‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ Spreading Across U.S.: Say Goodbye to Your Gun Rights

Press release: PROSECUTORS, STATE LEGISLATORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT JOIN FORCES TO PUSH FOR COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS – Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Domestic Abusers and People At Risk

Prosecutors Against Gun Violence (PAGV), members of American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention (ASLGVP), and the Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence have convened here in a national summit on gun violence prevention.

At the conclusion of the summit on Tuesday, April 4th, prosecutors, state legislators, and police will formally announce a multi-state effort to enact state legislation in two key areas:

– Proposals in 20 states to create Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which enable family and law enforcement to prevent gun tragedies by petitioning a court to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.
– Bills in 5 states to enact stronger laws aimed at removing guns from domestic abusers.

Both of these initiatives are based on strong empirical evidence from experts in gun violence and public health regarding circumstances that lead to a heightened risk of gun violence, and practical steps that can be taken to prevent it.

“Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and those in crisis will save lives,” said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, co-chair of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. “Prosecutors, law enforcement and legislators join in supporting these commonsense gun violence prevention measures because they’re based on solid evidence.  These proposals deserve wide, bipartisan support.”

“Strong state and local gun laws are more important than ever, and these proven measures are simply commonsense,” said District Attorney Vance, co-chair of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. “People in the midst of a mental health crisis should not have unfettered access to firearms, nor should those convicted of domestic abuse or subject to a temporary protective order. I would like to thank New York State Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh and the American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention for their leadership on these issues. I am proud to support our law enforcement and legislative partners working to prevent gun violence in states across the country.”

“For a number of years now, state and local officials have played a leading role in enacting and implementing laws and policies to prevent gun violence and keep our communities safe. Whatever happens in Washington, we remain as dedicated as ever to that task,” said New York Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, Chair of American State Legislators of Gun Violence Prevention. “Today’s announcement is a result of many thoughtful discussions among legislators, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies, and research conducted by gun violence experts and public health advocates—all aimed at developing practical steps we can take and laws we can enact to save lives, while respecting basic rights of due process.”

The 20 states included in today’s announcement of new proposed ERPO legislation include: Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming.

The 5 states where new laws were announced to keep guns out of domestic abusers’ hands are: Arizona, Florida, Missouri, New York, Utah.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which focus on individuals who are exhibiting dangerous behavior, have been enacted in various forms in four states. They have been demonstrated to be an effective means of temporarily preventing people in crisis from having access to guns, while respecting rights to due process. Family members and loved ones are often the first to know if someone is experiencing a crisis and may be at risk of dangerous behavior. Even if they report their fears to law enforcement, police in most states may not have the authority to intervene, resulting in preventable tragedies.

In 2014, California became the first state in the nation to enact a law empowering family members as well as law enforcement to request that a judge issue an ERPO based on evidence that a person is at risk of harming him- or herself, or others. In 2016, Washington State enacted a similar measure through ballot initiative. Legislation allowing law enforcement to seek a court order has been on the books for years in Indiana and Connecticut. Researchers have demonstrated that Connecticut’s law has led to a measurable reduction in suicides.

“When we know a person is in mental health crisis, and we know that person has ready access to a gun – we have a moral obligation to try to prevent that crisis from escalating into a tragedy. Concerned family members should not have to wait until it is too late to sound the alarm; and this bill will encourage states to consider this issue and develop ways to try to keep everyone safe,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly M. Foxx.

“We need every tool at our disposal to protect our residents from injury or death by gunfire, and Gun Violence Restraining Orders would help prevent tragedies. We must have the ability to disarm dangerous people. I support the Gun Violence Intervention Act of 2015, which would make it a crime for anyone subject to such a restraining order from obtaining a firearm while the order is in effect,” said Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark.

In recent years, many states have also focused increasingly on the particular dangers posed by guns in domestic violence incidents—including a 500% increase in the risk the victim of abuse will be killed, and many have already enacted stronger laws.

