Vermont Teens Planned a School Shooting So Police Confiscated a Relative’s Guns

According to Addison County (Vermont) Independent News Service, two 14-year-old Middlebury Union Middle School students planned to take part in a school shooting earlier this week. Apparently, another student who overheard the two suspects discussing their plans told their parents and the parents relayed the information to the Middlebury Police Department.

In a statement by Middlebury Police Chief Tom Hanley,

“By early Monday, we had identified two people, one of whom had made a specific threat against a specific person in the school, with a date and time on when this was going to happen,” Hanley said. …

“Once we determined this threat was specific, included specific targets, and was to be executed at a specific time and date, that raised the level (of concern),” Hanley said. “It was more than idle chatter from someone blowing off steam.” …

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

As a law enforcement officer, I’m all for identification and investigation of potential threats. My own area had a similar situation occur. Except in the case here, the investigating agency only confiscated the guns of the actual suspect.

The issue with this case in Vermont is the language of the law and how the was situation was handled. The Vermont statute is plain as day.

§ 4053. PETITION FOR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER 
(a) A State’s Attorney or the Office of the Attorney General may file a petition requesting that the court issue an extreme risk protection order prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person’s custody or control. The petitioner shall submit an affidavit in support of the petition.
(b) Except as provided in section 4054 of this title, the court shall grant relief only after notice to the respondent and a hearing. The petitioner shall have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
(c)(1) A petition filed pursuant to this section shall allege that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.
(2)(A) An extreme risk of harm to others may be shown by establishing that:
(i) the respondent has inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm on another; or
(ii) by his or her threats or actions the respondent has placed others in reasonable fear of physical harm to themselves; or
(iii) by his or her actions or inactions the respondent has presented a danger to persons in his or her care.
(B) An extreme risk of harm to himself or herself may be shown by establishing that the respondent has threatened or attempted suicide or serious bodily harm.
(3) The affidavit in support of the petition shall state:
(A) the specific facts supporting the allegations in the petition;
(B) any dangerous weapons the petitioner believes to be in the respondent’s possession, custody, or control; and
(C) whether the petitioner knows of an existing order with respect to the respondent under 15 V.S.A. chapter 21 (abuse prevention orders) or 12 V.S.A. chapter 178 (orders against stalking or sexual assault).
(d) The court shall hold a hearing within 14 days after a petition is filed under this section. Notice of the hearing shall be served pursuant to section 4056 of this title concurrently with the petition and any ex parte order issued under section 4054 of this title.
(e)(1) The court shall grant the petition and issue an extreme risk protection order if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.

The news story mentions that one of the suspects was going to obtain the firearms they intended to use in the shooting from a relative. That relative is an innocent third party. But law enforcement obtained an extreme risk protection order against the relative and confiscated that person’s guns.

Middlebury police investigators successfully applied to a court official for an “extreme risk protection order” that allowed them to temporarily remove firearms from the home from which one of the youths was going to access guns to use in the planned shooting.

According to the news report and the law as written, the actions taken by law enforcement were illegal and should have been prevented by the presiding judge.

This case raises serious questions about judicial review in gun violence restraining order cases. Many who push for “red flag” laws claim that the courts will weigh the evidence at hand and the law equally without violating individual rights. The Vermont law clearly states that it is only applicable when “prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person’s custody or control.”

But in this case, the firearms in question were owned by a relative and kept in another home. Having potential access to them by criminal means like theft doesn’t qualify under the law.

In this case, police seized the firearms of an individual who wasn’t part of the plot to commit the shooting. The un-named relative likely had no knowledge of the the teens’ plans.

The seizure of the guns in this case clearly isn’t permitted under Vermont’s law as written. But in practice, judges who consider these petitions will, in all likelihood, grab the guns first and ask questions later. The last thing they want is to deny a request in a case that later results in injury or death. Gun (and property) rights will always be secondary considerations.

What if the suspects in this case had planned to steal the guns for their attack from a retailer like Cabela’s or a local FFL? Would the ERPO have then shut down the FFL and confiscated all of the store’s firearms? Would the judge have approved that request?

comments

  1. avatar Tom T says:

    Wow. That is SO wrong. How did we let it get this far?

    1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      Elaine D. tried to explain why this was a good thing to us once but never replied again. Perhaps she can enlighten us this time? Maybe she will just wait until hers are the ones confiscated.

      1. avatar kahlil says:

        real intelligent comment, thanks for blessing us with your commentary.

      2. avatar Big Sky says:

        Man it’s sure getting hot in here. Any of you other frogs notice it?

      3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        her head is so up someone else’s hand! this is all her fault.

      4. avatar Ian in Transit says:

        I was hoping for a genuine response from her. Hopefully this drivel doesn’t discourage her enough to stay silent.

      5. avatar pg2 says:

        She’s a full on gun control troll. Posters having dialogue with her that don’t realize this are not very bright.

      6. avatar possum says:

        I like Elaine d. That story about the operator was funny. I don’t think you’ve caught on to Elaine’s sense of humor. She’s trolling, sure, but in a good way.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Haven’t her read her statism soft sell for some time.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Possum

          Glad you enjoyed it. He drove more than an hour and a half several times to meet me for those interviews, he was so excited that someone wanted to know about his life story. More to come.

        3. avatar Joe says:

          Go ahead and indulge statist trollers. If you’re lucky she’ll smile at you when you are dragged into the gulag. Maybe even flash you her tits right before she put you up against the wall.

      7. avatar Caesar Sanchez says:

        Elaine D. Is a garbage writer. Once D. Zim took over this place went to shit.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Once D. Zim took over this place went to shit.”

          And you visit here because why?

        2. avatar Fully Involved says:

          ^ You know, I’m wondering the same thing myself.

          My reply to FtheD (see above) also applies to you as well, Caesar.

        3. avatar Caesar Sanchez says:

          Sam I Am— because I’m holding on to the hope that one day this website will go back to producing good content instead of this trash all these new idiots put out.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…because I’m holding on to the hope that one day this website will go back to producing good content instead of this trash all these new idiots put out.”

          Please define “good content” and “trash”. And further illuminate your reasoning for hoping for something you are not getting.

          Except for lack of focus on Israeli supermodels, things look pretty normal.

        5. avatar Broke_It says:

          We need those Israeli hotties back in the mix. I know, I know, “sexism!” they’ll all scream. Fuck ’em, gun owners are gonna get painted in a bad light no matter how we choose to tread, bring back the models!

        6. avatar Michael Buley says:

          lol … great comment, Broke_It! Yes, the fact that we own guns — whoa! bad boys, those ones! yes, we’re all the ‘ism’s and ‘ist’s, so we may as well live the part and embrace it all! Hot models — yes! lol …. Needed good laugh — thank you!

        7. avatar doesky2 says:

          Yes another upvote for young Israeli military women in their unmentionables.

