A Mental Health Worker’s Perspective on Extreme Risk Protection or ‘Red Flag’ Orders

Extreme risk protection order red flag gun confiscation

This article will, no doubt, upset many gun owners because it doesn’t immediately come out against so-called extreme risk protection orders and similar laws. The reasons for this are twofold.

First, opinions of new laws that have been issued in different states than my own and are already being implemented are irrelevant to the progress of that legislation; by default, it’s a peanut gallery situation if the movie isn’t playing in my own state; and,

Second, as someone who worked with attorneys for some years and has also done some work in the legislative process, what I know is that any new law is a “beta test.” That is, you really don’t know how it plays out until it’s actually in effect and has been in effect for some time. The reality is, you have to enact it to see how it works in practice.

If such laws are correlated, after some time in effect, with a drop in gun violence in the states in which they are law, it’s likely we will see a push for more such laws, whether the drop in crime is directly related to the new law or not. This is why it seems important to contemplate the possibility of ERPO-like laws even in states that don’t have them yet.

Any state in which the voters feel there is a problem with “gun violence” could become a state in which those voters ask for and support such a law from their elected officials.

Each ERPO or “red flag” law is different depending on the state. It seems upon early review that, in general, the people who are allowed to request ERPOs are generally family members, law enforcement, and mental health workers. As a mental health worker myself, I am particularly curious about how such laws interface with HIPPA – the Health Information Patient Privacy Act.

While all health records are confidential, it’s also true in my state that I am mandated to report to law enforcement any person who I come to believe is a danger to themselves and others or any situation in which a vulnerable person such as a child or elder is being abused. No doubt this is the case in most or all states.

Extreme risk protection order red flag gun confiscation

I suspect that most ERPO requests are likely to come from family members and law enforcement, if only because mental health treatment is mostly voluntary. If a person isn’t in voluntary mental health treatment, the mental health professionals will not know that the person exists.

I also think this is the case because family members, or law enforcement that have been called repeatedly about a particular person and visited that person, will likely have more direct knowledge of that person’s day-to-day and week-to-week life and activities. Even in regular therapy, a patient generally will see a mental health worker only once a week for about an hour, or someone who prescribes meds as seldom as once every one to three months. Also, a patient may simply never talk to a mental health worker about guns; it may not be relevant to the process of therapy or treatment that the patient is presenting for.

Here is the basic truth: Bringing a gun into a situation, whether it’s a low moment, a personal dispute, or a joke, greatly changes people’s perceptions of you for the most part, and not for the better. For my clients who own guns, particularly new gun owners, I tell them to leave guns and the mention of guns out of disputes because it’s pretty much always going to create mistrust and distancing and quite possibly the perception of the gun owner as a dangerous and threatening person.

I realize that responsible gun owners won’t like my saying this because it shouldn’t be that way. However, there is “should,” and there is the way it is. I recognize fully the right of gun owners to own guns for many other reasons than self defense, which is why I own guns, too. However, it’s also important to understand that the threat or actual production of a gun often escalates other people’s perception of a situation in a negative way. There is no way around that and it is an important consideration to keep in mind.

I am also aware that there are many good and responsible gun owners for whom the above paragraph might feel offensive. However, in the age of social media, it’s not uncommon to see people hiding behind keyboards making threats toward others and boasting about their capacity to harm others. While most of this might be BS, so to speak, it’s also a fact that many recent mass shooters made just such postings before actually committing those shootings.

As a result, it’s likely that things like online activity will be something that will be considered admissible “evidence” in ERPO requests. Anything that other people can see on a public platform is something that the end user, the poster, voluntarily put into the public space, so there is little ground to defend it as being unintentional. Most people have cameras that record video these days, as well, so disputes and such can easily be recorded and also used as evidence.

There is a serious question, for me, about the due process aspects of these laws and what type of evidence is considered admissible for the issuance of an ERPO. Of course, things like written materials, video, and visits from law enforcement are high on that list. One of my questions is whether verbal statements that are not backed by such evidence must be corroborated by another person or documented in some way.

Is it “word against word,” or is more proof required? The Maryland law, which I have been looking at, does not specify the evidence that must be presented, so this may be an area that remains to be seen as the implementation of the law progresses.

I am continuing to read and review ERPO laws and suggest you do, too. They’re becoming a reality in more and more states and it’s important to understand them better. I welcome discussion of them in the comments.

comments

  1. avatar D Y says:

    People have already died due to ERPO’s, who never should have, and wouldnt have if we believed in due process. Case closed.

    1. avatar Ghostdirewolf says:

      Yes! F*ck ERPO’s. They’re unconstitutional and we don’t need “beta testing”.

      1. avatar Clark Kent says:

        So the author is OK with courts suppressing free speech as long as it passed a ‘beta test’ in the future? How about restricting the right to vote on the same grounds? What person with any common sense thinks like this? Hint: they don’t. ‘It is not the function of the government to keep the citizens from falling into error. It is the function of the citizens to keep the government from falling into error’ – former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

      2. avatar Paul says:

        So is “The Patriot Act”, but it is the law of the land and the Feds(as well as the staties) are spying on the citizens, using it as an end run around the Constitution.

    2. avatar SoBe says:

      So, now it is not good enough to violate the Second Amendment, lets go after 1, 2, 4, 5, (possibly 6), 8, 9, and 14 Amendments in one law. How many people have actually read the Constitution?

    3. avatar Nanashi says:

      Which makes Chris Cox even more of a scumbag. Not only is he a con artist, pretending to be a gun rights supporter when he is not, he is now willing to have innocent people die to increase his power.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        Would you just go back to your village. They miss you.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I agree. It bothers me more that someone who is likely moderately educated and intelligent can intentionally misconstrue what another is proposing or actually saying. I’d have to conclude from Nanashi’s remarks that he saw no responsibility on the part of the Broward Co LEAs to attempt to intervene ahead of time with Nikolas Cruz, or with nearly every random shooter since Patrick Purdy taped a bayonet on his AK and attacked a CA elementary school or Joseph Wesbecker shot up Standard Gravure back in 1989. There were plenty of warning signs ahead of nearly every incidents and these were, for the most part, ignored or not taken seriously by those who could’ve made a difference.

          Of course what Cox does not address on the video is the absolute need for due process, a swift (as in-hours after being served) review of the evidence, the ability for the accused to know/confront the accuser/accusations, a swift restoration of rights upon the evidence being unfounded, and some severe penalties for filing false evidence. That would take too long on a short of this type and no one, including me, sits around and watches a 20 minute video. Intelligent people realize Cox is making sound bites here, while Nanashi is seeking spin. Being an active NRA member since 1970 or so- I know and keep up with NRA policy, those who are not members likely rely on comments like Nanashi’s and accept his “assessments” as truth.

          Finally, the apparent eagerness of some on this site to see violence over civil issues does bother me at times. If and when it becomes necessary I’d stand with my brothers and sisters but I will always prefer the process laid down in the Constitution for legislation, legislative review and the will of the nation. I sure hope these posters will be the first- out in front, not just sitting in their basement and prodding on those with less intelligence and less to lose.

        2. avatar J Gibbons says:

          Thanks, Craig in IA. Nanashi is known to be a NRA-hater, regardless of whatever right they do (which hasn’t always been enough), they are still more on the side of true 2A than against. And the alternative of a Leftist controlled non-2A world is always the worse outcome than any amount of unfortunate compromise the NRA might do.

          Sadly, it’s folks like Nanashi that end up working toward splitting up the 2A crowd and worsening the house divided situation that often exists between self-defense advocates and FUDDs. We in the broader 2A world need more inclusion and collaboration.

  2. avatar Yarbles says:

    There is no such thing as “Gun Violence” and I refuse to debate with any short-sighted idiot who uses that term.

  3. avatar Kman says:

    Just progressives shitting on the Constitution…nothing to see here.

  4. avatar Ronald Hunter says:

    I do know some people should not have guns. I saw that from my time spent as a range officer at a large gun shop and range. I’ve seen multiple women and some men who cannot operate a slide on a pistol or pull the trigger on a double action revolver. As to people who take all these designer antidepressants and have medical marijuana cards, no no not even a bb gun. My 2 cents worth.

    1. avatar Clark Kent says:

      So is the answer court confiscation or training? Hint: it is not court confiscation.