Legislators Proposing Legislation on Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Alaska Representative Geran Tarr – “Alaska is at the top of the list for suicide rates. Every death is a tragedy for the family, the community, and our state. As a policymaker I’m desperate for solutions and high risk protective orders offer such a solution. In Connecticut, this common sense policy has been proven to reduce the number of suicides. Acting now can save lives and that is something all legislators should support.”

Arizona Representative Randy Friese – “HB 2149 mental health; injunction; firearm possession is an important piece of legislation regarding gun safety. Mental illness contributes to gun injury on multiple levels. Particularly, it has been well described that those with depression and suicidal ideation are more likely to be successful if they have access to a firearm. Gun safety is a complex problem which requires a multifaceted solution. HB 2149 is one facet of a potential solution.”

Hawaii Representative Chris Lee – “Mandatory background checks and other commonsense laws keeping guns out of the wrong hands have given Hawaii one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country. Extreme Risk Protective Orders would have saved even more lives by keeping guns away from people known to be a danger to themselves or others, such as Byran Uyesugi, who was known to authorities to be mentally ill, threatened to commit a mass shooting, who had numerous guns, and who later used them to kill seven people.”

Massachusetts Representative David Linsky – “While there is not one solution to reducing gun violence, there are a lot of common-sense steps that we can take to significantly reduce gun violence and I believe that this legislation plays a vital role in that process. Life can present unexpected challenges and removing firearms during a crisis is an important step in helping to prevent individuals from hurting themselves or others.”

Michigan Representative Robert Wittenberg – “We are working on introducing an Extreme Risk Protection Order in Michigan. I strongly believe this legislation will help prevent workplace violence, domestic violence and suicides. Gun violence is already a serious problem, and we must step up our efforts to protect people who are more likely to be harmed by a firearm. We lose far too many people to gun-related deaths, and this is a great first step to ensure that someone that is a danger to themselves or others is appropriately helped.”

Minnesota Representative David Pinto – “Gun violence is tragic and preventable. I’ve introduced common sense legislation to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, domestic abusers and those who might hurt themselves. These are common sense measures that are widely supported by Minnesotans. Unfortunately, instead of giving our bills a hearing, Republicans are focusing on reckless carry and shoot first legislation that would put the public in even more danger.”

Missouri Representative Stacey Newman- “Domestic violence experts tell us over and over that restricting firearms from abusers will save lives. Extreme risk protection orders as an intervention in potential incidents will save lives. Saving lives is our utmost responsibility.”
Nevada Senator Julia Ratti – “I am excited to be sponsoring Senate Bill 387 (SB387), a high-risk protection order that allows family members and law enforcement to seek to temporarily remove a firearm from someone who is in crisis. Nevada is among the deadliest states for gun violence and gun-related suicides. This legislation is important because we are focusing on prevention and safety for family members, our community and law enforcement.”

New Jersey Assemblymember John F McKeon – “It’s simple, Extreme Risk Protection Order laws save lives. With Extreme Risk Protection Order laws in place, judges could temporarily prevent those displaying warning signs of gun violence from having access to firearms. Recognizing warning signs and having laws in place to take immediate action would help prevent tragedies before they occur. Without ERPOs, these warning signs go unanswered, leading to possible mass shootings, suicides, and communities and families being torn apart. This is why I am proud to be the Primary Sponsor of Assembly Bill 2390 currently pending before the New Jersey State Legislature. We cannot afford to delay. States must pass ERPO legislation to protect our children and communities from the menace of gun violence.”

New Jersey Senator Richard J. Codey – “Too often we find out after the fact that the loved ones and friends and family of individuals who have harmed others with their firearms have for some time suspected that the individual was not in the right frame of mind and was susceptible to causing harm. This legislation will allow us, during these situations and on a temporary basis, be able to get a firearm out of the hands of these individuals, while still protecting their rights.”

New York Senator Brad M. Hoylman – “Extreme Risk Protection Orders establish a legal process to remove guns temporarily from people who may harm themselves or others, thus averting violent crimes and suicides. I’m grateful to American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention and its chairman, New York State Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, for their leadership on this important issue of public safety. I’ll work hard for passage of this legislation in Albany, which I sponsor in the State Senate.”