          Or at least a weekly artwork contribution from Oleg Volk.

          https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=z6O7XISzBo-2swXjyqzgCg&q=oleg+volk+gun+nudes&oq=oleg+volk+gun+nudes&gs_l=img.3…4832.6909..7101…0.0..0.127.1137.0j10……1….1..gws-wiz-img…….35i39j0i30j0i24.pYhkk4mOeL4

      8. avatar Fully Involved says:

        -__- That was completely uncalled for, FtheD.
        Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn’t make them “worthless trash” or a “virus”. If you want to have a civil and productive discussion, then please respectfully tolerate and consider viewpoints that differ from your own.
        I get that this is the internet and that you can anonymously say whatever you want, but please, let’s refrain from callous comments that degrade TTAG to the level of any given youtube comment section.

        We are systematically losing our rights and we are not going to win this fight by shouting and name-calling. Only intelligent and open-minded discussions and debate will allow us to arrive at the most logical (and hopefully most agreeable) course of action.

        For the record, ElaineD’s perspective and contributions to TTAG prevents this place from becoming one giant circle jerk. We should be thanking her, not insulting her.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We should be thanking her, not insulting her.”

          Can you think of a time we thanked anyone who consistently pushed gun-grabber political statements? We have seen the likes of the whatever gender before, and soundly trashed them.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          For the record, ElaineD’s perspective and contributions to TTAG prevents this place from becoming one giant circle jerk. We should be thanking her, not insulting her.

          Sounds like you stay at TTAG and never leave to go interact with others on other websites. So sounds like this is your problem, not ours. I engage plenty on other sites. Daily almost. I would recommend you do so also to sharpen your debate blade. If you are reliant on Elaine D to sharpen you, I would recommend you go elsewhere from TTAG to discuss. Nobody comes to TTAG to sharpen their 2A debate tactics (unless they are from the left!).

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” Nobody comes to TTAG to sharpen their 2A debate tactics (unless they are from the left!).”

          If true, the worse for us.

          (PS – you can’t debate yourself and hone debate skills at the same time)

      9. avatar Fully Involved says:

        “Can you think of a time we thanked anyone who consistently pushed gun-grabber political statements? We have seen the likes of the whatever gender before, and soundly trashed them.” – Sam I Am

        Yep, we sure have, and look where it’s gotten us. The 2A is more compromised now than it ever has been before. Doing the same thing over and over again while still expecting change is insane. It’s high time we change our approach.

      10. avatar Broke_It says:

        I gotta go with fthed on this one. Whatever Elaine really is and is really about, it ain’t what she uses so many words to tell us that is. I’d say wolf in sheep’s clothing but her approach is clumsy and heavy handed. Like the wolf phoned it in on disguise day. I wouldn’t worry about our comments stopping her. She’ll just ignore and pick and choose what to reply to only to be back tomorrow with her next great literary piece glorifying mall ninjas or pushing for these dogshit laws. It’s what they do.

      11. avatar Sprocket says:

        Everyone give a big TTAG welcome to Fully Involved, our newest concern troll. For anyone unfamiliar with the term; a concern troll is someone of an opposing ideology who joins an online community with the intent of posing as a member of that community to undermine it. In this case, much like some other other recent notables, the idea is advanced that it is benefits us to embrace the reasonableness of the anti-2A position. The goal, of course, is to weaken our opposition more gun control.

      12. avatar Fully Involved says:

        @ Anonymous:
        I’ve ghosted through r/gunsarecool and the websites of the big anti-gun organizations, but perhaps you’re right, maybe I do need more exposure to the opposition’s argument (if you can make any recommendations I’m all ears).
        That being said, my goal isn’t to beat someone in a debate, I personally don’t see that being too effective a tool at changing people’s opinions or promoting constructive dialogue. I aim more for casual and intelligent discussions to try to understand opposing positions, see things the way they do, so that I can better communicate with them and maybe get them to see things how I see them (or have mine changed, but with regards to this topic that’s unlikely as I have yet to hear a real compelling reason to restrict the 2A).

        The reason I like ElaineD is because she’s something of a rarity; she’s a democrat who likes guns to the point where she competes with pistols. I don’t know many democrats that have a favorable opinion of firearms much less competes with them. I think there is a lot we can learn from her, if we just hear her out.

        @ Sprocket:
        o.0 Huh, I’ve been called a lot of things but “concern troll”, that’s new. I don’t really know what I can do or say online to prove that I’m not some anti-2A spy. Being pro-2A is among my most strongly held beliefs, aside from that I’m politically pretty moderate and don’t consider myself a democrat or republican (both sides sometimes say things I agree with and sometimes say [or act] in a way I find detestable).
        My point is that to undo the damage done (and being done) to the 2A, I think we need to hear the other side out. I’m not saying agree with them, but hear them out. I don’t think calling people names or covering your ears and shouting “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” over and over again is doing much good.

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Intelligent, thoughtful comment, FullyInvolved. I agree. Name-calling shuts everything down, sarcasm, etc. Now, if the other side uses those ‘techniques,’ then it still shuts down the conversation. But then we know we’re dealing with someone who has no interest in discussion, only shutting down free speech and the right to own guns. Let’s not be the ones who shut down conversation.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But then we know we’re dealing with someone who has no interest in discussion,”

          It is a waste of valuable range time to try to “discuss” anything with gun-grabbers. So, I take the quick way out…”Is there anything that could cause you to change your mind about private ownership of firearms?” The answer is always, “No”. Why bother with anything after that?

        3. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Sam, you make good points. I’ll say that I never try to engage in conversation about guns with family. I’m the lone gun advocate in a family of six kids / many grandkids. If they knew what I owned and how much ammo, I’m not certain one of them might not become ‘concerned’ about my ‘mental health’ and make a phone call resulting in the infamous ERPO. I’m not eager to have my stuff confiscated.

          It actually becomes part of the danger we face in owning guns. Media indoctrinates people into believing that gun owners are mentally ill. And we are accused of being such; we are considered dangerous by owning a gun, this presumption without proof. No different than whites are presumed racist no matter what, because we are white; so says the front cover of National Geographic and endless other magazines.

          So having conversations about it becomes risky business. It becomes ‘rational’ and in the interests of ‘the children’ or ‘public safety’ to express this concern about someone who owns a lot of guns and ammo. Do I own a lot? I don’t know. Under 15 guns. More ammo than most. And that’s extreme to most people, certainly to any of the uninformed / uneducated / well-meaning useful idiots.

          Of course we can talk about guns without declaring what we own, and I never disclose that to anyone in my family, or to the couple of friends that I have.

          It’s funny. If you spend $50k on a new truck, hey, right on, man, cool, good for you, you deserve it. Spend $5k – $10k (or whatever) on guns / ammo? omg what is the matter with you?

          “Here’s my truck I spent $50k on! What do you think?” clap clap clap …

          “Here my .45, my .40, my couple of 9mm’s, my shotgun, and an AR-15. All told about $5k in them! And over here are 10,000 rounds of 9mm, only a couple thousand more!” gasp, shock, concern … lol ….

          I don’t entirely agree with you that closed minds can’t be opened. If we do have conversations about it, it’s good to keep the doors open, use examples of situations, stories we’ve heard. It’s not impossible. And there are lots of real-life stories that make our points for us — people who were armed and defended themselves, and people who were not, and had a different outcome.

