Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership on Extreme Risk Protection Orders

By Arthur Z Przebinda, MD and Robert B. Young, MD

In the wake of the Parkland shooting we’ve seen a push to find solutions that would keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people who might commit atrocities.

The majority of the mass killers in recent times appear to have been mentally ill or deeply disturbed. Because mental illnesses are so varied, the mere presence of one does not indicate any risk of violence. Approximately 25% of our population experiences some mental illness at any given time.

As part of a constellation of indicators, the presence of a major mental illness (like major depression, delusions, or psychosis) can contribute to risk, along with (even more) the presence of active substance or alcohol abuse, along with threats made to targets or to acquaintances and a prior history of abusive or violent behavior. When such indicators occur, we must say something and that must be acted upon.

To address this, several states have passed “Gun Violence Restraining Order” or “Extreme Risk Protection Order” legislation aimed at interdicting potentially harmful individuals before they cause harm. We’ve discussed these a number of times on DRGO.

A 2004 study by the U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education about school shootings indicates that 81% of the killers studies gave indication of their intent to at least one person and 59% signaled their intent to more than one. It would seem, then, that GVROs or ERPOs could prevent a large percentage of the recent mass murders.

However, as they are currently implemented, these laws come with major pitfalls and potential for serious abuse. They violate the principles of liberty and establish a dangerous “guilty until proven innocent” standard. GVROs and ERPOs passed to date violate multiple Constitutional protections beyond the Second Amendment. These include the rights to equal treatment and against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), the rights of the accused (6th), and the right to due process (5th and 14th).

All existing legislation and all future state or federal legislation that follows this framework must meet the following criteria:

  • GVRO or ERPO protocols must include due process, a pillar on which our legal system is built. Even gun owners are entitled to the presumption of innocence before assuming guilt.
  • Protocols that establish for exclusively ex parte hearings and have no avenue for appeal are unacceptable and are an affront to the principles of liberty. While some circumstances are urgent, the accused person must have the right to appear and to a defense before they are deprived of their fundamental and constitutionally protected rights.
  • Legislation must provide for real and substantial consequences for false accusations or will be fertile ground for abuse. A balance must be struck to encourage reporting of legitimate threats and for punishment for deliberately malicious, false accusation.
  • Any GVRO or ERPO system must establish a protocol for expeditious and inexpensive restoration of Second Amendment rights if the accusation proves to be unfounded or when the person is deemed no longer a threat. Evaluation for resolution of the order must be available whenever requested, not at arbitrary times (often up to a year).
  • Provisions must be made for the expeditious return of the accused person’s firearms once the order is lifted and the accused person’s rights are restored.
  • Provisions must be made for the transfer of firearms to a designated friend or family member who is not a prohibited person if the accused person so chooses.
    • Many people own firearms that are collector items or family heirlooms. There is no reason these should be destroyed or held in storage indefinitely when they can be legally passed on to heirs.
    • When no suitable recipient can be identified and the person accused is not likely to have their rights restored, the firearms should be sold at fair market value and the proceeds should be returned to the accused.
  • Those charged with seizing property must be required to store it safely.
    • The seized firearms should not be cluttering evidence rooms interminably, used as range toys by law enforcement, or be destroyed as an exercise in virtue signaling.
  • When major mental illness or addiction is implicated, treatment must be provided.

No tragedy warrants the abandonment of the founding principles of liberty and legal principles stemming from those values.

When the interests of an individual and the rights of the collective come into conflict, the interests of the individual must take priority. This does not mean that society should let obvious risks have full access to firearms. It means we respect individual rights. It means we protect the innocent while taking pains to follow due process for the accused.

This post was originally published at and is reprinted here with permission. 


  1. avatar Pat H says:

    Very well said.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Paid shill.

  2. avatar Joe R. says:

    F Doctors who are self-important enough to stomach this shit. Anyone out there who believes that Doctors aren’t part of the drug-cycle, or domestic abuse cycle ARE EFFING STUPID AND DANGEROUS.


    John Noveske (R.I.P.) threw the onus of crimes involving guns back on prescription drug use, daily, and he was “killed by indians”

    We need NARCISSISSTIC AHOLE RESTRAINING ORDERS to block these yahoo aholes.


    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      That last part was yelling.