    2. avatar Idiot Patrol says:

      Lol “not even a B.B. gun” for all those veterans who use marijuana or take an anti-depressant. Haha Ronald Hunter you are an idiot.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        Yeah, they should just drink themselves into a coma and then go commit suicide. Anything’s better than admitting that marijuana is medicine. /sarc

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Gonna to agree with some of this…MJ could in some cases replace other pain meds.

          Save some wear and tear on the liver.

          just sayn..

    3. avatar Anner says:

      You argue that a physical inability or lack of familiarity in racking a slide or pulling a double action trigger is grounds for denying an individual a constitutional right?

      First, no. Not even close. Not only is that not anywhere close to being the subject of the article, it’s ludicrous to deny any citizen any constitutional rights based on ability to use that right.

      Second, what you witnessed seemed to be a lack of training, either in proper firearms handling/safety rules or technique/compatibility with a certain type of firearm. Once again, tampering with the sanctity of a constitutional right for either of these reasons is blasphemy. The fix is a willing and able individual to step in and help good Americans become better Americans.

    4. avatar joefoam says:

      @ronald hunter I respect your opinion, should we apply that to motorists who are clearly not able to operate their vehicles safely?

      1. avatar Posseman says:

        Please point out to me the “shall not be infringed” portion of the Constitution that applies to drivers licenses and motor vehicles.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        already the case in regards to motorists…be careful what you say to your doctor if you wish to retain your driving privileges…

    5. avatar Broke_It says:

      Then give up your guns first Ronald. The great part of this country is your opinion means jack shit. Just as I’m sure you wont value mine either. I’ve seen unsafe people too, and yelled at them when required. Then I went on with my day knowing I can’t fix stupid. Interesting how your reaction is to go full on confiscation for the same type of situation. You misguided fool.

  5. avatar FantaSea says:

    States with such laws will end up driving gun owners away from seeking treatment for mental health issues for fear of losing their guns. If a case is severe enough, these laws may actually have the opposite of the desired effect as a small percentage may end up going off the deep end when it was entirely preventable with appropriate medical treatment.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      I majored in psychology, so I understand well the value of mental health care. But I’ve already decided I will never see a therapist for anything.

      We live in a world where you can be deprived you of your rights for seeking health care. As a result, the people who need it are going to avoid it. How does that help?

    2. avatar Paul says:

      Very few people with mental illness will use a gun to hurt themselves or others. Most mental problems do not make the person a danger to themselves or others.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      mental health “professionals” are a dubious lot…frequently offering conflicting opinions…

  6. avatar daveinwyo says:

    At this time, given #metoo, rabid and radical fems. who can’t mind their own business, toxic masculinity , and all the SJW crap, I would insist on due process, ANY female, or “family member” that tries for an ERPO should be checked out as you describe for the suspect. The term “Swatted” comes to mind as does the name Janet Reno. Remember the excuse to burn people to death was “because guns”. How about this lefty craze called “doxing”? The shooting in Mass. is still unclear to me, but this is not a good first start.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      Stupid #metoo movement. All those women who got raped by powerful men and suffered in silence for decades because they would have been disbelieved and mocked should just keep their mouths shut and let their rapists live out their last days in peace. /sarc

      1. avatar NateInPA says:

        Even those idiots deserve due process. #metoo has taken that away.

    2. Good comment daveinwyo. The metoo movement has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. There’s no due process on college campus, or at work. Now, there will be no due process with the red flag law. Will a neighbor call the police on a gun owner just because they don’t like their political sign? If a couple breaks-up, (no violence) will she call the cops on him? Hate your mother-in-law? Call the cops…you fear for your life. Is that a frying pan or a gun?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        trump opened a can of worms with that stupid comment….

  7. avatar MyName says:

    The firearms examples page is almost as bad as the well-worn journalist’s guide to firearms meme.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Right. Threatening a loss of rights and possible armed confrontation with agents of the state always encourages fragile people to trust in friends, family and help. Expect many more Gary Willis’. It’s okay though. Killing them is in the best interest of society.

    What In want to know is nhow can Cruz be visited by cops 35 times for all sorts of violent behavior and nothing happens but now should some estranged family claim you may be a risk you lose your property and then have to prove you’re not a risk to get it back. Makes zero goddamned sense.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      The Cruz case shows inept police in action. But politically they want a blanket law on the books to disarm people, a lot of people, and scare the rest into compliance.

  9. avatar Michael Buley says:

    It’s not about public safety. That’s the ‘cover story.’ It’s about incremental steps to disarm this country.

    People driving cars kill far more people a year, we all know, than people with guns. Cars aren’t under attack., though, as ‘the problem.’ Cars generally aren’t used as weapons to overthrow governments. No threat to the powers that be, so ‘automotive violence,’ and ‘automotive deaths’ aren’t talked about, or the epidemic of ‘automotive deaths.’ There are of course other examples; hospital / doctor-caused deaths in hospitals; iatrogenic causes (big word to cover the truth) — 4th leading cause of death in America. Epidemic? I think so. No mention of it.

    If gun violence DOES drop after this law is passed? Regardless of any causative effect that can be proven? More laws like it will be passed. If gun violence does NOT drop? More laws will be passed to get more guns out of more people’s hands, because guns are the problem, we’re told, not people. If this law doesn’t work, don’t worry, there’s another! Oh yes, those ‘background checks’ where they look at your ‘social media posts’ to subjectively determine if you are ‘mentally equipped’ to own a gun, and not a threat to ‘the community.’ All buzzwords that are cover for their real intent.

    Do people who are potentially a danger, own guns? Yes. Same with cars.

    ‘Mentally ill’ — and there are mentally ill people — man owns gun. So one of them kills wife / children. It happens. So we ban all guns to ‘save the children’ and what not. Not to sound callous about deaths of kids, or anyone. It’s a reality. A bad guy here and there, a mentally ill guy or gal here and there — and it’s only here and there; not some daily dose of killings such as go on in hospitals.

    Now guns are banned. All guns are gone out of the good guys’ hands, and only the good guys’ hands. Now Good Guy Joe can’t defend his family against the bad guys. That happens a LOT more now. Deaths, rapes, robberies, torture, the most vile brutality against the good guys and gals and their families. Thanks to getting rid of the ‘gun problem.’

    All those defensive gun uses a year? No more. Instead, tens of thousands or more, addition deaths / rapes / robberies.

    Since communism is the agenda here, the “Bolshevik revolution” (nice word for violent war against existing government in Russia, and finally their overthrow and brutal murder) should tip us off to what happens next: 50+ million murdered in Russia in the next 60+ years. The ‘killing capacities’ of the government are vastly greater today than 100 years ago. If we think ‘it can’t happen here,’ we’re blind.

    “But this bill doesn’t talk about banning guns! It’s not about that!” …. oh yes it is.

    “Shall not be infringed.” These laws are infringements, that absolutely lead to more and more and more of them. Justify this one, and you’re part of the problem for the next one that follows.

    Not only does this law violate the 2nd Amendment, there is no due process. The power is completely in the hands of the state, and guns can be taken at the whim of whomever, for reasons real, or completely manufactured. And they will be. The powers that be NEVER stop going for our guns.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Treatment of disease should have gone no further than magic feathers and sacred smoke. No humans body will live forever, we are not gods. We humans are breeding an inferior species with our medical advances and supposed knowledge. As of yet I myself have not needed a doctor for a life threatening disease, thank you Great Spirit, but when that time comes I will choose the alternative and “cross the river”. ….On the car thing, if patriots used a vehicle to help them wage a war, I’m sure ” they’d” ban those too …. Patriotism, and defending freedom, this country is turning into such a shit ball I’m thinking it wouldn’t be worth my life fighting for it. Freedom is an illusion , free, free from what, free to do what? Free from subjugation, slavery, tyrants? We have these already it’s the illusion that we don’t that makes us perceive freedom. I’m glad we have the Bill of Rights but it was hypocrisy from the start. All men are created equal, at the time that was written Africans were slaves and Native Americans were treated as savage animals. And they remained that way for a couple hundred years after “All Men Are Created Equal”. So what am I really expecting from a government created by hypocrites, freedom for me, or freedom to do what they want. Lucy should have jumped off a cliff

      1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

        Wait a second here… what do you mean, “We humans”? I thought you were a furry marsupial?

  10. avatar Christ T in KY says:

    Why do woman say “please take my violent husbands/boyfriends firearms, and then stay in the home with them? And then they are stabbed or strangled to death, the next day.