          Many cards are stacked against us. I’m not sure how any of this is going to end well, I’ll put it that way.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If we do have conversations about it, it’s good to keep the doors open, use examples of situations, stories we’ve heard. It’s not impossible.”

          Looking at the political signs in the neighborhood yards, I am the only gun owner in sight (which I do not advertise; actually put an anti-gun legislation sign in my yard). Made it a point to not know my neighbors other than by sight when on walkabout (which almost cost me a security clearance).

          When a gov’t employee, got into several conversations about law, constitution, caring, no borders, guns. None of my acquaintances lived in my part of town. Tried using statistics, and pointing out that there were hundreds of instances of DGUs saving a life. The response was that no private individual had the right to be judge, jury, executioner; that is what police and courts are for. Did manage to get people to admit it was better for an innocent person to be killed than society allow other private citizens to use any weapon to kill the attacker (people saying that had no sense of irony).

          All of the above drove me to asking the question, “What would change your mind….”

          I just don’t have time, interest or willingness to go on unicorn hunts.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I think we need to hear the other side out. ”

          Are you convinced we have not already heard each and every one of their repetitions screeds about disarming the public (except for gangs, inner-city criminals and terrorists) through any means necessary?

          Everything the anti-gun people say is merely window dressing for “Nobody should own guns except police and military”. What few “conversions” happen are not the rule, but the oddity. You cannot have rational conversation with people driven by irrational fear.

      13. avatar Elaine D. says:

        I am really puzzled as to why you would think this. I clearly stated in my piece that I was neither for nor against them but that since they have arrived I was waiting to see how they would play out.

        Unlike many others here, I conduct myself with both class and restraint and this includes my weapons practice. As such, I’m unlikely to do the stupid shit that is getting people’s guns taken away. So thanks for the concern, but I kind of don’t think I’m going to be the first person on that list, especially since I’ve likely already gone through being vetted by the FBI as well as several types of background checks and have not been found to be wanting in terms of being a safe person.

        And you know what?
        A warrior fights with what she has. If I don’t have a gun, I’ll keep on honing my fighting with my machete, cane, hatchet, and knives.

        Thanks,
        Elaine D.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “I’m unlikely to do the stupid shit that is getting people’s guns taken away.”

          Stupid shit like having a dipshit relative run their mouth about *your* guns? Because that’s all it takes these days, apparently.

    2. How about lock up the two teens, and use “Real” due process. And I’d bet the two middle schoolers are still free to continue their masterplan. Sad!!!!!

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        NO SPANK the little SOBs and put them to digging large holes and filling in.

        1. avatar Tom Worthington says:

          I’m thinking that the digging of deep holes and then filling them in is going to be a very useful skill in the very near future…for many of us.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        That was my thinking when I read the story and links.
        Conspiracy to commit murder is a felony. The people involved should be locked up, regardless of age, if the police took the threat seriously enough to request a taking.
        IANAL, but it seems the police completely misunderstands just who is the threat in this case.

        1. avatar Anon in Ct says:

          Without knowing more, it doesn’t sound like the cops would have enough for a Conspiracy charge if it was just talk so far.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          The cops need an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to prosecute the teens.

          Sounds like the relative shouldn’t have been so loosey goosey with his or her firearms such that demented teens had access despite being locked up. School shooting averted! Lives saved! Added bonus: it’s one less bloody headline for antis to use to snatch my rights.

          Bottom line is if you have nutjobs in your midst, especially in your family, then start taking steps not to be part of the problem. You could get killed (Sandy Hook mom and others), sued into oblivion (Columbine parents), or just live in guilt for your inadvertent (but careless) complicity. Now, add in the prospect of losing your guns if you aren’t careful with them. It’s about time that the consequences start focusing on those who are actually involved in these situations, instead of all owners. Yes, this law is poorly written and incompetently enforced. Still and all, it’s a stumble in the right direction.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Right direction?

          How far do you think it is between pre-crime gun confiscation, and pre-crime incarceration?

        4. avatar Broke_It says:

          Using your impeccable logic why not just GVRO every gun owner? Then the guns will all be safe from possible thefts from outside parties.

      3. avatar FedUp says:

        They locked up the threat, and removed the threat’s alleged supplier from the school, which obviously separated the threat from the supplier’s uncles guns.

        Unfortunately, the uncle was unarmed with all his guns locked up when the home invasion robbers came to rob or murder him, so he chose to be a robbery victim instead of a murder victim.

        Should have been a defensive gun use.

      4. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        I’m pretty sure I overhead a crowd of rough characters talking about ‘doing something’ on a subway. And that they definitely had access to all the firearms at the local police station armory. We definitely need to get those guns taken away… (/sarc)

        Random, insipid, hearsay is now the standard for denying a citizen their natural rights. Awesome…

      5. avatar Southern Cross says:

        What’s to stop the miscreants from getting a can of gasoline and some matches after blocking the fire exits?

        It works for Boko Haram when they attack schools in Africa.

        1. avatar Joe says:

          EXACTLY.

          If someone is so over the deep end they should have the firearms confiscated (or so jihadi they should not be allowed to fly), WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO DRIVE, or own KITCHEN KNIVES.

          in case its not clear: if they haven’t made an overt threat then they should be left alone. If they have, make the case and deport the, lock them up

          Oh and we need severe prison time for ex wives who call in any fake “he’s crazy, take his guns!” charges.

      6. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Let me see if I have this straight. So if there’s a plan to shoot up whatever, and some kid claims he can get access to the firearms the state Supreme Court Justice has locked up in his gun safe in the next town over, the cops are going to show up and confiscate the guns of a man completely uninvolved? At gunpoint, no doubt? Or would he be exempt because of his exalted position, go screw the guy next door?

      7. avatar Alex G says:

        The judge should have issued a warrant to arrest the teens, and then after a “Show Cause” hearing ordered them held in Juvenile Detention until all facts are known and a informed and legal disposition can be imposed on the teens. Seizing an innocent individual firearms because they may be in the future stolen and may be used to commit a future crime is clearly illegal and unconstitutional!

    3. avatar kevin says:

      Because the teens said they had access to the guns- one of them might have known the safe combination or had a key. Still, they should have simply ensured that the combo was changed or the security situation beefed up. Maybe that couldn’t be accomplished?

      1. avatar Surlycmd says:

        If the little sh!t was in a holding cell he wouldn’t have access either.

        1. avatar OggyMn says:

          Exactly !!!!

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        I see where you’re coming from Kevin, but this is still wrong headed. No additional burden needs to be places on the innocent law abiding owner of these guns. The way to prevent a particular person from stealing guns to commit a murder is to incarcerate the person making the threats.

        Think about it this way: If I keep calling the police saying I’m going to steal your gun and kill someone, should the police make sure your gun is locked up or that I’m locked up? If you put your gun in a safe, and I then call the police again saying I’m going to steal your torch to cut my way into ypur safe to steal ypur gun so I can kill someone, should you then have to lock up ypur torch? What if I next say I will steal ypur car and run over someone with it? Is that when the police should immobilize your car? What if the next plan is to use gas from the flags station to burn a victim? Would you then close the gas station?