      1. avatar Mort says:

        I think… you might need an EXTREME YELLING Protection Order. Because feelings, because scary.

        Put him on the list!

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, I dare ya.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:


        3. avatar Mort says:

          Having several physicians in my family, and each one of them working with veterans… I fear that people don’t even know how bad it is.

          Farago once grabbed a comment I made (long time ago) and posted it, and it went basically something like this… a conversation I had with my sister, a doctor at a California VA:

          So, people with a tendency towards violent behavior should not be permitted to own firearms? “Yup.” But, if guns are ‘the cause’ of ‘gun violence,’ then people who are interested in and own firearms by definition have tendencies towards violent behavior? “Yup.” So, if anyone who owns guns automatically has a tendency towards violent behavior, then they shouldn’t be allowed to own guns? “Yup.” So, all gun owners should have their guns taken away because they’re a violent threat? “Absolutely.”

          And that is exactly how they think. They “support the Second Amendment, BUT…,” and they “don’t have a problem with people owning guns, BUT…,” and on and on with the circular nonsense. And there is nothing you can say, rationally or logically, to change their minds.

          Call it “cowardice,” but given my situation (…can you fkn believe it, a “situation” is just that my extended family happens to dislike firearms, even though I am well on my way to 50 years old, and have been a shooter for over 25 years without incident…)– if Federal laws are passed with the “Extreme Protection” this & that… then I am subtly and gradually announcing to my family that I have sold all my weapons, and then I’ll quietly never mention guns or the 2A in their presence ever again.

          And that’s evil essence… silence, stigma, scorn.

          I certainly will retain my civil rights and interests, but I’ll be much less public about it. But I will lead “a double life.” Essentially, I will be “in the closet” as a gun owner. Because with certain people around, you just can’t take that risk… It’s crazy. That ain’t freedom.

          But what choice, realistically? For example: If you post a reasonable 2A comment on social media… or a Joe R. lean’n’mean rant… and then suddenly the next day cops show up with “legal” means to disarm you– and you may not even know or understand why– then you got two choices. You can “set an example,” or be an example. But either way sucks and is not how you’d rather be spending your day.

          This is why TTAG asked the question: Is this the most dangerous gun control movement ever? I believe it is. Because it gives the power of almost ANYONE who even tangentially knows you, to arbitrarily decide that “you are a threat” to yourself or others. Because guns.

          And that was the point of my joking reply to you, of course.

          It is organized and legal oppression, utterly circumventing our Constitutionally protected guaranteed civil rights. It leaves the legal battle up to those who can afford the time and means to resist– and yet STILL legally disarms them. Many of us wouldn’t fully comply, and then we’d run the substantial risk of permanently destroying our rights forever. These laws are going to cause nightmares for some unlucky people.

          And it absolutely screams, “Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither.” These people are digging their own childrens’ graves for the future… in the name of “saving” them. Very obviously, they have gone insane.

          The long game aim is to keep us suppressed and quiet, and
          systematically remove American gun culture from the future. At a time where, all across America, shooting and the shooting sports are thriving and growing… I doubt that is any accident. Yet sadly, I see some American shooters… not just Fudds… but well-intentioned, good people supporting these kinds of “Pre-Crime Speculation” laws. Because they truly believe that it’s a reasonable compromise. At least the doctors who wrote the article above make an attempt at reasonably arguing against them.

          Dunno what else to say. It’s quite a dare, the Triple Dog. But if these laws are passed, we will all be daring them each and every day… it’s the worst kind of musical chair lottery…each one of us must choose what we will do and how we will respond when such laws are abused. Because they will surely be abused– anything that puts due process and civil rights AFTER the violation of those rights has abuse innately built into its design. Sure, the “Extreme Orders” will save some people. But the real American civil rights and due process mantra was once, “Better to let one hundred guilty men go free, than convict one innocent man.”

          Now it must be, “Better to disarm one hundred innocent people, than allow one guilty man to take a life.” I don’t think I agree with that illogical fantasy at all… it is essentially ignoring the hard reality that “Freedom ain’t Free,” and embracing totalitarianism. Sometimes bad people abuse freedom and do terrible things… but that is the price we pay, so the rest of us can be free.