    Or why do so many women have such low expectations of other women, when it comes to armed self defense? There was a time historically when every american woman knew how to shoot, and kept a gun or guns.

    Elaine B
    Have you every told a woman there are not enough police men in the nation to assign them a 24 hour 7 day a week bodyguard? Has anyone, in a professional setting, every brought this to the attention of these scared women?

    You have been involved in the Red Flag process. Do you consider it a logical and rational process, which its publicly stated goal it to protect a person from a physically dangerous individual?

    Is the end goal a logical one?

    Have you ever told a woman about this case? Do you bring it up in a professional setting? Do you think it should be brought up to a domestic violence victim? If not then why not?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

    “Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005),[1] is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.”

    I included this case in my paper on educating children about their 2A birthright.

    “Firearm Education: Teaching the Second Amendment in Kentucky school system grades K through 12”
    http://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/bis437/149

  11. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, the Disqus Overlords are declaring my attempts to copy edit as “spam.”

    There goes writing clean comments the easy way. Sigh.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      …TTAG doesn’t use Disqus.

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    ERPO will be abused to punish enemies whether it’s a ex husband, a political for, or a business partner whose fallen out.
    It’s a mechanism.ripe for abuse and like other laws there will be little accountability.
    But hey, we all.get to say they did something don’t we?

    1. avatar joefoam says:

      Indeed these laws are ripe for abuse. My neighbor’s nutty girlfriend called the cops and mentioned he had a gun. No less than 8 patrol cars responded, officers had rifles slung, neighbor was marched out of his house, cuffed and put in patrol car. Nutty girlfriend walked away snickering, meanwhile neighbor is involved in nasty legal mess and living with the humiliation of being paraded out of his house in front of his neighbors.

  13. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Aaaaand now, the comment, which posted and I saw the typos, is gond.

  14. avatar CarlosT says:

    If such laws are correlated, after some time in effect, with a drop in gun violence in the states in which they are law, it’s likely we will see a push for more such laws, whether the drop in crime is directly related to the new law or not. This is why it seems important to contemplate the possibility of ERPO-like laws even in states that don’t have them yet.

    It’s cute that you think that you think that there will be any need for evidence for these laws to be foisted upon us. It’s not like any push for gun control has ever needed evidence of any kind before. It’s no different here.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Antis are like communists in the face of evidence. Evidence says the AWB did nothing. Antis say that it wasnt a true AWB. Evidence says increasing firearms ownership has not led to an increase in firearms related deaths. Antis say one is too many. Evidence says constitutional carry has not resulted in more deaths. Antis say one is too many. Just the other day antis own research found UBCs do nothing to reduce deaths. Antis say one is too many.

      Any result antis don’t like is countered with fantasy and feels. I honestly believe if somehow 100% gun freedom were shown to magically cure cancer and feed the homeless they’d still fight it because guns.

    2. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

      Although I am a staunch supporter of all rights. Chief among them the 2nd Amendment. You could make the same arguement about the proliferation guns in the hands of the average law abiding man or woman had an effect lowering violent crime handgun deaths in this country over the last 40 years. When a great deal of the drops in violent crime can be easily attributed to 77 million and counting abortions that have occurred over the same period of time. Most of those abortions occured in low income crime prone inner city neighborhoods.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        The democrats are busy importing replacements for all those missing people. Whether they are an asset or a liability remains to be seen but it doesn’t look good.

  15. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

    We’re living in very strange times. Today not only can you disgrace and destroy a person emotionally and financially. But you can also theoretically get that person killed because you don’t like something that he enjoys simply because you don’t enjoy it. One thing that everyone fails see here is, it’s really easy to give up your rights ,but once you do so and realize the mistake you’ve made it’s extremely hard if not impossible to get those rights back. If changes are not made in the mindset of the citizens in this country it will one day be unbearable to live your life.

  16. avatar SouthAl says:

    I hear mental health workers talking about HIPAA quite frequently, usually as a way to avoid the extra work associated doing something in a way which respects confidentiality, just to hear themselves talk, or to sound technically informed (if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit). Most don’t even know the correct acronym or what it stands for. It is not “HIPPA” and “patient privacy” is not in the title. These people don’t know that they don’t know what they don’t know and I tend not to listen to much of what they say.

  17. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    First I should apologize for not reading the entirety of your article, Elaine. After reading about half-way through, I’d seen enough. The first and most important issue with so called “red flag laws” is just who gets to make the call? In the loosest version of red-flag laws, just about anyone can deprive another citizen of not only his/her guns but also they’re constitutional rights. I’ll leave the common justifications of this up to you because I’d like to comment instead on the sociological dynamics that underline these laws and their application.

    The first thing that has to happen with the application of a red-flag law is a person’s freedom has to be taken away. Recently, a “concerned” relative turned in a gun-owner to the cops. They showed up at 5AM or so to seize his gun (s), an interaction took place resulting in the the cops killing him. What caused this to happen is what sociologist Erving Goffman described as a process of “stigmatization”. Stigmatized individuals are social deviants, assumed by the public to be morally deficient. They are set apart from normal society by a process that is called “labeling”. What happens is that an otherwise normal person has the label “deviant” attached to them by more powerful people (in this case an intentionally loosely organized bureaucratic process involving the private citizens, courts and the police). Once the deviant stigma is attached to an individual by more powerful individuals, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to remove (this is intentional as people who have their firearms confiscated frequently discover when the police refuse to return their property).

    Since you earn your living by providing treatment (please note that I am not writing “treatment” in a derisive way) as a way of helping people, I doubt that you have thought about what you do in this way, but I’d nonetheless like to direct to attention to a seminal criticism of mental health labeling. Like Erving Goffman, fellow sociologist Harold Garfinkel also paid attention to the process by which people transition from normal life to being labeled “mentally ill” by others. He sees the process—which he describes in “Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies” as one in which a normal, free citizen’s status is degraded, their liberty and freedom taken from them, as part of an intentional ceremonial event in which, “Moral indignation serves to effect the ritual destruction of the person denounced”.

    Although they’ll never admit it, I suspect the underlying motive of gun controllers is moral indignation resulting in just the kind of removal-of-selfhood Garfinkel and Goffman describe. Its a punishment for being an evil gun owner. While I think you might be inclined to to support Red Flag laws out of general concern for public safety and mental health, the fact that an angry relative or spouse can drop a dime on a guy and give the cops a reason to kill him, seems to signal that we’re in some very deep shit.

  18. avatar Despicable elaine says:

    Elaine is trash. Garbage. Every time she posts her goal is to spread a deadly, inexcusable virus. Hoping to infect every fiber of America and cause society to fall to her level of worthlessness. She wants you to believe that your incapable of freedom, Independence or choice. And until she can decide for you and all the others what you can,will and should do, she will not stop.

    1. avatar J Gibbons says:

      Don’t be quite so harsh, despicable. Elaine is doing us a service by sharing the thought process that continues to grow in across the country as the average individual ingests the sewage that the MSM continue to force feed. It is always good to know how the other side is thinking, especially when we seem to be losing the war of words and thought in this arena (look to the recent mid-term and the flip of the House for evidence).

      It’s going to take one Liberal at a time stopping the flood of group-think in their own mind to have a logical independent thought to see the light.

  19. avatar CZJay says:

    I don’t need to implement a law to figure out what the results will be. I implement the law to prove it.

    When I was a young kid I thought everyone started out with a certain amount of intelligence. When you did enough things to reduce that level is when you became dumb. Like when my friends would use drugs, I observed them for years, eventually I realized they deteriorated their cognitive abilities permanently. As I got older I noticed that not everyone starts out with a high level of intelligence they can sacrifice for temporary pleasure. That’s when I determined that “common sense” was simply a catch phrase rather than a truth.

    Although I do not want/like to consider myself smart, I now have to assume that I am not the dumbest person in the room, I might actually be the smartest. I think that is very sad because I don’t even try. If it ends up that I am the smartest person in the room most of the time, we are totally fucked.

    We should be able to figure stuff out in our minds instead of throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Little kids learn by throwing things at the wall [experience]. Adults should be at a high enough level that they can extrapolate instead of throwing things. It’s supposed to be kids that are the ones who don’t think about the consequences of their actions; they have to learn the hard way. Adults should have enough intelligence to figure their shit out.

