Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Washington: Radical Anti-Gun Bill to be Heard in Committee This Week

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605

    Washington: Radical Anti-Gun Bill to be Heard in Committee This Week

    It's just going to get worse in Washington.
    The Second Amendment is dying in Washington state.
    Open carry advocates, Move to a gold star open carry state, you'll be with others like yourselves, for the union seems to be dividing in my opinion.



    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...ttee-this-week

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766
    One of the problems citizens have is that no organization is providing information as to:

    1) Which anti-bills have a strong chance of passing. and need a strong public response.
    2) Which anti-bills have a weak chance of passing, and can be safely ignored.
    3) Which pro-bills are feasible and which are not feasible.

    Joe Waldron sends out GOAL alerts on a fairly regular basis, but he doesn't provide sufficient information that ranks bills as to which ones need public pressure, supporting or opposing. I asked him to do something to prioritize his requested actions, but he doesn't want to do this.

    Right now pro-freedom citizens are essentially leaderless in WA (in comparison to other states such as Virginia) and we are passive observers, instead of acting as strongly focused action groups.

  3. #3
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503

    I don't see a problem

    if you don't make threats or commit acts of violence you don't have an issue.

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    if you don't make threats or commit acts of violence you don't have an issue.
    No, if a "complaint" is not filed you don't have a issue. Another piece of legislation that infringes first then calls for due process. A clear 2A and 4A violation in the making.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Did you leave your computer open to your account and some anti-gun anti-freedom anti-rights ...ummmm.....person....make a comment on your login? Or have you really been duped (or is that doped?) by their propaganda to believe this?

    that's funny I love your quote. how many false complaints have been made for an open carrier taking their guns out of there holster or threatening somebody?

    McFly? Anybody? Anybody?

    so why would you assume this to be a bad thing if this law had been in effect for the cafe racer shooter would he have been stopped before the crimes were committed just asking can't you see the reasonableness in this everybody needs to take an anger management course if you can't control your anger.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    that's funny I love your quote. how many false complaints have been made for an open carrier taking their guns out of there holster or threatening somebody?

    McFly? Anybody? Anybody?

    so why would you assume this to be a bad thing if this law had been in effect for the cafe racer shooter would he have been stopped before the crimes were committed just asking can't you see the reasonableness in this everybody needs to take an anger management course if you can't control your anger.
    The spouse who uses, could use, this law to their advantage during a contentious divorce/separation. False claims are routinely made in this type of interpersonal dynamic.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Well, at least that answers my question I posed. So you want the government to be able to restrict someone's right to self-defense by bearing arms based on the testimony of one person for which no evidence exists of the truth of their claim? Have you even read this bill or are you just believing the anti-gun groups' propaganda?

    When I was getting divorced my ex-wife filed for a restraining order against me which would have removed my firearms rights. I was extremely lucky the judge had a tiny little bit of common sense left when he denied her restraining order based solely on the fact that we were already living 1,300 miles apart.

    People file ridiculous claims every day and this bill would allow the court to "on an ex parte basis, pending a full hearing, enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or dangerous weapon." Do you understand what the terms "ex parte" and "pending a full hearing" mean? That means that someone's "family or household member" can request the court to order your guns confiscated without ever having to see you or your lawyer or give you a chance to defend yourself and the bill requires the court to make that decision on the same day that the request is filed! Is that what you really want?

    go read Section 4 of the original bill you gotta be a real knucklehead to get this restraining order put against you

    it's going to take 48 hours for them to confiscate your guns I can transfer my guns somebody else in 24

    after the issue the order within 14 days you're going to have a hearing and then they're going to decide if it needs to be extended for a year or not

    if you get a really anti gun judge I can see where you might have a problem but I don't live in King County so there's probably a good chance I'm going to get a judge that's halfway fare.

  8. #8
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    West v East Washington

    Seattleites seem to love gun control.

    I am sure Bill Gates will throw money in and it will pass too.

    Washingtonians are getting screwed again.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You don't have to be a real knucklehead. All that is required is for ONE person to convince ONE judge that you are a real knucklehead.



    48 hours based on what?