          (And the people who once fought for civil rights also once understood this concept… hell, “Miranda.” Now it’s backwards doublespeak. Now we demand that a 19yr old be tried and executed as an *adult*– for making the *adult* choice to murder people– while deciding that no 19yr old is possibly *adult* enough to buy a rifle. What in the world….)

          Let us hope enough of our elected officials can hear reason and rationality. Slim hopes.

          Be safe.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          Yes, thanks for all of that. I was joking as well, but in this for it’s hard to tell. I’ve typed it before, but If I am harsh or blustering, I just don’t want anyone here to call my bluff, let ‘them’ do that. And GOD help them. I don’t know if my opinions and stances serve, or offend my GOD, but I’m afraid I am obstinate enough to wait until he tells me personally, and I believe HE knows that already.

          I get the VA thing too, they offer pills before they get your DD-214 off the copy machine. I don’t drink or smoke, I am loopy on Benedryl, I don’t need to be drugged til I’m homeless.

          I think the state of the 2A is tenous, and I think it’s worth putting people on notice that I value it more than them, if they don’t value it enough.

          You be safe as well.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        Millions of people take psychotropics in this country. And yes, they are probably overprescribed. But of those millions, a few each year, at most, become spree killers. That’s a statistically insignificant number. And not all spree killers were on psychotropics.
        So which is more likely:
        A) Psychotropics cause otherwise peaceful people to become spree killers, and those tens of millions who haven’t killed anyone yet are just about to turn into killers. The other killers were just random.
        B) A very small subset of the mentally ill, who don’t get proper treatment, become spree killers. The mentally ill are very likely to be on psychotropic medication, so the spree killers are very likely to be on psychotropics.

        I think B is the simpler and more rational option.
        And speaking of psychotropics: Joe, I think Xanax is now available OTC. Just a thought.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          But ass rape the lawful (and you don’t have fucking law-one that’ll stand on it’s own without their buy in) gun owners that are minding their own business and only hear about the fucking crazies bc the lawful manage to keep up with current events, and the crazies were mildly crazy before meda shifted them over to mildly crazy with less inhibition on being a fuckhead. Let’s fuck all of the good guys so you can not solve a fucking thing that you didn’t fix with the last leeway we gave ya.

          I think, no.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          And another thing.

          Just ‘optics’ wise.

          This from the same grouping of ‘doctors’ and ‘government’ that gave us the “Food Pyramid”. Now we got the world’s fattest kids and young adults.


          Like I’ve posted before:

          You’re the problem.

          The problem doesn’t get to define the problem.

          The problem doesn’t get to offer solutions.

        3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          Jason M … But if eliminating A saves only one life………

    2. avatar Bloving says:

      (no cap lock for me – I’m going to whisper this!)
      um, Joe? Did you notice these doctors are clearly skeptical of e.r.p.o’s? They really don’t seem to like them that much, which is why they wrote this piece… or were you screaming at other doctors just now?

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        uhhh, maybe I read it wrong, but their part that goes:

        “All existing legislation and all future state or federal legislation that follows this framework must meet the following criteria:”

        and then goes on to list their criteria, IS FUCKED UP, AND WRONG. They’re saying ‘we’re not for them, but they should follow these rules’. Oh well.

        No, F that and them.

        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “They’re saying ‘we’re not for them, but they should follow these rules’.”
          No, that’s only sort of what they are saying.
          They are saying that IF they are going to be put in place, then they must follow these rules. And they are saying it for a very good reason.
          While black and white exist, there are very few instances of them in actuality. Just because something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. (You certainly understand that.)
          But shouldn’t we also work to make such unconstitutional laws that exist, and aren’t going to go away anytime soon, at the very least pay lip service to such things as due process?

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          “They are saying that IF they are going to be put in place, then they must follow these rules. And they are saying it for a very good reason.”

          Bottom line: They are not being honest. They are not being truthful. They are not able to cause someone to be protected, and the aholes offering such protection cannot deliver.

          Therefore the should have just come out and said THAT.

          That they didn’t makes them complicit dicks (even the female ones).

    3. avatar GaPharmD says:

      So just so we understand YOUR point:

      Mental illness should not be treated with modern medicine.
      Medicine caused these people to kill or commit violent acts.
      The AMA should be responisble for ALL shooting victims.