Oregon Senator Ginny Burdick – “Extreme Risk Protective Orders will save lives by keeping guns away from people at risk of harming themselves or others. The suicide rate among veterans is alarming, with an average of 20 veterans each day dying from suicide, often by gunshot. By identifying signs that a person may be suffering trauma and temporarily separating them from their firearms, we can effectively protect veterans and others in crisis so that they can get the help they need.”

Pennsylvania Representative Madeleine Dean – “Family members are often the first ones to spot their loved ones in crisis. Unfortunately, there is only so much family members can do to help, especially when a deadly weapon is involved. The ability to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order, and temporarily take a firearm out of the equation, would help save the lives of people going through crisis and planning to commit violence against themselves or others.”

Texas Senator Jose Rodriguez – “A Texas LVPO law would help those who are at risk of harming themselves or others, protect the general public, and save lives. It’s consistent with the Second Amendment while giving families an option to protect themselves, their loved ones, and the community.”

Virginia Delegate Richard “Rip” Sullivan – “I am happy to see that the American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention is continuing its great work to fight the epidemic of gun violence. This session in Virginia’s House of Delegates, I introduced legislation that addresses a startling and sad issue facing the Commonwealth: the growing rate of suicide by self-inflicted gunshot. HB 1758 would establish a procedure to temporarily recover firearms from a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others. Today, a family member or concerned friend has no legal recourse when concerned about the mental health of a loved one who owns a gun. I see this primarily as a mental health and public health bill, not a gun bill. Over the last decade, more people have committed suicide in Virginia with a gun than have died from an opioid overdose. And we just—appropriately—declared a state of public health emergency over the opioid crisis. Our suicide rate is a public health emergency too. Not surprisingly, handguns are the most common method for committing suicide. My bill—which is modeled on similar laws in Connecticut, Indiana, and California—would have saved lives. Unfortunately, but predictably, the bill became a proxy fight for the larger gun safety versus gun rights battle, so it did not pass. This issue is too important to not bring it back next year, and I look forward to working with members of the ASLGVP and my colleagues in the House of Delegates to ensure it remains a priority moving forward.”

Legislators Proposing Legislation on Relinquishment of Guns in Domestic Violence Cases 

Arizona Senator David Bradley – “I introduced SB1195 in Arizona with the hope that common sense measures to prevent gun violence relative to domestic violence could be enacted. Unfortunately, the pervasive influence of the gun lobby in Arizona is alive and well and the bill cannot even attain a hearing in the Arizona State Senate. There are so many simple interventions that can be enacted to stem the tide of gun violence in this country. Keeping a weapon out of the hands of potential domestic violence perpetrator is but one of them. I applaud the efforts of likeminded prosecutors, law enforcement and state legislators to bring common sense to the epidemic of gun violence in this country.”

Missouri Representative Tracy McCreery – “Missouri’s lack of law that allows perpetrators of domestic violence to possess weapons has been recognized by those on both sides of the aisle, as well as the National Rifle Association and Advocates against domestic and sexual violence. Those who commit acts of domestic violence should never be able to escalate the situation by threatening the use of a lethal weapon.”

Missouri Representative Scott Sifton – “When a domestic violence situation involves a gun, the outcome is very likely to be fatal. As a parent, attorney and legislator, I am proud to sponsor common sense reforms to give law enforcement the resources they need to protect themselves and victims of domestic violence from further harm.”

New York Assemblymember Amy Paulin – “We know that when a gun is in the house, an abused woman is six times more likely than other abused women to be killed. We also know that firearms are the weapons used in one third of intimate partner homicides. Without this bill, people who are prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm because they’ve been convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence crime get to keep any firearms they already had before they were convicted, which makes no sense. We need to close this dangerous loophole to help ensure the safety of domestic violence victims who we know are at risk of harm at the hands of their abusers.”

Florida Representative Lori Berman – “HB 1103 seeks to protect women, children, and other victims in cases dealing with domestic violence by removing guns from the hands of their abusers. I have repeatedly filed legislation to attempt to reduce the danger firearms pose in domestic violence cases. Sadly, many of these situations happen in the shadows within in our communities, never reaching the light until they have become tragedies. It is unacceptable that devastating crises continue to occur day after day while our leaders avoid the difficult conversation about instituting commonsense gun safety reforms to better protect domestic violence victims. I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Florida, legislators in other states, prosecutors, and law enforcement professionals to ensure our state, and our nation is a safer place to live.”

