“We’re labeling someone an extreme risk and taking their civil rights away and letting them walk away? That’s a horrific situation. We’re ignoring the human element. We’re ignoring the situation. There are a lot of other ways they can hurt themselves and others.'” – Jim Wallace, Executive Director of the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts in Bill Aims to Take Guns From Those at Risk of Inflicting Harm [via usnews.com]

Recommended For You

25 Responses to Quote of the Day: Massachusetts Set to Enact Gun-Confiscating Extreme Risk Protection Orders

  1. If they are that dangerous then why are they not in prison? Perhaps you limousine liberals are letting them out, or letting them off to easily?

    • This bill isn’t even necessary in MA with the current laws. Each town/city’s chief of police is the one who gives out gun licenses. In MA, you need a gun license to even possess any gun or ammo. The MA law gives complete control over licensing to the police chief of those towns/cites. If the chief cop doesn’t want to give you a gun license, you don’t get one and there isn’t much you can do about it in the MA or federal courts in MA.

      If the chief cop wants to take your gun license, ditto, he can and you have little you can do about it. MA isn’t as bad as NJ, HI, NYC or coastal CA but they do put a boot on your neck.

  2. This is some stupid crap.

    Gun control at its absolute worst. I have a friend of mine who just had some craziness like this happen to him. He’s a nurse and so is his wife and they had a neighbor in their condo complex that was breaking some of the rules of the complex and kind of driving him nuts during the daytime when he was trying to sleep.

    So he took some pictures and wrote a journal of when this lady was doing stuff that was against the complexes rules. He then went to the monthly meeting and approached the proper channels and show them the evidence he had and they reprimanded the woman and told her if she kept this up that she would have to find somewhere else to live.

    He then gets woke up about two days later by the police department apparently she had filed a restraining order against him claiming that he physically threatened her and what not. So the police department confiscated all of his Firearms at the time they were delivering the restraining order.

    He got an attorney went to court and the judge threw everything out because she could clearly see that the woman was trying to use the court system as leverage against him causing her problems at the complex that they both live at.

    Of one day after the judge threw out the restraining order and told the woman you probably need to find another place to live she files another restraining order with the help of some victims groups that are always hanging out down there at the courthouse and sure enough she got a he got a liberal judge this time and they enacted at the restraining order for 1 year and got to keep all of his firearms for that entire year.

    All she had to do is go down to the courthouse and complain and you end up losing your constitutional rights. Absolutely retarded.

  3. I have said it before and I’ll say it again. More people have lost their gun rights to a domestic violence charge than to a drug charge. I have no proof. Its just my thinking. And where are all the people who said the government should stay out of the bedroom??????

    Guess what, they are the same ones enacting these kinds of laws. Being stupid and choosing to shooting up heroin is no different than choosing to be with a dangerous person. If you truly do want the government out of your personal life then dismantle the government social welfare system. What say you libertarians????
    It will be a welfare worker that will be the person who takes your guns away when they visit your home. Especially if children are involved.
    Will the state “let you” teach your child about guns???

    This is what home school parents are having to go through.

    http://fightcps.com/what-to-do-if-child-protective-services-social-workers-are-investigating-you/

    There was a case several years ago in Maryland, where a home school mother was confronted with a child protective service officer who wanted to get into her home so she could “check” on her daughter. The CPS woman was backup by a uniformed police officer.
    The mother refused and she won the case in court.

    • MA should become a British colony, as you said. They sure as hell don’t want to follow our constitution. Someday the USA will have much different borders

  4. Funny, liberals assume the worst about some people, yet assume some other group will be 100% altruistic. It’s almost like they are descriminatiing against one group of people. Clearly that can’t be, because they always tell me how bad descrimination is.

  5. When I lived in MA, there were quite a few men that got raked over the coals for this kind of crap. Usually when a man was getting a divorce, they would transfer all of their guns to a buddy because there was going to be a restraining order placed upon them no matter what and their LTC-A was going to go bye bye for a while. It’s petty tyranny at it’s finest.

  6. People should have the legal-right to resist by all means necessary when they’ve effectively been declared ‘guilty’ without due process.

  7. If someone can’t be trusted to be armed then they can’t be trusted to be outdoors unsupervised.

    These extreme risk protection orders treat a symptom and ignore the problem: A dangerous individual loose in public.

  8. “We’re labeling someone an extreme risk and taking their civil rights away and letting them walk away? That’s a horrific situation. We’re ignoring the Constitution.”

    Fixed.

  9. The Irish Mafia that runs this state has never seen a gun control law it didn’t love, especially since it doesn’t affect them.

  10. You think MA residents (legal or otherwise) are going to get rounded up and taken in to custody for “safety”? Will it be their POS neighbors with MA? Or will it be the rest of us who are done being tired of their dangerous sh_t?

  11. It’s a step in the right direction, but the author is right: it’s not the whole story, and while it might protect the potential victim or victims in the short term, it doesn’t address the core pathology of domestic violence and it doesn’t do much to reduce the likelihood of the restrained party breaking the order and doing violence by some other means—or of acquiring another gun illegally.

    There has to be some sort of remediation/prevention aspect. Have the restrained party check in with a PO, mandate anger counseling or therapy to get to the root of what makes that person feel the need to menace or threaten someone in the first place. Actually charge people with the misdemeanors that cover this behavior, menacing and stalking, instead of just issuing orders of protection that often fail to protect the threatened party.

    And listen to victims of domestic abuse, and trust that they aren’t making up stories. Most importantly, investigate and prosecute even if they recant, because that’s a known symptom of abuse: feeling guilty and siding with the abuser because they have made their victim or victims believe the abuse is deserved or somehow the victim’s fault. A recanted accusation of abuse doesn’t mean there’s no abuse. Assault is a crime that must be answered for even if the victim doesn’t want to press charges, and domestic abusers do not self-limit or self-regulate.

Leave a Reply

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