      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        You’re fing A right. As long as we’re dishing out the blame and suffering, then you and yours first.

        I live in Oklahoma, doctors are a more proximate cause to the FL shooting than me or mine.

        And FU on your defensiveness. Society didn’t break that kid, unbridled assholeism of his birth parents did, his adopted parents didn’t help. Doctors said they could help and they gave the kid drugs. That’s a bigger pattern than any fucking gun story you could whip up.


  3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    These are reasonable suggestions for attempting to satisfy demands for “commonsense gun-controls” but, at their core, they still empower the kinds of governmental gate-keeping that ultimately leads to tyranny and oppression. Frankly, giving government this kind of intrusive power over constitutionally guaranteed freedom and liberty seems to me to be far more dangerous than the occasional spree-killer’s or even terrorist’s acts. One is a sporadic attack which can be sharply reduced by encouraging active self-defense. The other carries the potential for abridging gun-rights across entire populations.

    Once enacted as law such proposals will undergo perpetual bureaucratic revision until, over time, they bear no resemblance to either the intent or practice of the original law. This is simply a fact regarding the way government bureaucracies work.

    Government either defends the original meaning of our constitutional rights or it doesn’t. There is no middle ground that can support “commonsense gun-controls”. Self-defending citizens can stop killing-obsessed crazies. Stopping a oppression-obsessed government bureaucracy is a lot harder.

  4. avatar john says:

    Now if only those writing new legislation had the same common sense.
    Needs 99,856 of 100,000 signatures by April 7, 2018, to get a response from the White House. Lots of talk, very little action

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      I know right. Is it fear? I signed it and I have a paranoid attitude. 5 minutes is about what it took me…….. Much talk

  5. avatar Specialist38 says:

    I think this post lays out the multiple hazards of turning over anything to government.

    It also points out the fact that many of these shit-bags tell people what they are going to do and no one does anything.

    People are hesitant to get involved or try to commit someone they know….until they do some heinous thing.

    Then everyone thinks that all of these twisted acts can be prevented by……a bureaucratic system.

    That way, they can blame the government, which in turn says it would have done better if it had more control.

    Orwellian thinking at its best.

  6. avatar Joe R. says:





    1. avatar Just Sayin’ says:

      Psychopaths type in all caps.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        That’s projection.

        But I’m sure that you’ve studied many of them, and are immersed in your work.

        ALL CAPS is a way to program your brain to “LOOK HERE” its a print and visual convention used
        W O R L D W I D E
        in marketing and advertising (meaning that it’s a near-universal human characteristic to gravitate and retain, and become ingratiated to and ingrained with what’s written).

        W A R N I N G . L A B E L S are another good example.

        Only a very small, and stupid, part of your brain pinned that to “psychosis” and that was connected to your own ego, that’s why I said it was your projection.

        1. avatar ironicatbest says:

          Holy shit. That’s awesome. Joe R might use caps but his rebuttal is something else.

    2. avatar rtw1951 says:

      Joe, take a pill.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        There ya go, trying to create another mass shooter.

        1. avatar rtw1951 says:

          Nope, just trying to slow one down who’s well on the way.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Someone previously requested a like button.

          I would like one for “projection”.

          Maybe another for “ALYDSIWW” (At Least You Didn’t Say I Was Wrong).

    3. avatar JasonM says:


      Do you have any evidence of this?
      1) Is there an increased correlation between being on drugs (I assume you mean psychotropics, not all drugs) and being a psychopath?
      2) If there is, were these people not psychopaths before they went on the meds?
      3) Is there an observable biochemical reaction causing this psychopathic genesis?

      The answer for the first two must be yes for your assertion to be true. And the third one must be yes for your assertion to be well founded, rather than just some random claim. I suspect the answer to 1) is no, because there are lots of psychopaths (possibly more per capita) in third world hellholes that can’t afford Ritalin. I suspect the answer to 2) is also no. And I’m certain the answer to 3) is also no, or we’d have heard of this great discovery.

      But maybe it’s time to risk becoming a psychopath, and get back on your meds, Joe.