Utah Representative Brian King – “One death is one too many. One injury, one assault, is one too many. Possessing a gun after a domestic violence conviction dramatically increases the likelihood of violence, whether that is suicide or assault or murder. It is also illegal. Our officers and courts need support to enforce these laws, these violations, so they can further protect the public. In Utah, we protect our families, and we fight for them. That is what I am doing today.’“

New York Assemblymember Nily Rozic – “While New York ranks 5th in nation in enacting some of the strongest gun laws, it is critical that we work together to address policy gaps that pose a threat to the safety of our communities. As the sponsor of legislation that would empower law enforcement to remove firearms from domestic violence perpetrators, I proudly join my colleagues in taking a stand against gun violence and continuing the work in the State Legislature to pass legislation to protect all New Yorkers.”

About Prosecutors Against Gun Violence

PAGV was launched in September, 2014, by co-chairs Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer and Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. and has grown to include over 30 leading prosecutors from every region of the country. The non-partisan coalition identifies and promotes prosecutorial and policy solutions to the national public health and safety crisis of gun violence. To stay up to date with PAGV’s progress, join our mailing list at ProsecutorsAGV.org, and follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

About American State Legislators for Gun Violent Prevention

American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention, founded in December 2014, is an independent nonpartisan coalition comprised of hundreds of members of the legislatures of all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The group includes representatives of urban, suburban, and rural areas who have come together in recognition of the unique role state legislators must play in preventing gun violence. ASLGVP members represent diverse perspectives based upon their own experiences and the needs of their respective districts and states, and do not seek to craft a one-size-fits-all agenda for all states. They share a common commitment to learning from each other and developing strategies for reducing gun violence that will be most effective in their districts, states, and regions, and the nation as a whole. ASLGVP is at aslgvp.org or on Facebook and Twitter.

###

comments

  1. avatar Don says:

    Pushback and an end run. If you think you need a gun you are obviously deluded and dangerous and therefore should not have one. Big Brother sez so. Kinda like the Federal judges in the Malheur and Bunkerville trials, there is no room for the constitution in there courtrooms. They have to get ahead of the curve before constitutional carry becomes the law of the land.

    1. avatar T. Jefferson says:

      400,00 people killed each year from medical mistakes costing and estimated $1 trillion dollars. Gun deaths from all sources 32,000 per year. All communist and totalitarian dictators began their rein off terror by disarming the citizens. ” A stick is a good weapon, a gun is even better. Therefore the party must control all the guns so that no guns can be used to control the party”. Mao Zedong, Chinese Dictator, murderer, rapist, liar, torturer, thief, and all around bad guy.

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Ginny Burdick, (d), Portland. Is about as communist , leftist you’ll find over here.

  3. avatar Son of Alan says:

    Has anyone fisked their claims in Connecticut’s reduction in suicides claim?

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    This is a good reason to be careful who you associate with and to mind your tongue around. If a personal relationship is going south get out and away before you’re squeezed. Think a few moves ahead to how it could play out.

    1. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      ^ That.

      Have a few words with cousin Sally at the family Christmas party? Sally hate that you are an evil conservative with firearms? Now Sally can get your guns taken away from you.

      Same for John at work, or you ex girlfriend, etc., etc.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    Whomever thinks the fight for gun rights is over ’cause theDonald was elected are sadly deluded. Let’s see if Trump cares at all. The list of states includes the usual AND unusual suspects.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The only way the fight for our 2nd Amendment rights will ever end is if we capitulate and give up all of our guns. The other side will never stop because they’re communists and they know they can never achieve their communist utopia if civilians are allowed to possess firearms, which incidentally is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights in the first place. The difference between progressives and communists is that the progressives are willing to do it piece by piece to avoid the bloodshed. But no amount of victories will satisfy them until the USA looks like the USSR.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Serge’s helicopter option can work. I just don’t want it to come to that.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          You’d have to squash out the whole ideology. Considering that remnants of Nazism still survive… although we did manage to squash out imperial Japanese ideology with firebombing and a couple of nukes. And those ideologies were never as widespread as Marxism.