        There should never be burdens or consequences inflicted by the law upon the victim of a crime, only on the perpetrator. Only the perpetrator has control over their actions, not the victim and only the perpetrator has responsibility for his actions.

        In this case the victim of a robbery conspiracy was then victimized again by the police when they actually did steal his guns. Even with the due process and 2nd amendment issues aside, what these cops and this judge have done demonstrates a massive failure of logic and reason. Firstly, they penalize the victim rather than the perpetrator. Second, since this persons guns aren’t the only lethal means in the world they have essentially done nothing at all to prevent the conspirators from committing murder. Unless these cops and this judge are just blatant anti civil rights types who think all guns are bad, they must be colossaly stupid. There it is again, crazy, stupid or evil…just unbelievable.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Blue dominated Northeast communities are a certain kind of special. I imagine it would be worse without the winters.

        2. avatar Kahlil says:

          @ardent well said

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…what these cops and this judge have done demonstrates a massive failure of logic and reason.”

          Actually….no.

          There was exquisite logic and reason applied. Just like with gun owners, for police and courts, “safety first” – everything else after. By any means necessary, cops are going to choose their safety first. No different for judges (which one wants to deny a confiscation order, then have a murder on their docket?). Safety in both instances. Combine the police safety policy, and the judicial safety policy, and the logic and reason are quite explainable. You just gotta gitcher mind right.

      3. avatar Nigel the expat says:

        Random, insipid, hearsay is now the standard for denying a citizen their natural rights.

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Or one of the teens was bragging to his buds and was full of shit. How about the guns of the other 1000 nearest owners, the little turd probably could get access to those, too, should we stop at the state line, or just keep going?

      5. avatar Charles Ross says:

        Change combo or keys; tell dad to NOT GIVE BOY DIRECT ACCESS.

        Always kept mine Locked up ready gun was also locked separately . Came home on day found a recorded message on answering machine; My daughter boy friend pleaded with my daughter to get him a firearm from me so he could shoot his drug dealer who had cheated him on a drug dealer; This was 30 + years ago; she told me few years back some other stuff were he went lot overboard with guns he carried; suggested to her at one point that if she hunted around (or asked her brother in Boy Scout for introduction to some of herfriends older brothers and she could find a kid who could chew gum, walk and talk at same time and maybe carry on a conversation.)
        When I check my ready gun location, scratch marks around the key hole (drawer on wooden dresser). It got moved to metal case.

      6. avatar David Jaques-Watson says:

        Kevin wrote: “Still, they should have simply ensured that the combo was changed or the security situation beefed up. Maybe that couldn’t be accomplished?”

        The story says the firearms were taken *temporarily*, so maybe this was done _in order_ for the security to be beefed up.

        As for incarceration, the story says the kids were 14 years old. You’d need to check what Vermont law says about incarcerating kids – even nut-jobs who plan massacres.

        Obviously we’re not getting the full story about the investigation and subsequent decisions, and commenters are getting riled up over snippets of information and not the whole picture. Knowing all the facts may show things in a different light.

        But to all those protesting: would you rather have a bunch of dead school children, or an adult without his firearms for a temporary period of time?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But to all those protesting: would you rather have a bunch of dead school children, or an adult without his firearms for a temporary period of time?”

          To avoid what you fear would require building fortresses around schools, metal detectors, cavity searches, continuous locker searches, student vehicle searches (coming and going), random roll call, keeping students on campus (the way we used to do it), prohibiting all student contact with the outside during school activities.

          But all that is better than knee-jerk pre-crime confiscation of third-party firearms “because, just maybe, you never know, better we disarm the relatives, for the children” non-sense.

    4. avatar Gman says:

      Socialism.

      1. avatar tmm says:

        The problem with socialism is that you never run out of other people’s guns.

    5. Because we gave them the power. The people never think of the unintended consequences until there ARE unintended consequences. The Red Flag law can be used just like the “real” spousal abuse charges during divorce proceedings. If someone is mad at you, they will use whatever works. Best to be on good terms with your neighbors these days….you never know, they could call a Red Flag against you if they don’t like your petunias.

      1. My comment was supposed to be after Tom T’s comment. “Wow, that is SO wrong. How did we get this far.” I liked your comment. Sums it up.

    6. avatar Trump Supporter says:

      how did it get this far = 8 eight years of Progressive Liberal Demonicrats =Obama and the rest of the LOONEY LEFT and their One World Order . Schumer-Pelosi-Warren-Waters-Kerry-Lynch-Boehner-Brennan- and dont forget the RINO’S McCain-Ryan-Flake all very good reasons for term limits

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “how did it get this far = 8 eight years of Progressive Liberal Demonicrats”

        Didn’t begin with Obama. Started over 50yrs ago.

    7. avatar Ed in North Texas says:

      Not just wrong, but a violation of the relative’s Fifth Amendment right to be free of unlawful seizure of property. I have to say this Police Chief and the Judge are both really, really stupid (or dedicated anti-gunners – either is possible, or even both). The “plan” was exposed to the PD, the firearms were already in locked storage and now the PD and (presumably – I’d think the PD would notify the owner) owner are both aware of the plan to steal the firearms, which certainly should make them even more secure than simply locked storage. So why violate the law and Constitution? Comes back to stupidity and ignoring the constitutional right of the owner.

      1. avatar David Jaques-Watson says:

        Have you considered the firearm owner may not have been immediatley able to secure the firearms more safely? That the temporary cnfiscation was to get them out of immediate harms way, to be returned once a more secure location was organised?

        We have not been given the whole story of the investigations, decisions, or even the firearm owner’s response, so there’s no point in thinking the worst about the police or the courts. Their number one aim will be public safety. Once that is secured, then subsequent actions can be considered.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Have you considered the firearm owner may not have been immediately able to secure the firearms more safely? ”

          If the owner couldn’t secure the firearms immediately (there was a safe available), how did the cops secure the firearms immediately? Break into the third-party house and ransack, looking for guns?

    8. avatar Bill says:

      You let this get to this level of Nazi control by voting for these Democrat Socialist. Thas is how it got so far out of hand.. You stupid folks get what you vote for.. Every time you vote in office a Socialist you will LOOSE FREEDOMS…

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Hmmm…. isn’t this like the 4th VT “school shooting” incident in just a few months? What’s up with that?

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Hammer of authority looking for a nail in a land of screws

      1. avatar Bloving says:

        … I’m stealing that.
        🤠

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Welcome to it and hopefully these cases will get some judicial review as much of the populated areas of my neighbor are even crazier lefties than my home state’s cities

  3. avatar Robert Hutchings says:

    What if someone said he could get guns from a local police station, national guard post, etc.? This seems ripe for exploitation.