      1. avatar Alexander says:

        Unfortunately, the prescription medication epidemic is quite real (psycho drugs). By some reports it affects 25% of children/teenagers, with the East Coast seeing perhaps over 35%. MSM doesn’t want to talk about, and doctors are very happy charging for this bliss. We don’t know if there is a correlation with psycho-shooters or not, as the subject is an almost taboo in the professional circles. But there are sufficient indicators that these two issues may be related. There may be other factors, perhaps working up to a “perfect storm” for some individuals, but it is evident that meaningless mass shootings have increased in frequency at the same time as these drugs became an epidemic.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        Do you have any evidence of this? End Quote

        Pick any psychopathic drug and google long term side effects. It is not uncommon to see such things as paranoia, anger, “turning on friends”, etc.

        A long time former friend had depression at a fairly young age. A doctor prescribed a very common anti-depressant and he took it for years. He developed paranoia, schizophrenia, became a recluse and turned on his friends, including me. Changing to a different med didn’t help, he got worse. He became periodically irrational with increasing frequency. About a year ago he was arrested for indecent exposure and “other irrational acts”. A judge committed him to a psycho ward and things have progressed to the point that he was involuntarily committed to permanent doctors direct supervision, 24/7 attendant. He will never be free again. An executor was appointed to handle his affairs and estate.

        In his case authorities did the right thing and it was done properly.

        So, in answer to your question, yes there is evidence. Are drugs the “cause” of shootings? Maybe not, but in many cases they are not helping and absolutely may make things worse.

        Drugs are an easy answer; “Take this pill and come back in 30 days or 90 days.”

        When authorities are aware of a problem and do nothing, they are a proximate enabler.
        When authorities prevent the possibility of direct preventive measures, (firearms in schools), they are directly culpable.

  7. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Also while we are at it, who determines whether or not the person is “crazy”?
    A lawyer, a judge? A single doctor or a panel?
    If you are accused is a lawyer provided to you or do you need to fork out thousands of dollars to build a defense?
    If you fight to get your rights back, what is the timeline? Days, weeks, months? Can the prosecution ask for extensions for years?
    Unless there are safeguard built into these laws, then I am against them.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      When will someone suggest that the person requesting the order and the person granting such order first prove (and submit to subsequent testing every 20 seconds thereafter) THAT THEY’RE NOT FUCKING CRAZY.

      Cause that whole thing sure sounds like a huge steamy pile of stupid-dangerous-crazy to me. But I have a strong logic filter, so who knows.

      1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

        Sigh.. And this is why you will lose..

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Not in the long run.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:


      I wrote a reply today to a related post on extreme risk protection orders.

      There are extremely dangerous mentally-ill people roaming freely in our society who should be confined to a psychiatric hospital until cured (if ever). I listed an example of a diagnosed schizophrenic man who hears voices in his head telling him awful things, is convinced that various people are actively working to murder him, and has vowed to kill them first. This is the type of person who should be in a psychiatric hospital.

      The part that is dangerous to liberty is arriving at the decision to hospitalize him against his will. The first safeguard is that it must require a panel of physicians and psychologists to find the person dangerous mentally-ill. The second safeguard is that multiple family and friends of the person (advocates) must agree with the panel. The third safeguard is that the court proceeding must include legal representation for the accused person (another advocate). The fourth safeguard is that a JURY must find that the person has to be hospitalized against their will. The fifth safeguard must include a simple and inexpensive procedure for the person to secure their freedom in short order. The sixth and final safeguard must include severe fines and prison time for anyone who falsely accuses someone of being an extremely dangerous mentally-ill person. The fines and prison time should be the same for felony kidnapping and felony false imprisonment because that is what they would effectively be doing to the accused.

  8. avatar DaveL says:

    I think the focus on gun rights is actually the red herring here. The way many of these measures are written, the actual firearms themselves will end up being mere window dressing. Once you authorize police to search, evidence of other crimes discovered incidentally to that search would be seized and used as well. To get a regular warrant they’d need probable cause that a crime has been or was being committed, and that evidence of that crime was to be found at that location. No so with ERPOs, instead it’s going to be a different, less stringent standard that needn’t involve a crime at all. Same search, lower standard. It won’t take police long to catch on to this.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:


      Tell me:

      1) That GVRO / ERPO’s won’t ever be ‘issued after the fact’.