        2. avatar Don says:

          The Japanese ideology still exists to a degree. I remember an old movie where a mob boss made a statement about learning that Uncle Sam was a bigger badder boss than any mafioso, so they learned to launder cash to give him his cut. Same with Japan, they simply learned to conquer economically. Oddly enough several Japanese businesses I’ve dealt with continuously asked questions about how things were done in the US business wise, and never being quite satisfied with the answers… they’re still trying to figure out how they got Tojo’s ass handed to them by such inferior races.

    2. avatar KBonLI says:

      This has nothing to do with Trump. It’s the officials that we the public elect that are causing this.
      just look at the Supreme nomination. Not one Democrat will vote in his favor. If they can’t vote for him they will never vote for anyone Trump nominates.
      And you are right, even with our majority in House and Senate the fight is far from over and may never be won.
      All I see on the evening news is the Liberal agenda. Where are the rebuttals from the Right?

  6. avatar JoeVK says:

    Years ago, my mother-in-law filed a restraining order against my father-in-law, and as part of it, he was forced to get rid of all of his firearms. Before you ask, this happened here in Ohio. I’m not sure when, exactly, but I first met my wife back in early 1999, and the restraining order had been filed about a year earlier, so about 1998-ish.

    1. avatar TStew says:

      I’m no legal scholar and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but this is a different scenario. People under certain RO’s are prohibited persons, I believe. This is an order specifically designed to take away guns from anyone that a close relative or LEO says is too dangerous to own them without a separate judgment for an RO.

  7. avatar Amfivena says:

    The paid stooges of the anti-gun movement earned their paychecks with this turd. This type of legislation seems so innocuous to middle-of-the-roaders on gun rights. I, like most readers here, can quickly see the endless opportunities for abuse. But, like UBCs, it is very difficult to argue against this sort of thing without coming across as a crazy extremist.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      The argument against it is simple.

      The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

      Case closed. End o’ storee.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        +
        except not so far or lately

      2. avatar Pg2 says:

        Due process sounds so quaint these days.

      3. avatar Big Bill says:

        Due process.
        That’s the thing that keeps the left from proposing that the no-fly list should be a no-buy list, isn’t it?
        it works so well, doesn’t it?
        We have, unfortunately, an up and coming generation that has had everything handed to it by parents who have had life so easy (either by getting it themselves or having it handed to them by the government) that they see the constitution as something that doesn’t really apply to them, because they’ve never had to actually use it; or, if they tried, it was simply denied to them by “commonsense” laws. Either way, it doesn’t seem to them as being necessary.
        I’ve said before that gun control at the national level is dead, and the states are where the next battles will be fought. And here we are. It is necessary for us to become extremists, in that we must unmask this surge of “commonsense” with the reality of the constitution.

      4. avatar EckoLogic says:

        Not sure which part of this was refered to by “due process” but with a restraining order / protection from abuse order there is absolutely no due process. There is no obligation or accommodation whereby any danger or risk or any statement at all needs to be verifief
        A person can simply go into the court write and say what they want against somebody else and if it sounds serious enough and is coherent that person have Sheriffs arrive at their house and confiscate their stuff and possibly kick them out of the house, it’s that easy. There is no verification. I know cases locally where the judge refused to sign a protection from abuse order because the wife was loco and her statements had no merit, yet the judge still ordered guns confiscated without a protection-from-abuse order issued. Totally effed up and absolutely no due process. What’s more the accused than have to pay court administration fees at cetera on top of any lawyer fees and it’s simply a tactic that the crazy or disgruntled can use to sap the accused in some counties it was a tool people use to track fast track a divorce and an interesting but appalling side effect of that legislation want that the murder rate skyrocketed because wives were doing these types of things not because of the true threat but the fast track a divorce

  8. avatar hoody2shoes says:

    TLDR anybody got cliffs? I’m at work trying to go back and forth on this

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      Basically trying to push more of the “you’re not convicted of anything, and we think you might hurt yourself or someone else, give up your guns” reatrwining orders. Most of the article was the reps from each of the 20 states making their statements on the issue.