  4. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    So, the SOBs can invade any house they feel like? RFC. Let’s see then take the guns away from a cop whose relative threatened somebody. What’s good for the goose, right? I don’t have several pocket-size copies of the Constitution I could send to the station if I had its address.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      I am not sure how and why many of you all on TTAG have not yet realized the Constitution has become irrelevant.
      The right to bear arms has been infringed every day for decades. Prohibiting open carry (in many states), requiring a conceal carry permit/license, you cannot carry on a police station, a court, post office…
      People keep dreaming “something” is about to happen and “someone” will do “something” to fix issues. It is not going to happen, the same way it didn’t happen with the past restrictive legislation.
      Millions of Americans are dreaming about Trump every night. He is the messiah! MAGA! Now that he is finally showing his true face, they are a bit lost. I guess now they’ll just become sovereign citizen, or they’ll be waiting for the next “savior” with a big mouth full of empty promises.

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        Time to refresh the Tree of Liberty. This country can’t be saved any other way.

        1. avatar Mr. Fosi says:

          I always assume that people who talk like this are feds.

  5. avatar neiowa says:

    The head popo “we took advantage of” sums it up.

  6. avatar Gman says:

    Hey Luis,
    Don’t I at least get an honorable mention?
    re: White House School Safety Commission Recommends Gun Confiscation

  7. avatar HP says:

    So now that the threat has been resolved, when does this person get their guns back? Have they gotten them back already?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      The law allows for ‘up to’ six months, which in practice probably means ‘at least’ six months.

      If they’re willing to violate the law to the extreme that they already did in the initial seizure, what incentive do they have to obey the law in returning the stolen property?

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Hold on there sports fans. There has to be an evidentiary hearing within 14 days in which the prosecution/police has the burden of proof by “clear and convincing evidence” that it is necessary to deprive an innocent of his property in order to prevent a theft, when an arrest of the two teens and incarceration in juvenile hall while charges are pending for conspiracy to commit murder will not. Somehow I have to think that the police have a hard road ahead of them.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          *should have

          Given the area I doubt they will have much outcry (initially) if they just make shit up and retain possession for as long as possible. But I am always happy when I am proven wrong with this stuff so here is to hoping

  8. avatar Gman says:

    Apparently this relative was cooperative. I certainly would not have been. Thank you officers for alerting me to the situation, now have a nice day and leave. Wonder how that would work out?

    1. avatar Frank says:

      A Judge would end up issuing an order and you would give up your guns, freedom, or life. It’s easy to say woulda shoulda coulda until stuff gets real. You would most likely not be the winner in this outcome. It stinks but it’s our truth.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        At which point, sometime in the future, you would likely be getting a sizable settlement for false imprisonment.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          The guy they murdered in Connecticut won’t even be getting a sizeable settlement for wrongful death, nor will his heirs.

          When they come, they’re coming to rob you or kill you and rob you. And you usually get to choose which, but they don’t have to give you that choice.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not too well considering that the police showed up with a court order. The owner has an opportunity to challenge the order, and it is safer for him to challenge the court order rather than face criminal charges for interfering with the police as well as possible contempt charges. It is much easier to sue for violations of civil rights when you are still breathing.

  9. avatar Gman says:

    Middlebury Vermont is a small town with a population of about 8,500. I’ll bet everyone now knows who is involved, and the local hoodlums know which relative is now disarmed. The possibilities just keep getting worse. Unintended consequences are a bitch, but the left doesn’t care one bit.

  10. avatar Ark says:

    There is no “judicial review”. It’s a rubber stamp. No judge in his right mind would assume the risk of denying an order based on lack of evidence.

    It is clear now that ERPOs are granted to anyone who asks, for any reason, against anyone. In a few years there will be Vermonters who have HUNDREDS of ERPOs to their name.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I suggest that you go back and read the law, Ark. There is indeed judicial review of the order at an evidentiary hearing within 14 days. And the final order is probably appealable, though a petition for writ of mandate would seem to offer a faster method of obtaining review.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Mark, I think you are missing the point. How about you let us know when an ERPO request is denied, if we haven’t died of old age by then?

  11. avatar frankw says:

    Welcome to the Soviet States of America. The STASI couldn’t do better. This sort of crap could have been avoided if RINO governor Scott hadn’t signed the first gun control bill in VT history.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yes, that was certainly a huge shock from a GOP governor. The term “unimaginable” comes to mind.

  12. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    “…So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this…..”

    We Took Advantage….

    I’ll say it again. No good can come of this. There will be bad outcomes….non-breathing kind of outcomes on all sides.

  13. avatar Defens says:

    What a great exploitation of the law! I’m impressed. Now all they need to do is have a “credible threat” state that he was going to steal a gun – any gun – have they have reason to secure multiple red flag seizure orders and line up the JBTs to march door to door in a 5 mile radius around the perp’s residence, seizing every firearm.

  14. avatar Someoneagainstunconstitutionalbs says:

    anyone who supports red flag laws, PLEASE CHECK YOURSELF OUT TO CHINA. I cannot believe the amount of people that support such.

  15. avatar pg2 says:

    Makes as much sense as saying healthy non-vaccinated kids/adults are a threat to vaccinated people…

    1. avatar DK says:

      There’s a pretty good Penn & Teller episode that might help you understand how vaccines work and why they’re important.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        I’ve seen it, you must be in elementary school because that’s the intelligence level that video was aimed at.

  16. avatar Icabod says:

    Mibblebury is a small college town. No doubt the judge is both local and very liberal.
    Had the offender just said “My relative has guns and I can get them” how many of the offender’s relatives would had a police visit, search and seizure?
    Without doubt that’s the next step.

  17. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Extremely dangerous precedent, and a backdoor to firearms confiscation. Need to setup off site stashes because this will be exploited.

  18. avatar sound awake says:

    its like speeding
    most of us go 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit
    the government does the same thing
    except when they do it the bill of rights gets trampled
    thats why the law should to try to stop the government 5 to 10 mph before they hit what the actual limit should be
    now any kid that hates another kid that he knows that one or more of his relatives has guns all he has to do is say that he said he was going to go on a rampage with his relatives guns and then they go bye bye
    its like democrat politicians never heard about the law of unintended consequences
    oh wait no theyre democrat politicians so generally speaking they never suffer consequences
    see: hillary clinton james comey andrew mccabe james clapper john brennan et al

  19. avatar former water walker says:

    Yeah don’t put ALL your guns in a safe. Stash your gats…full on Nazi BS. Or a declaration of WAR😡

  20. avatar Michael Buley says:

    No worries. These laws will not be abused. We’re safe! whew …

    I’m sure the judge will be severely chastised and given a good talking to.

    This is comforting, all of it. I can sleep better at night now, knowing that someone I know might be overheard (or alleged to be overheard) saying that ‘he has guns, and we’ll go get one, and use that in a crime!’ … and completely unbeknownst to me, in the middle of the night, a dozen cops show up, lights flashing, bust down my door, terrorize my family, maybe with my reaction (since I don’t know who it is, but my door is busted down) being that I grab my .45 and as my bedroom is busted down (they might wait for me to say ‘Who is it? I’ll be right there!!), I shoot at the intruder, and I am then riddled with 30 or 40 shots. My poor pups, too.

    You see, they don’t need ‘proof.’ It’s mere allegations. It’s hearsay, which can be fabricated. ‘Someone told us that someone told us’ … and it will happen like this.

    The old example about I tell you a brief story comes to mind. Your job is to tell it to the next person. Who tells it to the next person. And by the 10th person, you can’t recognize the original story.