      2) That those executing such orders won’t get shot through the door, then shot through the nuts and face, then have their house driven through by their unit/car/paddywagon/suv because the confiscator is dead, but they thought they’d ‘do all right’ in the encounter so they stupidly brought their wallet, and therefore driver’s license, to the party.

      3) That resulting shootouts won’t likely injure / maim/ kill more people than if you just left the armed MF alone.

      4) That you won’t make cops / ERPO issuers / enforcers target # 1 out on the streets.

      Go ahead. Tell me.

      That wasn’t rhetorical.

  9. avatar JoshinTX says:

    Serious policy question; If there is a husband and wife, and one or the other is having some serious issue (depression whatever) but the other is stable, and both are, say, concealed carriers; if some other close family person seeks restraining order and the judge grants it, how does it affect the non restrained spouse? It would seem to necessitate a clause that allows for the restrained to be physically confined to some kind of institution to remove their ability to harm others, or require the non restrained to also be denied their arms, have some weird lockbox, otherwise the gvro is obviously ineffective at removing the availability of a gun to the restrained. Now we are talking about involuntary commitment without due process for the restrained, or loss of rights without due process or reason by the spouse

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      I think that already happens.

      If (I’m not mistaken, if) your spouse is a felon, you can’t have weapons in the home.

      1. avatar JoshinTX says:

        I believe you are correct, but the restraining orders we are discussing with these new laws are dealing or targeting specifically persons otherwise legally in possession of their arms.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      It depends on the law proposed or enacted, but to date, the orders only require the removal of firearms for up to one year. They affect that individual only, and one would assume if one spouse thought the other was going over the edge, the unaffected spouse would seek to secure his or her firearms to avoid an unfortunate incident.

      Involuntary commitment is, afaik, available in all fifty states. The commitment is a judicial proceeding, and the burden is on the person or entity seeking the commitment to prove that the individual is a threat to himself or others. States are protective of the right of freedom. The subject is entitled to be represented by counsel and to present evidence. Because it is not a criminal proceeding, the counsel is not typically provided at the State’s expense, although there are public ombudsman to fill that role. Most states provide for periodic judicial review of such commitments, e.g., every 30-90 days, if the facility is opposed to a release. And as you know, an involuntary commitment results in a lifetime gun ban.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:


    That problem is you.

  11. avatar JoshinTX says:

    Additionally, judges are human too. There would be a substantial incentive for the judge to bias all rulings towards granting the restraining order, because who wants to be the one who enabled the mass murderer. It’s a tough spot.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      ” It’s a tough spot.”

      That they put themselves in, by lying.

      Claiming they can / are protecting people is just going to get more people killed.

  12. avatar W says:

    Well, for what it’s worth, the state already has given itself power to act against individuals. For example, after the Navy Yard shooting by the schizophrenic Alexis, Krauthammer reminded us that psychiatrists can get involuntary commitment orders against those who are ill and are a danger to themselves and others. Like it or not, that legal framework already exists. And, bear in mind that people like the Aurora theater shooter were diagnosed as very problematic before their actions. Loughner, Lanza, Cho. The list of people who should have been committed is long.

    Bottom line, GVROs may be in the process of being invented even though processes already exist for the state to act against those who will hurt others.


    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Ya, except that’s not the purpose of the ERPO’s / GVRO’s.

      The purpose of those are to take guns away from people, not to involuntarily incarcerate people.

      Jump to the end of the argument. It’s not even a ‘gun-grab’.

      It’s 100% “We’re going to wage war on you, unannounced, and likely un-provoked, because we feel like it. You stand the fuck-by and take it. You’ll have redress under the law, but you will never be made whole”.

      That generates a whole lotta fuck-you-no in my mind. And it sure makes it more worth it to do the same back, and get real good at it, but YMMV. If you’re for that though, I’m not for you.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        The end result of an involuntary commitment is a lifetime firearms ban.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          And. . . wait for it . . . a “lifetime firearms ban” . . .

          is a fucking piece of paper. Damn the assholes selling this shit as ‘safety’.

          Fuck, people.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    It would be easier / safer / and less wrongful, for the ahole body of ERPO issuance idiots to come out and admit that they cannot protect you. That they cannot even protect themselves.

    How about we start with THAT honesty first, and for a change.