    Apparently there isn’t many adults with enough intelligence to teach kids let alone run a country. I guess that’s why it takes a village to raise a child.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      The problem isn’t that there are bugs in the design. They’re not bugs, they’re features.

      The folks who design this shit aren’t stupid. They’re liars. The goal isn’t anything they suggest.

      The actual goals are two-fold: A form of gun control where they can take guns away from current owners via accusation and innuendo while scaring prospective gun owners away from becoming gun owners for fear of the hassle/legal issues buying guns might create for them. The goal is to do this in a way that seems “reasonable” due to “protections” built into the law but which are basically unenforceable when the system is abused.

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        Bingo, Strych … they’re liars. Plain and simple. Or deceived, ignorant, useful idiots that the communists count on to do their dirty work. Easily manipulated. Intelligent in many cases, and very limited in their knowledge. And they are always ‘doing good,’ and they’re ‘concerned about public safety’ …

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        I have been saying since I was very young, “Either you are a liar or you are stupid, which is it?” I thought I was being too extreme saying people are stupid or liars, but it turns out that’s essentially the case. If you come up with stupid ideas you are either simply a dumb person or you are a smart person manipulating dumb people.

        I wasn’t the kind of child who would believe my parents when they said, “We will come back and buy it after we look at this other thing first.” I knew we are not coming back to get it, they are lying to me to get me to accept their decision without a fight. You couldn’t make me believe there was a Santa Claus or a tooth fairy. I knew the dog didn’t run away, he’s dead. I knew there wasn’t a monster hiding under my bed that would attack me if I didn’t clean my room or if I got out of my bed because I checked.

        Before I was old enough to go to school I already saw things like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th. I went into the bathroom with the lights off to chant bloody Mary to see if I was being lied to. We used to have those creepy wind-up clowns or those creepy eyed dolls. You couldn’t use fear to control me because I learned very early that it’s all BS. Once the tool of fear was gone they had to come up with elaborate lies to manipulate me. Eventually trust was gone when I learned that an adult’s promise is just another lie. Too bad for the politicians, my family already used up all the techniques governments use to fool people. All that was left was, “Do as I say, not as I do!” Now my attitude towards that is, “Fuck you!”

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          I grew up much the same except I had parents that told me the truth right off the bat. They just said; “no!”, and when I tried endless; “why?” they said ; “because this is our house and what we say goes”. And that was the end of that. Remember; “my house, my rules?” I heard that one a lot.
          But being way, WAY out in the boonies I got to grow up on horse and motorcycle back from the age of 9 on. By ten I was carrying a Ruger Bearcat in a Hunter holster everywhere I went. I had to buy my own ammo too. But Dad gave me a nickel for every gopher tail I could bring in, and a dollar for skunks, badgers, or fox. That’s how I learned to hit what I aim at. Because I couldn’t afford to miss. No wonder I’m such a stubborn fuck, huh?
          That’s the gun that I nearly blew my own head off with. Bearcats are old style single actions but no one ever warned me to keep an empty chamber under the hammer. One day it fell out of the holster while dismounting, landed on the hammer spur(naturally), and sent a .22 short right past my ear. That ear rang all day.
          That’s the incident that started me down the gunsmith road. I tore that SA down to find out what the hell happened. Once I figured out how it worked inside it was obvious. I started carrying it with one chamber empty. I thought I was a 12 year old genius until I bragged it to an old timer who informed me people learned that back in 1849!

        2. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Great story, Kenneth, and a great childhood.

        3. avatar Kenneth says:

          Mr. Buley;
          Thanks! CZjay’s too. He’s awesome. And Uncommon sense, Michael from GA, DG, NCA, and on and on. And you.
          This site has a great bunch of commenters. It’s why I stick around even though its already slid so far down the icy socialist slope. And so quickly, too.

  20. avatar Kenneth says:

    “that I am mandated to report to law enforcement any person who I come to believe is a danger to themselves and others”
    AND
    “if only because mental health treatment is mostly voluntary.”
    These two statements highlight exactly why such ‘laws'(more accurately; “codes annotated”) are a terrible idea. They will always fail due to mental health treatment being “mostly voluntary”. Once it is in the code that ones can easily lose their rights to firearms(mostly sans due process), since any mental health worker they have visited MUST report them to LE if they “believe” they MIGHT be a danger, most will begin to refuse all help. And the worse and more violent they are, the stronger their incentive to refuse treatment.
    This will drive the worst cases away from help, and directly towards violent outbursts, the exact opposite of the supposed intent.
    Like most codes, they almost always produce the exact opposite effect to what the sleeping sheeple are told they will produce.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Careful there! The antis already very much want mandatory mental health screenings before the purchase of a firearm

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        I know I’m on their blacklists. But I live in Montana, way out in the boonies, and so don’t really give a shit.
        “what are they gonna do to me? Make me do stand up in strip malls? That’s what I do now!” -Bill Burr
        There’s a lot of liberty in not giving a shit.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      you’re missing the point…it’s ALL of us they’re after…not a selected few….

  21. avatar strych9 says:

    A few things come to my mind.

    First, in terms of laws. If violence drops we need more laws because these ones are effective. If violence doesn’t drop then we need more laws that are effective. A catch 22 for gun owners.

    Second, as others have noted these laws may actually make things worse. The folks that might “actually need” an ERPO against them are probably crazy enough to not realize that they’re crazy and therefore not seek help while those who are still “sane” enough to realize that they do need help won’t seek it for fear of having their property taken away.

    Third, no matter how many “safe guards” are put in place with these laws I, for one, don’t believe they will be effective or even used much. Someone lies to “punish” a gun owner for a perceived slight and, if they are ever charged for lying, will claim it was an “honest mistake born of serious concern and an overabundance of caution”. In other words; “I was scared they might…” will probably be enough to void criminal charges for lying on an ERPO petition in nearly all cases.

    Forth, and related to #2, what really constitutes a “threat to oneself/others”? Well, that’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s known that lots of people with certain disabilities/medical issues are more prone to depression and therefore more prone to suicide in certain cases. That’s something that people would rationally fear even discussing in any context for fear of being taken out of context and accused of being depressed/suicidal when they are not.

    Fifth, in cases of argument… this one really grinds my gears. It’s the same bullshit argument professors made to try to stop campus carry even though there is zero evidence that a CCW permit holder would ever use their gun to try to force a professor to change a grade or something similar. My rights and the rights of others are not subject to your feelz. Your feelz are YOUR issue. I don’t cause you to have feelz, you CHOOSE to have feelz (a specific reaction) to the fact that I/someone owns a gun.

    Look, “mental health” as it currently stands is fucking bullshit. It’s full of frauds, morons and pansies. I know, I’ve been on the receiving end of it. Generally speaking it’s an academic circle jerk of tards who make shit up and don’t even obey their own rules/definitions.

    I’m not saying that there are not good, honest and hardworking people in mental health but the overall the whole system is riddled with inconsistencies, nonsense and the bullshit opinions of a bunch of over-educated, self-interested, self-centered assholes who value their own opinion over anything else.

    What’s worse is that this is an area where, for a long time, accusation has been more than enough to do the work of truth and the presumption is that the person “accused” of having issues has them until that person proves that they do not.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      But but but …. but if it saves ONE LIFE …

      Bullshit. And ruins countless others, and likely results in the deaths of who knows how many.

      All we have to be is … who we are here! We’re pissed about it! It’s bullshit! We’re dissidents, radicals, trouble makers … because we defend our natural rights enshrined in the Constitution. WE are the problems … and it just takes an ‘expert’ to ‘testify’ before some appointed judge … we are the threats.

      This bullshit is abused, and will be abused — but not according to the experts. It’s all about ‘public safety.’

      Muddy, confusing terms … subjective judgments, are specifically written that way to give all the power to the state. None of this has a thing to do with ‘public interest.’ And the problem is, ‘the people in charge’ are convinced that they know best for other people. They are very, very dangerous to us.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        “Muddy, confusing terms … subjective judgments…”

        Any outright fucking lies. Without writing a book here, I was forced during High School to see a “mental health professional” because I had a nasty habit of telling the truth to people who didn’t want to hear it and was therefore labeled as being “trouble” and “troubled”.