      1. avatar hoody2shoes says:

        got it. thanks dude

  9. avatar Jomo says:

    Just because a law is proposed, doesn’t mean it will pass. And by the way, by this logic your rights are already gone because any bimbo you treat to dinner can file a restraining order on your ass and your stuff’s gone. These idiots want you to panic and be terrified. Grow a pair and fight.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    NY is a piss ant small state that could be considered worthless, it its deleterious nature did not prevent it from rising to that equivalence.

    We are tired of their tyrannical sh_t and their “We’re F’d Up! We need to fix you” routine.

    FU NY

    Go Sanctuary City yourself, we’ve always wanted to play Logan’s Run,

    A N D

    “Box” is also waiting on you bitches.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      ’cause some of you are too young to have witnessed some true dystopian movies, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdhRf0OCx5c&feature=youtu.be

      There’s also:
      Planet of the Apes
      Roller Ball
      Heavy Metal
      Death Race 2000
      etc.

  11. avatar ropingdown says:

    I haven’t checked other states, but Pennsylvania already provides a variety of statutory provisions which can be exercised to reduce the likelihood of suicide. I think state voters know we do not need more. Too often the goal of statists is simply to confiscate guns. In cases I know of, essentially no effort has been made by family members to provide support for improved mental health.

    Put another way: If a family member is exhibiting clear signs of psychosis, schizoid thinking, or severe depression get them to a psychiatrist. If they will not take their medication, help them to do so or empower community mental health workers to check on the meds. There are so many ways the delusional or severely depressed can cause harm, many of which will do more to hurt others than themselves. Fires and vehicle violence come to mind.

    I think an Order requiring that a person securely lock up their firearms if they are in mental crisis (an order enforceable by LEO check), should suffice. That, however, would not meet the obvious desires of the anti-2A crowd. Yet, in households having a resident who has a felony conviction, that “lock it up or have in on you” bit is the law of the land, and works well enough.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Obviously, you weren’t around when “we” decided that the mentally ill have rights, and should be “mainstreamed.”
      They were turned loose, and since then, it has been very difficult to get the government to do anything until the damage is done (see Newtown, and many other mass shootings where, in retrospect, many said, “I knew something like this would happen, but I didn’t want to speak up…”).
      It sounds so easy: The government should do something. There oughta be a law.
      Well, these are the laws being proposed. Now go out and fight them.

  12. avatar Cam says:

    These people should be taken care of.

  13. avatar ag89 says:

    Can we back up here? You still need to present *evidence* in these orders of a family member representing a danger for a judge to put in the order. Which means this is literally just a restraining order. One that already exists in all these states with a minor expansion for threats of suicide and mental episodes. I fail to see the problem with that.

    Someone can’t just *lie* to get these. I had a buddy whose ex took out one. The TRO was approved but the permanent one was denied because she couldn’t show any evidence or pattern of threats/violence beyond two people going through a normal slightly messy breakup.

    I mean, do these proposals functionally change anything? No. Is this pointless virtue signaling? Oh hell yes. But the response to hyperbole isn’t also more hyperbole. Ask what these laws change that restraining orders don’t cover or why not just make a small tweak to current restraining order law?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      You still need to present *evidence* in these orders of a family member representing a danger for a judge to put in the order.

      Nope. All it takes: a woman makes a totally unsubstantiated claim that her current/ex boyfriend/husband berates her and now is threatening her. It happened to one of my family members.

      And before you make any claims that such infringements to our rights are basically okay because they are “temporary”, please explain how losing your firearms for two years is “temporary”. I could almost see losing your firearms for 72 hours while the local police/prosecutor investigates. That would be temporary. Two years is a punishment akin to punishments for criminal convictions.

      Look at it this way: involuntary temporary psychiatric confinements are almost universally limited to 72 hours. Can you imagine an involuntary temporary psychiatric confinement for two years based on the unsubstantiated statement of a girlfriend/wife?

