy basis?

Turn the nation into a group of snitches that can take property and personal freedom from each other, that's healthy for society?
What could possibly go wrong?

I understand the sarcasm in this post and I certainly don't advocate incarceration without due process. That said, doing so would make more sense than confiscating firearms for two reasons. First, doing so would eliminate 100% the danger presented by the individual in question for the duration of the incarceration. Second, it would demonstrate the seriousness and danger of ignoring constitutional protections in the futile quest for societal safety.

Part of the problem as I see it is that second amendment rights are viewed as being somewhat quaint and unimportant even by people who are neutral on the subject. But start locking up odd old uncle Joe or the quiet guy down the street and people take notice. And heaven forbid a disproportionate number of minorities or immigrants be so affected.

WestonDon wrote:I understand the sarcasm in this post and I certainly don't advocate incarceration without due process.

I appreciate your engagement on this issue. I apologize for coming across as sarcastic. This is a serious threat to Liberty in America. No foolin around. This is what they meant by "jealously guarding" Liberty.

WestonDon wrote:That said, doing so would make more sense than confiscating firearms for two reasons. First, doing so would eliminate 100% the danger presented by the individual in question for the duration of the incarceration. Second, it would demonstrate the seriousness and danger of ignoring constitutional protections in the futile quest for societal safety.

It's not difficult to make this case and follow the logic to this conclusion. Your assessment is accurate.
At what point does the now enraged individual in question (aka Suspect/Convict/"Prohibited Person") no longer pose a danger? When is the spirit so broken that violence is no longer a possibility? Who makes that call?
Particularly regarding the "mentally ill" (aka mentally unfit), shall they be forcibly drugged whilst incarcerated to ensure public safety?

WestonDon wrote:Part of the problem as I see it is that second amendment rights are viewed as being somewhat quaint and unimportant even by people who are neutral on the subject. But start locking up odd old uncle Joe or the quiet guy down the street and people take notice. And heaven forbid a disproportionate number of minorities or immigrants be so affected.

Yes, hopefully when these draconian misadventures in justice begin to hit home, people wake up to the concept of self-reliance and over reliance on government for "safety". We've got a long way to go in the pro RKBA community, alone, since so many are advocating these ERPOs (NRA/Trump).