        Long story short, I see this asshole a few times and suddenly there are accusations swirling that I’m a methamphetamine addict. At the time I was a smoker who flipped two cigarettes in each fresh pack, a “lucky” and a “fucky”. An odd tradition to be sure but entirely harmless and in no way related to narcotics.

        Well, what does Mr. “Mental Health Professional” go and do? He says to my parents, the school and to the police that I’m flipping two cigarettes in the pack because those are the ones I lace with meth. He has absolutely no proof of this but he makes the claim anyway. Now I’m forced to try to prove a negative to the cops and the school. Fortunately, since my parents are both chemists and I just give them samples to take to their respective labs and test.

        And it get’s fucking worse. When I’m finally allowed to confront my accuser (after 99% of the damage is done since I’m now publicly labeled as a meth head and now everyone knows I’m seeing a shrink, but doesn’t know the school forced this on me) I tell him, and everyone else, that he’s lying, that I can prove it and that if this sort of shit happens again there are going to be consequences. Before I can even say “like me calling a lawyer” he starts screaming that I just threatened him with violence. Great, now I’m not just a troubled kid with a meth problem I’ve also threatened someone with violence and therefore need to be watched like a hawk since I’m prone to “violent outbursts”.

        This story goes on. It’s long and it gets worse but I’m not going to bother you with it. Suffice to say, my parents believed me, no one else did, Mr. “Professional” never had any blowback and everything went downhill in terms of my relationship with the school and the cops until my family moved out of the area.

        Fuck ERPOs and fuck “Mental Health Professionals” in general. Again, I’m not against every single person working in mental health, but I know from experience that the bad ones can really fuck up your life and that there will be NO CONSEQUENCES for them. They can lie with impunity because they can hide behind “an overabundance of caution with this patient”.

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          You had great parents. Thank God they stood by you.

          I’ve never had what happened to you, happen to me … but I see it. You’re ‘labeled,’ in seconds. Literally seconds. And nothing you do or say can change it. And you’re fucked.

          I have a sister who, with seemingly good intentions, doesn’t seem incapable of calling me in because she’s not sure of my ‘mental health.’ I have guns. She hates guns. I carry guns. I have a gun or two up in places where I can reach them if need be. They’re visible. I take care of my mom full-time. No kids around. She’s basically an invalid. Makes her VERY uncomfortable. ‘Hmm … I wonder how his mental health is … hmm … is he a danger to himself?’ If laws give regular everyday people, with all their own stuff to deal with, the power to completely fuck up someone’s life … some of them are going to fuck up someone’s life because they can, and because ‘they know best.’ or … just to be on the safe side.

          You march to the beat of a different drum? You think for yourself? You see the world differently? You’re intensely introverted and like to be alone? You’re intensely passionate about a lot of things? “Hmm … what’s the problem here? What do you think ‘your problem’ is?” And .. ta-da … there’s a problem. ‘Different’ = ‘trouble.’

          People report someone for ‘child abuse,’ and kids get taken away. No proof. Just the allegation.

          Whatever isolated instances of good I’m sure there are, there are countless others where people get fucked up in very serious ways. And as you said, there is zero accountability on the part of ‘the system.’ Just being, as you said, overly cautious, don’t you know … ‘can’t blame us for that!’ Fuck you, yes we can.

          You should write a book. And again, glad you had parents who backed you.

        2. avatar Matt says:

          I had a similar albeit much less severe experience.

          I took a class called “College Preparedness” my senior year of high school with some friends because we assumed it would be bullshit that require no effort. Unfortunately for us, the teacher took it very seriously even though we did not. We received an assignment to write the 103rd page of out autobiography. So being a shit head 17 year old and into guns, I wrote about two sentences leading into quoting the specs for the G36.

          Well after months of me saying to the teacher’s face I did not care about the class and challenging her directly in front of the class when I would not comply, she did not like this. So she immediately reported me to the administration, for a threat, and I was forced to see the school psychologist.

          Even at 17 I knew this was horse shit but went to see the psychologist because what choice did I have. When the psychologist asked me how I dealt with anger, I gave her my answer; “I don”t know, I pet my dog and hang out with him.” This was not a satisfactory answer and was told I needed to look for more healthy ways to deal with my anger.

          Luckily for me my parents believed me and had incredible trust in me in general so there was no repercussions from them. I had a number of teachers that loved me, knew I was involved in shooting sports and knew me as a good student so it didn’t affect me much academically. My friends and I basically all laughed at it because we saw it for what it was, a teacher no one likes trying to make an example out of me for being a very mild pain in the ass.

          So yea, I don’t personally have much need or love for many mental health professions and wouldn’t trust such a process where basically I could have been expelled or suspended due to one teacher’s accusation.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Wow… Strych, Michael, Matt, your stories all reminded me of these song lyrics:

          I was sitting in my room when my mom and my dad came in and they pulled up a chair and they sat down
          They go: Mike, we need to talk to you
          And I go: Okay what’s the matter?
          They go: Me and your mom have been noticing lately that you’ve been having a lot of problems
          And you’ve been going off for no reason and we’re afraid you’re going to hurt somebody
          And we’re afraid you’re going to hurt yourself
          So we decided that it would be in your best interest if we put you somewhere
          Where you could get the help that you need
          And I go: Wait, what are you talking about, WE decided!?
          MY best interests?! How do you know what MY best interest is?
          How can you say what MY best interest is? What are you trying to say, I’M crazy?
          When I went to YOUR schools! I went to YOUR churches!
          I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities! So how can you say I’M crazy?

          They say they’re gonna fix my brain
          Alleviate my suffering and my pain
          But by the time they fix my head
          Mentally I’ll be dead

          I’m not crazy – Institution
          You’re the one who’s crazy – Institution
          You’re driving me crazy – Institution
          They stuck me in an institution
          Said it was the only solution
          to give me the needed professional help
          to protect me from the enemy – Myself

          From Suicidal Tendencies’ “Institutionalized”

          I don’t mean this in any derogatory sense, just as an example of how a person’s life can be wrecked by nothing more than mere accusations. As your lives could have been.

        4. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I’d be more concerned with the “Pumped Up Kicks” lyrics…

        5. avatar Matt says:

          @Craig
          It has been memed as such already.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      And sixth, if the person is so terribly dangerous to himself and others with guns, does taking them away cure him and render him harmless?

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      agreed…the term “experts” doesn’t even loosely apply….it’s all arbitrary and subjective…was once failed by one of these jerks for an armed guard license…requested a retest and passed easily…the second examiner went so far as to say the first one was “nuts”…..these are the kind of people you would be dealing with…

  22. avatar UpInArms says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that ERPO laws are sometimes justified, but (here comes the but) due process MUST be rigidly adhered to. The state does, in some rare cases, have a legitimate interest in restricting firearm access to certain individuals.

    Most of the ERPO laws I’ve seen don’t allow for much, if any, due process. For many of them, an anonymous phone call is enough to trigger action by the authorities. Even in cases where the accusations prove to be groundless, the accused is still saddled with substantial inconvenience and expense. This is wrong. Just plain wrong.

    In order to trigger an ERPO law (1) the accused must be able to face the accuser; (2) the burden of proof is always on the state, and the standard of proof must go beyond just reasonable doubt (approaching absolute certainty); (3) the state must bear all the legal costs involved, including legal counsel for the accused; (4) the accused must be given a hearing before any confiscations are pursued; (5) the accused, if they choose, has the right to a jury trial.

    Granted, this would all make enforcing an ERPO next to impossible– but then, that’s the point, isn’t it?

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Excellent points. Logical points. And precisely the protections we will NEVER see afforded to the accused. Instead, as you say, a phone call can result in guns taken, a shootout is possible … if guns taken, extensive legal costs to get those guns back. Wrong on every count. But what is just, is not part of the agenda. Just get those guns — that’s what it’s all about.

  23. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I’ve watched warrants being sworn out by Judges and Magistrates..many times..(more than 20 but probably less than 100) all kinds of cases.

    If these Red Flag laws are anything like that then everyone should be seriously concerned.

    No good can come of this…

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Once they design ERPO laws to give police the power to search for and seize guns, they won’t need warrants anymore. Get an ERPO, no allegation of a crime required, and any evidence of a crime found incidentally to an unrelated, but lawful, search is admissible.