  14. avatar Richard says:

    The whole concept of ERPO’s makes no sense. Arresting a dangerous person’s guns leaves him free to obtain other weapons and commit violence by other means.

    This is just another gun grab wrapped up in fancy language.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      It is a way to make some seriously pissed off MFs out there.

      Can you imagine an ERPO issued from outside your county, or state?! Holy sh_t Batman.

      Ya, it’ll make some way pissed off people.

      I think it would be an idea for people to start a business just to get your guns back in short order from an ERPO, maybe even to loan/lease/lease-purchase others during the wait. It’ll have to be in secret, but so will the ERPO, cause if’n the target ever got wind of it, they’d move their guns or go do the crazy sh_t, someone was alleging anyway, early.

      Maybe that business could also file for ERPO’s on people?

      Maybe there’s a lotta un-Constitutional dicks in the world and we outta just hash this shit out now before it gets outta hand?

  15. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    The elephant in the room:

    If someone is dangerous enough to have their guns taken away, why are they allowed on the street, walking free? The world is full of weapons. Trucks. Gasoline. Knives. Explosives.

    So if someone tells you “taking their guns away is enough,” they’re either stupid or lying.

  16. avatar Jandrews says:

    DRGO is more coherent on this topic than the NRA. Who the hell would’ve thought?

  17. avatar ironicatbest says:

    After my last visit with my psychotherapist He immediately got in his BMW and ran it head on into an oncoming train. It must have been something I said?

  18. avatar Alexander says:

    In complete agreement with the article, except that “When the interests of an individual and the rights of the collective come into conflict, the interests of the individual must take priority”, I would suggest rephrasing thus: When the Rights of an individual and the Interests of the collective come into conflict, the Rights of the individual must take priority.

  19. avatar ironicatbest says:

    One standing your ground involving Law Enforcement. You lose. Koresh tried it big time, he and his “army” were decently armed,granted they didn’t have the firepower the Feds had , but decently armed. Branch Dravidian lost. Randy Weaver, basically a one on many confrontation, he lost. And that is how every EPRO will be handled. One officer will not show up to knock politely on your door, a street full of them will kick it in. One on Many are not good odds, we rant on cops not being professional, well they are, they can be way to damned good when they want to be. Hopefully in this household I will never have to face that. Because if that happens I will let them have the guns, I won’t like it, but the options are, Surrender, Prison, or Death. None of those options taste good, but I’d rather be alive then dead, and prison is a death of its own. I’d rather be FREE and alive, but alive then prison. On the other side of the coin if, ifs a very big word, it came to a real stand your ground, not a one on many or a 40 on 400, rather a 400,000 on 100,000 I’d be all in. My sincerest wish would be that the LEO would uphold the Constitution and tell those commanding him to carry out their orders would quit his job as an officer.its a camels nose under the tent law, about the only amendment it doesn’t violate is the first, and that debatable. ….. My cousin died last week, thank goodness I gave him my gun collection before he passed on. If I can get ahold of his sister I will ask her if she knows anything about them. Nyuk nyuk

  20. avatar Soylent Green says:

    “In the wake of the Parkland shooting we’ve seen a push to find solutions that would keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people who might commit atrocities.”

    Jesus, I could file an ERPO against the whole south side of chicago

    But seriously, if we know who the dangerous people are, why do we not just keep them out of society?

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Quote: “if we know who the dangerous people are, why do we not just keep them out of society?”

      We do know who the dangerous people are…..the left and their fellow travelers.

      I wish we could keep them out of our society. Send them to China, Venezuela, Russia, N Korea…maybe let them pick their socialist paradise, but they have to go.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      “Jesus, I could file an ERPO against the whole south side of chicago”


      I like you Soylent Green.

      You’re [good] people.

  21. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The problem hasn’t been reporting that somebody might be a problem, it’s been doing something about known, often well-known problems.

    If The Powers That Be can’t agree on how many dozen “incidents” and “reports” there were for Parkland-guy, the problem isn’t getting concerns into the system. It’s what the system does with problems.

    I get that bureaucrats are fine with delegating the doing of something forward, to the people reporting a problem. Getting themselves off the hook is good for the admini-drones. Yet this doesn’t mean that something useful will be done, and ignores the down-sides it creates.

    I have not yet heard why this is good for the rest of us.

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