    Yes, I sleep better now! Whew!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You must work on a way to save the doggies!

      1. avatar Michael Buley says:

        No kidding, Larry! They take precedence over everyone else! lol ….

  21. avatar Michael says:

    It’s not irrelevant, it’s being used as toilet paper every day. Question is, what are they going to do when they run out?

  22. avatar joefoam says:

    Any implications for the judge issuing the order based on hearsay? I get that an abundance of caution will be used as a standard defense for issuing these orders but someone has to be held responsible for the innocent victim of the confiscation or everybody and their brother will be calling for them. Something along the lines of the penalties for false reporting of a bomb threat comes to mind to make someone think twice before asking for an order of this seriousness.

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      I think that the reality is that an abundance of caution will NOT be used, and without penalties for abuse — likely none of consequence — it will be used far more widely than law-abiding people would hope.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Don’t forget that these gun confiscation orders allow law enforcement to make the claim to a judge on their own. That means they can decide to confiscate your guns if they get upset with you; they can make a reasonable accusation that you are a threat to law enforcement or the government as a whole. Maybe someone like James Yeager will lose his guns and/or life.

        1. avatar Michael Buley says:

          Yes, under pretense of ‘public safety,’ the abuse will likely be huge. You have a run-in with someone? Heated argument? The impact, as they say about free speech, is ‘chilling.’

          It’s like the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act: ‘the government’ need only have a ‘reasonable’ suspicion that you are a ‘threat’ — to whom? To the government. And you can be incarcerated without limit, no representation, no habeas corpus. A simple ‘might be a threat,’ and you’re imprisoned indefinitely.

          Franklin’s words are always fitting: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

          Arguing with folks about the implementation of ERPO’s, concedes that they have a place — that infringing on our rights has a legitimate, legal place in our lives. “If we just make sure there’s due process” … ‘If it’s limited to x y z.’ ERPO’s are bad news, period. Yes, there may be lives lost because of the very rare mental case who actually does something with a gun, that possibly could have been averted. And the cost of ERPO’s will cost lives, as well, and cost our freedom, in the name of security and ‘public safety.’

          ‘For the children,’ for ‘public safety,’ will bring us to a disarmed society, one infringement at a time.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Joefoam, good point. Perhaps, if there is no followup *conviction* within a given amount of time, maybe a year or 18 months, the judge loses his job as does the police department head which enforced it, and the $10,000 bond required of the person requesting the order is forfeit to the person the order was served on. I bet that would do it!

  23. avatar Floyd Perry says:

    Why not just arrest the teen’s and put them behind bars for a while.
    A stupid law to confiscate the guns from a relative’s locked gun case.
    Something smells a bit fishy I would say.

  24. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    I think we should reserve judgement until we get all the facts. Did the 3rd party have the guns locked up in a safe? If he did not then the police may have errored on the side of caution. If he did have them in a safe was he questioned as to whether the kids had a key or combination to the safe? And if the kids were named why were they not immediately arrested rather than confiscate guns from a 3rd party. It seems as though the Judge acted out of blind panic rather than use logical thinking and legal procedure if the guns are proven later to have been locked up in a safe. Only when we know all the details will we really be able to make a judgement and I am sure that the home owner if he had the guns secured in a safe will sue and sue big time. At least he should sue if the kids did not have a key or a combination to his safe assuming he had them in a safe and if did not have them in a safe he probably does not have leg to stand on despite the red flag law not giving the cops the right to take them because the cops can come up with a dozen excuses to take anyone’s guns if they want to, its nothing new with them. Even such excuses as “causing public panic”, or “putting the public at risk because of irresponsible and reckless behavior” or “endangering himself or his family because of his actions or behavior” are only a few of the standard excuses the cops use so they can do just about anything they please.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Simple fact (if reported correctly), the teens issued a specific threat. That is sufficient grounds to arrest them, immediately. No need to try some lame brain scheme to thwart their intent by removing tools from a third party, regardless of how the teens planned to obtain firearms. If reported correctly, the guns were confiscated, and the teens remained at large.

  25. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Sounds like a case for a lawyer…to bankrupt the town…
    go for it…tech them a lesson…and the judge as well…although I know that will go nowhere

    1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      teach…
      please bring back the edit feature …grrr

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “please bring back the edit feature …grrr”

        “T’is a puzzlement”.

        The edit function comes and goes for me, and have found no root cause.

  26. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    If this stuff ISN’T stopped! Were all going to wake up one morning with Globalist NWO troops on our streets! This is reality! Our US Constitutional Bill of Rights is under attack by both political parties! We are in a situation! You can guarantee that the scope of red flag laws will be increased to include political ideologies, religions, social media activities: including right here on TTAG, etc….It will be just like (PRC) China!

  27. avatar GS650G says:

    If they caught the two perps then where is the danger?
    Oh I see, you knew or are related to them so your a problem as well.
    I’m only surprised they didn’t lock up the relatives too,

  28. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Calling Elaine D.
    I request social intercourse with you.

    Is this how the modern health care system is suppose to work? Instead of locking up a dangerous person, we confiscate the guns of a third party, who keeps their guns already locked up?

    We all know that Adam Lanza had access to his mother’s guns. He murdered her took the guns and then murdered those school children.

    Elaine D
    What about the mental health care workers who turned down Mrs. Landers request for help for her mentally ill son?

    Do mental health care, government workers, bear individual responsibility for their failure to make the right decision when a person under their observation murders another person?

    The mental health care system has mostly been taken over by the government correct? Yes I know there are people in private practice. But the evaluation in the system, that part of evaluating patients has mostly been taken over by the government, correct?

    In other words since the police (government workers) cannot be held individually responsible for failing to Save the lives of school children, such as in the Parkland case.

    Government healthcare workers with mentally ill people under their observation, those workers, also not be held responsible when crimes are committed, and they have failed to report their observations or pushed their recommendations to other authorities, if they believe the patient is a dangerous individual to others?

    How does the mental health profession explain that an individual who makes a threat of violence, murder, against another person, how does the mental health system justify allowing this person to roam freely?

    And instead a third-party innocent to the situation has their private property, their guns, confiscated by the government? Does the mental health care System prefer this solution?

    1. avatar Elaine D. says:

      @Chris T

      All of your questions require different and somewhat lengthy answers. I only get to this forum when I am not swamped with work, so it can take me a minute to see things I need to respond to.

      Re Adam Lanza:

      If you really do the reading available on AL’s history, it becomes quickly obvious that he was recommended for lots of intensive intervention early in life by a very well qualified mental health team. Had these interventions taken place, he might have developed very differently. It remains an unknown as to why his mother did not follow those recommendations and did not put him into the recommended treatment despite getting a gigantic child support check. So is the case of Adam Lanza really one of neglect by a parent that turned into an ugly result because of her negligence? They’re both dead, so we will never know.

      Regarding government takeover of mental health: Nope. I’m in private practice. Many others are as well. The only way you end up with “government” in the deal is if you go to a government funded clinic or end up in a jail or hospital or something. I will say that I have made a choice not to accept insurance to make sure that my clients’ private information stays only with me and is not submitted to insurance companies. That’s my decision as a practitioner, and no one keeps me from making it – it’s one I have the right to make.