  24. avatar SoBe says:

    HIPAA law is a moot point, HHS includes a Public Health and Safety exception, “How else can we use or share your health information?
    We are allowed or required to share your information in other ways – usually in ways that contribute to the public good, such as public health…”
    “Help with public health and safety issues
    We can share health information about you for certain situations such as:
    • Preventing disease…
    • Reporting suspected abuse, neglect, or domestic violence
    • Preventing or reducing a serious threat to anyone’s health or safety….
    Address workers’ compensation, law enforcement, and other government requests
    We can use or share health information about you:…
    • For law enforcement purposes or with a law enforcement official…
    • For special government functions such as military, national security, and presidential protective services”
    It seems the government would not want to get in the way of the government.
    Didn’t California disguise its gun control as a public health and safety issue?

    1. avatar SoBe says:

      P.S., Federal HIPPA law supersedes state law and HHS is a Cabinet level Federal Department.

  25. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…They’re becoming a reality in more and more states and it’s important to understand them better. ”

    If that statement isn’t followed immediately with something like “so they can be stopped from spreading like the cancer they are” then there is nothing more to discuss.

  26. avatar DrDKW says:

    So putting aside the Second Amendment for a moment, how important do you think are the other amendments and due process?
    Or do you believe if there appears to be some benefit, then the end justifies the means?
    The Nazis decided, without due process, that millions of people were so dangerous, they needed to be exterminated!
    In 1942, the US government decided, without due process, that thousands of American citizens were so dangerous they needed to be rounded up and sent to prison camps!

    There is a culture of abuse and neglect today, that is turning children into monsters, and a government corrupted by fear, greed, and politics into quick, easy solutions, and the Constitution be damned!

    The Bill of Rights exists for a reason – to prevent the majority, as well as the government, from oppressing the minority.
    Neither you or the government gets to choose which of the Bill of Rights is important, and which can be ignored!
    End of rant.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      do you really own a deek, and if so is it a supercharged two cycle twin?

  27. avatar Anymouse says:

    A big problem with ERPO, or any other order, is that they only address guns. Guns aren’t the.only tool.that can be used.to hurt someone. If someone is suicidal or homicidal,.they can figure out another way of.getting the job done. Even with an order, it won’t stop a determined person. My grandfather had emphysema and decided to end his life. After a failed attempt with a rifle, my uncle removed all the guns from the house while he was in the hospital. He got ahold of a revolver and succeeded, but he could have used something else if he wasn”t able to get the revolver.

  28. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘The reality is, you have to enact it to see how it works in practice.’ – Or, as Nancy Pelosi said it, ‘We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.’

    I’ll sort of give ED a pass here, as it seems more of a discussion about what is rather than what should be. Don’t bring up guns when fighting with your wife or girlfriend. Basic common sense there, whether or not they’ve passed an ‘extreme risk protection order’ law in your state.

    I wouldn’t actually have a problem with these laws IF they included both due process for the accused AND repercussions for those who have shown to have given false testimony. But the fact that these provisions aren’t present in any of these laws shows that they’re not about saving lives at all.

  29. avatar SoBe says:

    Elaine D., you mention “have been called repeatedly about a particular person and visited that person,” yet no ERPO that I am aware of has either a “repeated” nor a “visit” requirement. The ones I am aware of are a one call deal with no requirement that law enforcement visit nor validate the claim. Smells of Nazi Germany or Communist Cuba. I left communism because it does not work; it is sooo like 19th century and old fashioned.

  30. avatar Specialist38 says:

    So the little shit hook in the Parkland shooting was well known to the school and police. They did nothing ….. in spades.

    So now we have red flag laws where someone in your family says you are a dangerous nut and they swoop in to take your guns and cart you out.

    Will anyone bet the family member who says you are a danger? Will 5-0 and the court do some due diligence before they bring the wagon to pick your ass up?

    Forgive my cynicism if I don’t put ANY faith in the system to get this right. There are certainly dangerous people who need to be held away from society. That comes with due process. Of due process can’t be incorporated, it is wrongful confiscation and kidnapping. Pure and simple.

    If it were a murder suspect treated this way, they would get off scot free and get a settlement from the state. This is ludicrous.

  31. avatar possum says:

    They took my cousins gunz away because he was nutz, so he killed his roommate with a machete.

  32. avatar OneWhoKnows says:

    The fact that the article wasn’t proofread or fact-checked reveals the sloppy thinking of the writer. It’s HIPAA…. the ‘Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act’. Hopefully she’s not as sloppy with her work habits. We’re going to let her and others of her ilk circumvent the Constitution? Wow……

    1. avatar 22winmag says:

      I have doubts about her credentials.

      ERPO’s have been around for decades in some states—> involuntary commitment to a mental hospital based on the word of a family member, drunk uncle, medic, doctor, cop, etc.

      The only thing new about ERPO’s is the “TAKE HIS GUNS” madness.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        yep…and they can hold you for a set period of time…with no consequences…just an “oops..my bad”….judges have usually retained control over this by overruling these so-called “professionals” when they see the need to…

    2. avatar SouthAl says:

      Yup. See my post upstream. Her article even links to a page with the correct acronym and name of the act.

  33. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Elaine D.,

    Is it “word against word,” or is more proof required?

    It isn’t even “word against word”. Instead, it is, “word (of the instigator) against NOTHING,” because the courts and police proceed to confiscate someone’s firearms BASED SOLELY ON THE ACCUSATION OF THE INSTIGATOR WITHOUT ANY REBUTTAL FROM THE SUBJECT of the extreme risk protection order.

    That is why extreme risk protection orders are so heinous.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Elaine D.,

      To emphasize how WRONG extreme risk protection orders are, let’s apply the EXACT same rationale to three identical scenarios.

      (1) Police take away all of your family’s cars because a relative said (without any proof) that you were going to drive into a crowd. You and your family will be without your cars for several months while you try to prove that you are not going to drive into a crowd. And because of the order, you cannot rent cars, buy new/used cars, borrow a friend’s car, or even drive a car that entire time. And you have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney’s to recover your cars. And you spend another few thousand dollars on taxi services during that time.

      (2) Police break-down your door at 5:00 a.m. to forcibly remove all of your family’s feminine hygiene products because a relative said (without any proof) that you were going to use feminine hygiene products to set a crowded building on fire. You and your family will be without feminine hygiene products for several months while you try to prove that you are not going to use feminine hygiene products to set a crowded building on fire. And because of the order, you cannot purchase any products or borrow any products from anyone else. And you will spend thousands of dollars on attorneys to eventually get your property back and be able to purchase more feminine hygiene products. And you will incur thousands of dollars in laundry, dry cleaning, and upholstery cleaning expenses because of the mess that will occur without feminine hygiene products.

      (3) Police break down your door at 5:00 a.m. to forcibly remove all of your family’s motor, fuel, and cooking oil because a relative said (without any proof) that you were going to use oil to set a crowded building on fire. You and your family will be without oil for several months while you attempt to prove that you will not use oil to set a crowded building on fire. And because of the order, you cannot purchase more oil or borrow any oil from anyone until the courts rescind the order. That means you cannot operate your cars, lawnmowers, nor oil furnace — and you cannot cook with cooking oil several months. And you spend thousands of dollars on attorneys to recover your right to have and use oil. That also adds a few thousand dollars in the additional expense for hiring taxi services, lawn cutting services, using electric heat in place of your oil furnace, and who knows what for alternative cooking practices or eating out.

      Would you support the creation and enforcement of the above three extreme risk protection orders? After all, a relative said that you were going to use [contraband] to maim/murder several people. Your inconvenience for several months and your expense of several thousand dollars is okay, even though there is no evidence and you were never able to defend yourself, because the relative might be right, correct?

      1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

        (4) Police break down your door at 5:00 a.m. to forcibly remove all of your family’s computers, phones, tablets, pens, pencils, paper, paint, engraving tools, etching equipment, hammers and chisels because a relative said (without any proof) that you were going to distribute hateful propoganda. You and your family will be unable to communicate with anybody for several months while you attempt to prove that you will not use any form of speech to incite violence. And because of the order, you cannot purchase more or borrow any communication device from anyone until the courts rescind the order. That means you cannot communicate with anybody that is not close enough to engage verbally — and you probably can not work several months. And you spend thousands of dollars on attorneys to recover your right to operate a pencil or phone. That also adds a few thousand dollars in the additional expense for hiring an assistant to pay your bills online, set up power of attorney to even sign your court documents, etc.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Ian in Transit,

          Great minds think alike. This morning I added two additional scenarios — one of which included removing all family cell phones, land lines, and computers.