    2. avatar Don says:

      Apparently you live in a rare state where judges apply reason, logic, common sense, and the law to their decisions. T’aint so all over anymore sadly.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The trick from our point of view is to prevent anyone from having a list of what firearms you own, which is*precisely* why UBC is being pushed. Once a comprehensive, nationwide list of who owns what is compiled, this type bullshit is going to explode. As is, if such a thing were even threatened, my guns would not be in my house, there are a thousand storage facilities within 20 miles, if they search my house and confiscate my guns, I will have another tomorrow.

    4. avatar Big Bill says:

      Even TROs are granted on evidence that’s been falsified.
      In many states, any evidence that there has been any physical contact during a family argument means someone is going to jail. Even if that evidence is something (like a scratch) that could have come from literally anything other than the other person. Someone is going to jail.
      That (someone goes to jail) is, in a courtroom, strong evidence that a TRO should be made permanent.
      There does someone’s rights.
      It’s so “commonsense” that it happens a lot.

  14. avatar joe sixpack says:

    Why is “shall not be infringed” such a difficult concept? Maybe it is the word infringed… maybe they should have said restricted? or regulated? or not fucked with? Sorry, should not end with a preposition.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      The same reason “innocent until proven guilty” and “due process” are apparently difficult concepts…

  15. avatar Ing says:

    Totalitarian government saves lives! (Pay no attention to the 300 million people who were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century.)

    The progressive liberals (aka totalitarian leftists) know they’ve lost control of the national battlefield for the next two to four years, at least — so they’re shifting to state and local levels, where they can more easily dupe people into signing away their own rights a little bit at a time.

    This is their attempt to build grassroots support (never mind that it’s all astroturf) so that, years from now, they can point Trump’s successor to the states and localities that have implemented their list of restrictions and say “see, this is what the people want.” And given enough momentum at the state and local level, politicians who are steeped in their anti-rights ideology will eventually rise to the national level. That’s what they hope, anyway.

    I’m not sure the ERPO push can really be stopped. At a purely surface level, it looks and feels good — and most voters are neither motivated to look deeper nor mentally equipped to do so. The voter’s initiative in Washington State passed with a supermajority.

    Remember the bad old days when drunk-driving checkpoints were everywhere and if you happened to be on the road you were guilty until proven innocent? More of that. And don’t forget the dagger to the heart of the Fourth Amendment that is civil asset forfeiture (foisted on us largely by law-and-order Republicans, remember; both parties have their authoritarian wing). It’s going to take decades to roll this stuff back, if it ever does get rolled back.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      +1!

  16. avatar uncle_pickle says:

    If I could snap my fingers and every name in this long list would suffer a fatal aneurysm, I would do it and stand before God with a clean conscience.

    Currently, all anyone in the US has to do is more one finger, and the result would be the same. What a fascinating age we live in.

    It’s like we see smallpox at work (concentrated in the inner cities), but trying to kill all of us, and we, while having no doubt or confusion about the nature of it, refuse to move a finger to use vaccine or antiviral because half of the population have constructed alters and worship the disease, and we wouldn’t want to offend them.

    Every name on this list understands the nature of violence and the characteristics of the persons who murder in the United States. Every one of them is lying, and attempting to destroy the constitution of the United States in hope of personal gain. Every one of them is a traitor.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Agree completely. I have long since stopped believing these people are that stupid, they are deliberately lying about the threat, and about the intended results of their laws, and about the justifications for clearly unconstitutional laws.

  17. avatar zaphod says:

    Gotta keep guns out of the hands of dangerous folks.

    Anybody with a gun is dangerous.

    See the slippery slope being further greased?

    It all harkens back to the argument that any intact male is a potential rapist. Relevant since that’s a common form of domestic violence.

    So, let’s get cracking on that one too. And since being in positions of power also leads to abuse, we better start “un-intacting” from the top, say at the statehouse.

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which enable family and law enforcement to prevent gun tragedies by petitioning a court to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.

    Who defines “at risk of hurting themselves or others”?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      An unelected bureaucrat who sought the authority, in an attempt to get the power to outlaw firearms for no actual reason. Which would, in turn, make him believe he was somehow important, without having to actually accomplish anything.