      As far as “under observation,” that’s really only possible in a 24/7 environment like a jail or hospital. Outside of that, you might see a client maybe once a week. So about 99.7% of their life is something you don’t see. All you can do is speak to your own interactions with them, but simply by the nature of the therapeutic relationship, you don’t have the bulk of data about a person’s daily life that others – their partner, family, friends – will. All you can do is speak about what is discussed in sessions and if a person is planning something they may simply never tell you a thing.

      That said, I see people with PTSD and other issues daily and have for 10 years and not once has anyone I’ve seen become violent toward another person that I know of – at least I’ve never received a phone call from the cops. The two or three individuals who had those kinds of tendencies quickly dropped out of therapy and I never saw them again.

      Hope this helps your inquiry.

  29. avatar Joe says:

    “We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

    So throw the person in jail not the thing and wake up to the fact that there is an entire generation of sociopaths headed towards adulthood. Good job liberals — that one’s all on you.

  30. avatar John in IN says:

    So if the actual perps threatened to steal guns from a cop, would they disarm said cop? How about a Rural King?

    Somebody needs to sue the robes off of thst judge.

  31. avatar mark1955 says:

    Entirely made-up story!!!

    This “Fairy Tale” story, was created by the police, politicians and gun control establishment, to create a precedence, to start expanding the scope of ERPO’s without legislation and public in-put…There was never any threat made by 14 year old students or anyone else!

    Expect “Incidents” like this to start popping off all over the country, so non-family members and non-law enforcement, can start confiscating everyones firearms based on anonymous sources and without Due process.

  32. avatar Anonymous says:

    Elaine D says we need “diversity.”

    And what she means by that is we need to dilute 2A rights radicalism and accept gun regulations/legislation. LOL. We can be like European countries and still retain some gun rights. Like the right to fill out a form to apply for gun rights. LOL. So let’s diverse this shit up, be “inclusive” and include gun grabbers in our ranks. LOL.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      And it’s a logical sham. She talks about the democrat party being so inclusive and diverse. LOL

      If they are so inclusive – why didn’t they include gun owners!??? Why didn’t they include support for the 2A???!?? If they are so diverse – where are the pro 2A rights advocates in their ranks???!??

      The reason is obvious. She hasn’t thought it through.

      Why is she here on TTAG! talking about how 2A rights advocates need to be more inclusive and compromising – and NOT on huffpo or washpo or CNN or crooksandliars talking to them about Pro-2A advocacy? I’ll tell you why. Because she perceives the problem is here – and not there. Why isn’t she telling those places to be more inclusive of gun owners and diversify themselves with gun owners. Because she can’t see that – that’s why.

      Elaine,

      Please come back here for a talk. I’ll gladly weigh your comments and judge them for you. We can debate, and through the hammering of debate, the stone will disintegrate to reveal the diamond inside. Make it happen. If you are a real pro-2A advocate – make that happen for me.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Anonymous

        And where would you suggest a talk like this happen? In a comments section populated by people calling me names who don’t even read my clear position statements that are often outlined in the first or second sentence of an article: For example. My opening statement on the ERPO piece that said I was NEITHER FOR OR AGAINST THEM BUT WAITING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS SINCE THEY HAVE NOW ARRIVED.

        I am not in a place of giving up real discussion, but what happens here is not real discussion. It’s intolerance, insults, and some kind of reading/listening problem that I don’t quite get. This is not the format for any kind of “discussion,” not because insults bother me – they do not, because they are both expected and tossed out by people who do not have the cojones to write articles of any sort – but because they are repetitive and lead nowhere.

        Unlike many in this comment section, I have never called for people with views different than mine to be hung, shot, etc. Unlike many in this comment section, I am able to express my views and respectfully disagree with absolutely no name calling and no sweeping generalizations.

        It’s called “having class.” And that lack of class is why people like me stop responding and stop engaging. It gets old, and quite frankly it’s incredibly disappointing to see fully grown adults conducting themselves like this while simultaneously expecting their opinions to be respected. That is not going to happen. It demonstrates both poor character and poor self control, neither of which are things I lack, either as a human being or a gun owner.

        If you would like to have a discussion with me personally feel free to email Dan and he will forward your email to me.

        Thanks,
        Elaine D.

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          If you would like to have a discussion with me personally feel free to email Dan and he will forward your email to me.

          Absolutely not. The purpose of a debate is to slaughter your opponent logically, reasonably, and publicly. It’s purpose is to convince as many people as possible watching the debate to move in the direction of your reasoning.

          I am not in a place of giving up real discussion, but what happens here is not real discussion. It’s intolerance, insults, and some kind of reading/listening problem that I don’t quite get. This is not the format for any kind of “discussion,” not because insults bother me – they do not, because they are both expected and tossed out by people who do not have the cojones to write articles of any sort – but because they are repetitive and lead nowhere…

          It’s called “having class.” And that lack of class is why people like me stop responding and stop engaging.

          Sounds like you need to toughen up a bit. I’ve been at Huffpo, Washpo, USA today, and had thousands of people threatening me, insulting me, making ideological presuppositions about my position without even asking me about them. Some were horrifically vitriolic. When I first started, I took offense to them, and either attacked them or defended myself. But as time progressed, I realized that was counter productive. So I just roll with the blows, and only address those worth addressing.

          I give you this advice, because you’ll need it, after I turn you into a rights-responsibility appreciating individual that advocates for limited government and pro-freedom. The insults/complaints you receive here from others is because your top axioms are grossly different from those individuals here, and those individuals can’t articulate the difference for you to see, so in their frustration they just attempt to turn you away.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Also. This is the debate pyramid:
          https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5051/5448518826_0d330a9a23_b.jpg

          Notice that name calling is all the way there on the bottom. Also notice that the essence of your reply “responding to tone” is near the bottom too.

          You need to ignore the haters, and precisely, concisely, laser cut through real arguments with direct refutations. That will garner people’s attention. You wouldn’t think it would. You would think it would be boring to a lot of people. But it won’t. All are drawn to competence in whatever dimension of existence it manifests itself. Guns, debate, gymnastics.

          Just more advice for when I’ve persuaded you to see our point of view before you begin advocating for our point of view.

        3. avatar Michael Buley says:

          lol … superb comments, Anonymous! definitely laughing out loud! You spoke very articulately for many of us, I’m sure! Thank you!

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Elaine D says we need “diversity.” ”

      Dog whistle for rainbow skin and sexual promiscuity. Diversity of thought is suppressed.

      “Diversity” means tribalism; no assimilation. Re Balkans.

  33. avatar Ing says:

    This shit will get out of hand. It will get out of hand, and people will get killed.

    There is no way this ends well.

  34. avatar Thomas S. says:

    Jack booted thugs just following orders. Violating the oaths they took. Didn’t work out to well at Nuremberg, it may not here in the future. Steeling a man’s guns under the color of the law. Illegal search and seizure, how many constitutional violations can they perform in one act?
    Here’s a novel idea, how about arresting the people making the threats? Not confiscating guns from the person that they were going to steal the guns from, duh!