        2. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          Not that it would ever happen in real life. It’s not like anybody has ever been kicked of or had their business shut down on twitter, youtube or farcebook for articulately conveying a popular opinion that somebody else didn’t like. To bad it is only a hypothetical example . . .

        3. avatar J Gibbons says:

          Ian in Transit, I think number 4 is more than just a though exercise. We’re on the verge of it happening.

        4. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          @Gibson – Apparently my /sarc font did not work. I assure you I am very aware and was trying to point that out.

    2. avatar SoBe says:

      And a violation of due process!

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Elaine D.,

      Several people on this website have stated the principle in exceedingly simple terms many times:

      If we do not trust someone with firearms, neither do we trust them with motor vehicles, knives, machetes, matches/gasoline, nor household chemicals (poisons). And if we do not trust them with any of those things, we do not trust them to be free among us. Such a person requires a custodian or must be imprisoned. And that DARNED well better not happen without full-blown due process involving a trial before a jury of the accused person’s peers.

  34. avatar Danny338 says:

    There is a choice between dangerous freedom, and “peaceful” slavery. The people who are for ERPO laws and similar have chosen slavery, and they seek to force their choice upon those who would be free.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      Well said, Danny.

  35. avatar sound awake says:

    we need to come up with something like this for the 14th amendment

    you know to take away a womans right to choose

    just for period time of course

    “until shes proven that shes sane enough to be trusted again with the right to kill her own baby”

    and then push to keep a federal registry of every woman that chose to exercise this right

    and then tax them so we can study how to stop abortion

    and then declare sanctuary states where state county and local law enforcement are forbidden from cooperating with federal law enforcement that are trying to keep abortion clinics open

    and then limit women to 1 abortion

    and vagina locks

    and start protest groups called everytown for baby safety and mothers demand action

    common sense abortion control is what we can call it

    lets do it

    i mean really do it

  36. avatar BluesMike says:

    Sorry I didn’t read all of the article. I saw so many problems in the first couple paragraphs that I stopped. I suggest much more research before writing more articles. These red flag laws are extremely dangerous and violate the constitution and its amendments.

  37. avatar SoBe says:

    Let’s have ERPOs for voting. Let your family members or neighbors call for an order suspending your voting rights because you threatened to vote in a manner that threatened your family’s values or went against how your neighbors planned to vote (I’ll leave politics out since they are irrelevant). Police arrive in the middle of the night to confiscate you voter registration card and arrest you “for your own protection.” You spend a long weekend in jail awaiting a bond hearing. Tens of thousands of dollars later in legal fees (I do not exaggerate), you are finally cleared, but the police won’t release your voter registration card and you are not permitted to vote.

    1. avatar SoBe says:

      Oh, sht! I live in Florida, Florida Democrats and Broward County officials are reading this! 🤢😠😬

      1. avatar possum says:

        The spy’s, they’re everywhere. I’m also against, totally against the DARE program . It gets children to give information ,in good faith, to those in authority the means to arrest their parents, What does,” Does your father own any gunz?” Have to do with drugs. Castro’s Cuba

  38. avatar 22winmag says:

    Good grief lady, Massachusetts and other states have had MENTAL HEALTH ERPO’s FOR DECADES… they are not new or untested… only the “TAKE HIS GUNS!” clause new.

  39. avatar Gladius et Scutum says:

    Mental health professionals? Witch doctors, pure and simple.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      What do you have against trained medical professionals?

      Consider that pshinks (largely gov’t financed) are one of the the wealthiest (donors) and most reliable groups of progtard dem voters. And a more useless bunch you could not find.

  40. avatar Pa John says:

    Search for “psych hold laws” (minus the quotes), and you’ll see lots of links for “involuntary psych hold” and “Laws on 72 hours of observation” and etc. EVERY STATE IN THE UNION has laws on the books where if someone appears to be a danger to themselves and/or others, they can be involuntarily held for psychological observation for up to 72 hours (in some states the time limit is longer). This is not the same thing as being “involuntarily committed to a mental institution”, this is an “involuntary psych hold” with a much lower legal threshold, where after that 72 hour time limit is up, they either have to diagnose the patient as having some mental condition / disorder and then have them committed to a mental institution, or they have to let the person go, deeming them not to be a danger to themselves or others in the process. One of those two things have to happen. That is the law.

    This means that if someone were held for a 72 hour observation “psych hold” and then released (as opposed to being diagnosed with something and committed to a mental institution for some longer period of time), they would suffer no loss of rights, including their 2nd Amendment rights. They would not lose their guns. Obviously, if that person were instead diagnosed and committed to a mental institution for some longer period of time, then all of the laws concerning the denial of rights to those with dangerous mental conditions would apply.

    THIS MEANS THERE IS NO NEED FOR THESE RED FLAG LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE. If someone is acting crazy then family members and/or police and/or medical professionals can have that person involuntarily held for up to 72 hours (or whatever the time limit is in that state) for psychological observation – and if they truly are a danger to themselves and/or others they can be formally diagnosed and committed. Problem solved. If they are NOT found to be a danger and are simply released after that state’s time period is up, they suffer no loss of rights and do not lose their right to own guns. Everyone’s constitutional rights are thus protected.

    That last bit – protecting every citizen’s rights – is why gun grabbing Domestic Enemies of the U.S. Constitution do not find existing laws to be enough. Any reason compelling enough to forcibly confiscate someones firearms is compelling enough to have them held for observation in the local “psych ward”, where they can be properly observed and if diagnosed with something, committed to a mental institution.

    These red flag laws not only serve no valid purpose, they are in direct opposition to and in defiance of your right to Due Process. If government officials can arbitrarily scrap your right to Due Process – your right to a trial by jury in a court of law BEFORE the government can punish or deny your rights and etc. – they can scrap the entire U.S. Constitution. Due Process is fundamental to our entire system of law and order, and these red flag laws completely disregard it, and in so doing, undermines our entire constitutional system of government. These red flag laws really are that dangerous.

    1. avatar 22winmag says:

      Thank you sir. There is nothing new about ERPOs… except the “grab his guns” clauses.

  41. avatar Joseph says:

    Anything that is promulgated with the intention of due process AFTER the government seizure of property is dangerous in the extreme. No Red Flag Laws, period.

  42. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I will describe two simple scenarios which further illustrate why extreme risk protection orders should not exist.

    Police break down your door at 5:00 a.m. and forcibly remove all of your family’s cell phones, land lines, and computers because a relative said (without any proof) that you were going to issue bomb threats to sensitive/crowded venues with the intent of causing multiple injuries/deaths in the ensuing evacuation chaos. Your family cannot borrow, purchase, nor possess phones and computers for several months. And you will spend thousands of dollars on attorneys to prove that you will not issue bomb threats.

    Police break down your door at 5:00 a.m. and forcibly put a chastity belt on you because a relative said (without any proof) that you have raped several women and are going to rape several more. You cannot remove that chastity belt for several months while you spend thousands of dollars on attorneys trying to prove that you did not rape any women and that you will not rape any women in the future.

    I hope readers see how horrific such “preventive actions” are for the subject of the extreme risk protection order. Perhaps even more important, I hope readers see how impossible it is for the subject of the extreme risk protection order to somehow prove that they will not rape/maim/murder someone in the future.

    We must not ever deprive people of their rights for months/years, confiscate their property, and force them to pay thousands of dollars to recover their rights and property — founded on accusations and speculation. Whatever the supposed venue of risk entails is irrelevant.

    1. avatar Troubled Soul says:

      I wouldn’t have missed this for anything
      I am saving this to use for later
      I’ve had this conversation at work with the “We’ve got to do something “ crowd.
      Thanks for the analogy
      This law is really just a weapon
      Supposed you lawfully open carry
      Your neighbors are freaking out at the sight of a gun.
      They call the police and complain that they are not safe
      In an unfriendly to your rights state, the police Use the Court to have your guns removed
      You have to pay thousands of dollars to get them back
      Neighbors call the police again…..
      You have to do this again
      Think that won’t happen?
      Remember the girl in Massachusetts who just got evicted because her roommates “suspected” she had a gun.

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        One of the ERPO cases in Seattle a few months ago. Fellow open carries. Neighbors ‘felt threatened.’ He had a mean look on his face, they said.