  19. avatar barnbwt says:

    Spreading across the US nothing; it’s the same old shit dressed in a new tactic. “So we can’t just take away everyone’s guns by passing a law, huh? Fine, we won’t pass a law, and instead we’ll just steal the guns from individuals as we feel the need to; same difference to us”

    Humorously enough, the move is still vulnerable to the same tactic as the previous bans that were struck down –claimed civil rights violations– so I doubt they’ll find it very effective in the end. Unless a series of unfortunate events befalls us (again, still), we will likely see national guard troops deployed to oversee the operation of gun stores selling AR15s in San Francisco in front of screaming protestors, within our lifetimes. And hopefully some of the primary enforcers & figureheads of the anti-gun folks in government get made examples of and face stiff criminal penalties, same as when Jim Crow was finally dismantled by the feds decades ago. Such an outcome would be the only thing I’d ever want Feinstein/etc to live to see at this point (preferably in pain from some illness).

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      You forget that, in many states, any physical contact during a family argument means someone’s going to jail.
      No matter how flimsy that evidence is, someone’s going to jail.
      Civil rights? Sure. Still, someone’s going to jail. No matter how flimsy the evidence.
      “See that knife? He cut me with it!” It matters not whether or not he actually did, he’s going to jail.
      “She hit me! I have the mark to prove it!” No matter he was drunk, and fell into a door, she’s going to jail.
      These laws exist now, and these scenarios play out now.
      We have met the enemy…

      1. avatar Don says:

        Hell, out here on the Left coast it’s common policy for ANY domestic call to 911, even if the neighbors call about a fight next door, somebody goes to jail for a cooling off night. And it goes on your permanent record. In some states if you get two or three I forget exactly, then it escalates to a higher charge with mandatory jail time I believe. Protecting who from what exactly?

      2. avatar KBonLI says:

        Happened to a friend, he went to jail had all his firearms confiscated.
        He did get them back eventually. She was a drunk but that didn’t matter.

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Can you get your friend to write it up for us? Send to thetruthaboutguns@gmail.com. Written anonymously if needs be.

  20. avatar Tom says:

    I just asked this group on Twitter if they would back gun violence by government agents to enforce ERPOs. As with all gun control groups they will not answer the question lest their hypocrisy be exposed.

  21. avatar CV76 says:

    Nevada is now run by Kommiefornia Dempcraps annnnnd drumroll please…this is exactly what they are now working to pass as well. Senate Bill 387. They’ll find a way.

  22. avatar EJQ says:

    There are three gun owners living at our home. So, someone other than the occupants issues an ERPO concerning me, for example. Do all guns go? Do only the guns I’ve bought go? A couple have been gifted to my husband and son. There’s not any registration in Texas.

    I’m all for getting rid of guns if someone shows suicidal tendencies, but I can achieve that by locking them up. Or storing them at a friend’s home, until the meds kick in.. Selling them, if needed. Someone who is truly suicidal will just choose another method, in my opinion. I’ll even lock up all sharp objects and resort to plastic eating utensils.

    There hasn’t been any domestic violence here in twenty-five years of marriage.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Do all guns go?”

      Eventually, not only “yes”, but all guns on the block, all your neighbors, and the community’s police force, as well. Try to remember what the goal is, and that it has nothing to do with safety or the protection of anyone, it is simply seeking power, including the power of life and death, over your neighbors.

  23. avatar J says:

    Meh, Suicide is self imposed population control. People should be able to choose the way they leave this life. You wanna blow your own brains out all over the ceiling, that’s your choice, I don’t want politicians using it as a political football to play games with my 2A rights.

    1. avatar KBonLI says:

      Too late and the sad part, a lot of ordinary folks buy into it because “common sense”.

    2. avatar Tom says:

      The hypocrisy of leftists is that they use suicide by gun to justify more restrictions. But these same liberals will vote to allow euthanasia and allowing doctors to assist ending one’s life

      1. avatar Don says:

        And let us not forget a woman’s right to choose murder, but then that’s a huge can of worms.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email