  35. avatar Tracy says:

    Outside websites and social media in support of 2nd Amendment rights, you will find absolutely no coverage of this story.

    There is no bloody victims here, just someone rights being violated.

    Urge everyone to share this story as widely as possible.

  36. avatar James says:

    “Red flag ” laws are merely a key to many doors of gun control / confiscation trampling all over 2nd amendment rights & Bill of rights.. Red flag law can be used by anyone neighbor, relative to get somebody’s guns confiscated. This PD and judge crossed the line by overreach and heavy-handed decision by confiscating the relatives gun(s) and now that relative may or may not get his guns back having to go through a judicial nightmare of BS to get them back.

  37. avatar Dwo888 says:

    What about just arresting the teen involved and not letting them out till the relative had secured the guns better?
    How about locking the kid up and TELLING the relative? no, just grab them. frankly they are lucky someone doesn’t decide to give that kid some guns and ammo that are untraceable, refine their plan for them, and give pointers on maximizing kills. like the Virginia Tech shooter putting chains and a lock on some door to block escapes.

    The only way to stop this is too make tyranny make things WORSE. Then they might do something effective, instead of oppressive and almost useless.

    1. avatar Icabod says:

      The guns were secured and locked up. The kid “said” he could get hold of them.
      I’ve taught middle school students. The amount of misinformation they believe is mind boggling. Recall one that was wearing a tracking device. Showing off, he cla8med he knew how to get it off. First he tried using small scissors to cut the wire strap off. Then used them to try and pry the lock open. His last idea was that he could use part of a ballpoint pen to pick the lock. He had no idea of what he was doing.
      It’s very doubtful the kid knew how to get hold of the guns. Even if he did, moving the key or changing the combination would have stopped him.
      What surprises me is that all the relatives of the kid didn’t have their guns seized. Guess that’s the next st.

  38. avatar Jack Tripper says:

    So if a 14 year old kid says he lives near a gun store and thinks he can break in and get any weapon they need to pull this off. Does that give this Municipal Authority the power to confiscate all the guns in a gun store. Because the person They confiscated them from wasn’t a guardian nor did the Child live there.
    Let’s say that kid lives next to the sheriff and the sheriff has a huge gun collection in his basement and there’s a window with a broken latch and the kid knows about it would they confiscate the sheriff’s weapons. Or would they fix the broken latch and make sure the kids can’t get in this is fucked up

  39. avatar James Vaughan says:

    The bad / scary part of “red flag ” law is how easy it could be manipulated into confiscating someone’s guns.

  40. avatar JohnQ says:

    Something else to remember is that *IF* the PD gives this person their guns back, they have to do a background check on him a la a standard FFL transaction.

    BUT, he now has this ERPO on his record now…

  41. avatar Icabod says:

    Middlebury is a small, liberal, college town with lots of money.

    Most likely the gun owner isn’t powerful or has a lot of friends. I’d suspect the 14 years old has a history of school discipline problems and run ins with police.

    Fourteen year olds have lots of misinformation. I covered one class where a kid showed up with an ankle monitor. After the attention died down, he announced he knew how to get out out of it. First he tried a pair of classroom scissors. Couldn’t cut the strap and then stuck the tip into the key hole. He then tried part of a ballpoint pen. All the time claiming he “almost had it.” Odds are the Vermont kid was thinking he could get the guns.

  42. avatar Icabod says:

    UPDATE: The man’s guns are now acessable to him. He just doesn’t have them.

    “Man in MUMS case seeks return of his guns

    Posted on January 10, 2019 | Middlebury Featured guns Middlebury Union Middle School
    By John Flowers

    MIDDLEBURY — The Addison County resident whose firearms were confiscated by police in order to keep them from a boy who had allegedly planned to shoot up Middlebury Union Middle School last month has regained access to his guns and could have them returned to his home as soon as this week.

    Addison County State’s Attorney Dennis Wygmans and Middlebury police confirmed that news early this week as an Addison County Family Court judge prepared to hear details of the high-profile case involving a 14-year-old MUMS student who had allegedly planned to shoot a fellow student, and anyone else who got in the way, on the school campus on Dec. 18.

    Also implicated in the case is another 14-year-old student who had allegedly offered to procure weapon(s), from a relative, for the alleged planned shooting.

    Authorities thwarted the plan thanks to information supplied by another MUMS student. The Addison Central School District board on Monday agreed to draft a resolution honoring that student in what will be, by necessity, a somewhat muted accolade; the boy and his family have decided to remain anonymous.

    Also maintaining anonymity is the man whose guns were confiscated as part of the Middlebury police investigation into the alleged shooting plan. Officials stressed the man did nothing wrong. Middlebury police seized his weapons — largely consisting of hunting guns — after successfully applying to an Addison County judge for an “Extreme Risk Protection Order,” or ERPO. Vermont’s Act 97 states that an ERPO “prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or explosive for up to six months if the court finds that the person’s possession of the weapon poses an extreme risk of harm to the person or to other people.”

    Middlebury Police Chief Tom Hanley said his department applied for an ERPO in this case in order to quickly separate the alleged, would-be shooter from his stated source of weapons.

    The man and his guns have been reunited, albeit (for now) at a separate location.

    On Monday, Hanley confirmed a recent agreement allowing the gun owner’s weapons to be transferred from Middlebury police headquarters to a vetted friend on Friday, Jan. 4. The agreement allows the gun owner to freely access his weapons at his friend’s house pending an Addison County Family Court hearing slated for Wednesday, Jan. 9. The judge at that hearing was scheduled to consider, among other things, a request by the man to have his guns returned to his home, according to Wygmans.

    “We did agree to allow him to retrieve his firearms and bring them to a third-party’s residence, with the third party and he agreeing that they would not allow access to the firearms by the (student who allegedly wanted to access them),” Wygmans said during a recent phone interview.

    “From our perspective, the guns are back in his possession,” he added. “He can use them freely. He can sell them. He can trade them for other things that he wants. Whatever he wants to do with them he can do, he just can’t use them with the child or allow the child to have access to them.”

    Police and court officials continue to withhold the name of the gun owner, because the underlying case involves two juveniles who remain indefinitely suspended from MUMS as they await potential punishment as juveniles.

    Court records in juvenile cases are sealed.

    The Independent asked Wygmans to extend the gun owner an invitation to be interviewed by this newspaper. The Independent had not been contacted by the man by Wednesday’s deadline.
    http://www.addisonindependent.com/201901man-mums-case-seeks-return-his-guns

    1. avatar Michael Buley says:

      … “prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or explosive for up to six months if the court finds that the person’s possession of the weapon poses an extreme risk of harm to the person or to other people.”

      What happens when ‘they’ decide that simple possession of a weapon poses an extreme risk of harm? If guns are intrinsically bad and dangerous, then it doesn’t seem a far stretch — once that’s been decided upon as fact by communist-controlled media and non-thinking masses — to remove guns because the guns themselves are dangerous.

      Isn’t that where all this is going anyway?

      But wait … no. They would never go THAT far. My bad. Paranoid and all that.

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