        And he lost his guns. Mean looks are such absolute indicators of mass murderers. We all knew that, of course.

        You said it best: these laws are weapons against gun owners. That’s all. ‘Public safety’ is pure bullshit. If public safety was really what it was all about, they would mandate every home have a gun, and people know how to use it. Carrying a gun wouldn’t be simply a right; it would be a responsibility: to self, family, community. We would be a much safer society. And, as the saying goes, much more polite.

  43. avatar Jonathan-houston says:

    You know, for a mental health worker, “Elaine”, you sure do make a lot of assumptions here about what countless other people are doing, feeling, planning, or thinking, That sounds unscientific and unprofessional. Sounds like you are what’s wrong with the system and these new orders.

  44. avatar neiowa says:

    WHO now owns this “new improved” TTAG? Soros, Blimpberg, Barry? Sad

  45. avatar pg2 says:

    Elaine-Soft selling gun control. Didn’t waste the calories to read it.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Soft selling? She’s angling so that her and her profession are the ones that have the only say in who owns a gun. Anybody that currently owns a gun will have to be cleared by her profession and anybody that wants to own one going forward will have to go thru the process.

      She is the worst kind of tyrant. She is a believer that she does what is right and best for human kind.

      From this point forward I will not reply to or click onto any post or comment made by elaine.

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        With you on that. Only clicked to leave this comment, will never give the click to her articles again.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        I meant to say she ‘knows’ what is right and best, not that she ‘does’.

      3. avatar Jonathan-houston says:

        Scary, given that the bulk of people in her profession go into it to figure out what’s wrong with themselves.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          The first thing I learned in ‘higher’ education 40 years ago. That every Psyc major I met was as nutty as the proverbial fruitcake.

      4. avatar Eli2016 says:

        “She is the worst kind of tyrant. She is a believer that she does what is right and best for human kind.”

        Yes. She may well believe that she is doing this for the sake of human kind. But the fact that she has taken the time to present this information leads me to think otherwise. I don’t think she is focusing on what’s right or wrong. I think she is trying to get the “pulse” of the gun rights movement on TTAG. She has stated before that the people who post here constitute less than 1% of the gun owning crowd. Only a fool would think she is trying to change the minds of the over 100 million gun owners in this country.

        For now I’m giving her the benefit of the doubt. But with caution. She certainly has not changed how I feel or think about ERPO.

      5. avatar frank speak says:

        if she wants respect…she ain’t going to find it here…too many stories of misuse and abuse of authority…i’ve actually got several more I could cite….

  46. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Bill of Rights

  47. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Bill of Rights

  48. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Bill of Rights

  49. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    Bill of Rights

  50. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Bill of Rights

  51. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Bill of Rights

  52. Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Bill of Rights

  53. avatar Ian in Transit says:

    Two problems here. First is with TTAG. New management needs to take notice

    “This article will, no doubt, upset many gun owners because it doesn’t immediately come out against so-called extreme risk protection orders and similar laws.”
    You allow one of your main contributors to start an article with this intent and then avoid contributing to the conversation? If I need to explain the problems here in more detail then the extra words would be a waste anyway. I enjoy a good exchange about conflicting opinions but the article goes against everything TTAG stands for with no exchange to elaborate why.

    Elaine, as others have said above in other words . . . if a person can justifiably be deemed a danger to themselves and others why are they left on the street at all. If you are going to send multiple armed people to invade their home, defile the most basic of natural rights and steal they and their families property, and kill them if they don’t submit . . . you better have enough evidence to simply remove them from the public space. If you don’t then you don’t. If they are dangerous enough to fear, simply taking away one means of hurting people is pointless to the point of insult. Your willingness to send armed oath breakers to violate the rights of your fellow man based only on the word of another deeply disturbing.

    Ignoring the inevitable comments in this thread that don’t need to be dignified with a response I am curious to see how you respond to some of the specific questions and examples that counter your position.

  54. Proposed 13 June 1866
    Ratified 9 July 1868

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    Adaption of the 14th

  55. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Others have pointed out that you do not get a chance to rebut the accusation until AFTER they have seized your guns.
    There are never any penalties for false accusations.
    So every angry spouse or child can harass you with knowingly false accusations.
    This is a feature of these red flag laws

  56. avatar New Continental Army says:

    TTAG skidding down that slippery slope of liberalism.

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      I don’t mind the actual discussion here- it should challenge firearms owners/those who revere and love the Constitution to search within and be able to defend their positions verbally. Make your best argument, sell it to the others here, then, hopefully, to the masses.

      To advocate limiting the context and content here is no different than the Leftists and MSM doing likewise by ignoring or drowning out all objection and there is constant whining and moaning on TTAG about that. I’ve never been one to sit around in my own little world and consort only with those of a like mind or even culture- the challenge to defend one’s principles and promote them openly should be met with enthusiasm when ever the opportunity arises. Think and express.

      Of course it’s a lot less work to just go around telling those who do not agree to go fuck themselves. And it really cements the validity of your argument or principles to the rest of the world.

      As far as I’m concerned, about the worst that comes from participating here, including myself, is that intelligent observers can, after a bit of reading, predict the opinions of various posters before it’s published here.

      1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

        “As far as I’m concerned, about the worst that comes from participating here, including myself, is that intelligent observers can, after a bit of reading, predict the opinions of various posters before it’s published here.”

        I too enjoy conversations with conflicting opinions. Resistance makes muscles strong, including the brain. If only there was participation from more than one side of the conversation. All TTAG/Elaine did in this post was stir the pot, then run away with the spoon. We are all still waiting for the conversation.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Yeah, strange, she always came back to justify her views. Perhaps got tired of trying to stick up for herself. That’s a battle I don’t back away from unless someone can convince me I am wrong.

  57. avatar Lt Dave says:

    Since a sitting US Senator is more statistically likely to be used in a crime than a firearm, perhaps we need to direct our attention in that direction, especially when there are far more victims of this offense than those associated with a firearm.

  58. avatar Ark says:

    There is no point in reading ERPO laws because the states that passed them immediately started expanding them to everybody and their grandpa the next year.

    ERPO is piecemeal confiscation.

  59. avatar Peter Clark says:

    I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we throw the subject of the ERPO, into a lake. If they float then they are guilty or whatever the accuser says. Of course if they sink they probably weren’t after all. By the way, if the subject floats, they could just be burned at the stake because wood also floats.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      yeah,..it is starting to look reminiscent of the inquisition…where’s the ACLU when you need it?…..

  60. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

    Elaine D. drops this ‘turd’ and never responds to the questions people pose to her in response.

    It say a whole lot about Elaine D.

    And none of it good…

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      lol … she’s probably going … ‘Hmm … this one definitely has ‘agitator’ written all over him … now, THIS one … my my my … clearly anger issues going on … I see we have a ‘rebel’ here … very, very interesting …. thank God we have these ERPO laws, for people just like this!’ … lol ….

      She’ll respond soon, I expect, or she’ll never post again!

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        she’s probably thinking of turning you all in!….

        1. avatar Broke_It says:

          You get it. She’s a “professional” therapist. She’s using this and probably other blogs to further whatever her real intentions are. I’ve seen this before and it’s the problem with all monsters, they look and act just like us.

  61. avatar Jep says:

    I cant think of any gun control legislation that accomplished the to the stated reasons for the law — reductions in gun violence, shootings, murders, etc. I’m sure some exist, but I can’t think of any.

    What I do know is these laws rarely make any difference and when they don’t work, the next solution offered is more gun control. The end game is to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take guns away from all citizens. Well, all but the “right” citizens, of course.

  62. avatar Broke_It says:

    Well, that didn’t take long. I’ve known you were full of shit since your first piece, and now here you are using sooooo many words again to try and justify what is proven to be a lethally stupid idea. Fuck you and your special casing “I’m a POC,” “I’m a professional,” “I’m a woman,” ass. What you are is another authoritarian who’s now discovered they could bear arms and suddenly has an opinion about anyone else doing the same. You are the problem Elaine D. and you have outed yourself as such.

  63. avatar Broke_It says:

    Another point of concern, this is Elaine’s field. Has it occurred to anyone else that she’s mining data on some concept of “gun owners” represented here and elsewhere to help tailor whatever other onerous version of ERPO or gun control bill needs an “experts” consultation? Maybe I’m overly cautious but if I’m correct then she has indeed struck gold.

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