    Oh, sure....and after the last "reasonable and common sense regulation" passed you would have to get the background check done on the recipient and pay the transfer fees



    You can't even spell fair. How many fair judges are left? And let's examine the judge's options:

    1. The judge can grant the order, and if the judge is wrong on granting the order who takes the fall? The person requesting the order takes the fall, not the judge, because they made a false statement under oath - or at a minimum they can claim that they made the statements under oath in good faith.

    2. The judge can deny the order and trust that someone who has not even appeared before them is not the "knucklehead" that the request claims that person is. If the judge is wrong and that person does end up committing a violent crime with a firearm, who is going to take the fall?

    Option 1, judge has an easy scapegoat. Option 2, judge gets blasted in the media for denying the order. Which option do you think the majority of judges in this state will opt for?

    look go read the bottom of page three the top of page four and it spells out exactly what the individual has to do wrong. I think if a person does this stuff that is outlined he deserves to have his gun rights taken away.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You are missing the point entirely. The subject does not have to do any of those things wrong. All that is required is for the judge to believe the person asking for the protection order when they claim the subject is doing something wrong, including in that list just purchasing a firearm or ammunition. No proof or evidence of such actions is required (evidence is optional) - only the claim made by the person asking for the protection order.

    At 12 pm this motion is filed with the court, "My brother did 3 tours in Iraq. He has nightmares due to PTSD and is taking Prazosin for it. Yesterday his wife told me he bought an assault rifle and 4 high capacity clips for it and a case of bullets. I'm afraid he is going to shoot his wife or kids because of PTSD. " The judge has to issue or deny the protective order that same day. What do you think the judge will do?
    That is exactly what the anti's want. No evidence, just need to accuse and take the guns. I can see it now. LAC leaving his house for a day of shooting with various guns. Neighbor sees him loading up guns and ammo into his vehicle. Neighbor calls cops. "My neighbor is going to go shoot up a school" "He is a crazy vet"

    Guns confiscated.

    We don't need more bloody gun laws. period.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    You are missing the point entirely. The subject does not have to do any of those things wrong. All that is required is for the judge to believe the person asking for the protection order when they claim the subject is doing something wrong, including in that list just purchasing a firearm or ammunition. No proof or evidence of such actions is required (evidence is optional) - only the claim made by the person asking for the protection order.

    At 12 pm this motion is filed with the court, "My brother did 3 tours in Iraq. He has nightmares due to PTSD and is taking Prazosin for it. Yesterday his wife told me he bought an assault rifle and 4 high capacity clips for it and a case of bullets. I'm afraid he is going to shoot his wife or kids because of PTSD. " The judge has to issue or deny the protective order that same day. What do you think the judge will do?
    The Judge will deny it, because there is no history of violence, no threat of violence, no criminal record of violence, no drug or alcohol addiction, no domestic violence, no breaking of a protection order. He is going to hand you a box of kleenx to give to your brother for his runny nose, a common side effect of taking Prazosin.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    The Judge will deny it, because there is no history of violence, no threat of violence, no criminal record of violence, no drug or alcohol addiction, no domestic violence, no breaking of a protection order. He is going to hand you a box of kleenx to give to your brother for his runny nose, a common side effect of taking Prazosin.
    If it is true, in WA, that the request for the order must be decided the day the order is requested, how exactly does a judge accomplish all of the background investigations that you clearly indicate would occur to nix the approval of the request. These days a judge will err on the side of caution and let a civil court decide the fate of the citizen filing a false claim. Also, a cop can file a order with a court...no path to abuse either.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605

    Washington: Radical Anti-Gun Bill Passes First Committee by One Vote, Up for Another

    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    West v East Washington

    Seattleites seem to love gun control.

    I am sure Bill Gates will throw money in and it will pass too.

    Washingtonians are getting screwed again.

    West vs Eastern Washington was another reason I left Spokane after living there for 15 years. The I-5 corridor from Oregon to Canada is full of left wing gun control nut-jobs, forcing their Anti-American laws upon the rest of the state.

    It seems this bill is moving forward;

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015...e-on-wednesday

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    if you don't make threats or commit acts of violence you don't have an issue.
    Remember those "moms against everything" people? Remember them telling the membership to call 911 every time they see an open carrier? Do you really think this will be advantageous? Are you really Jsanchez?

    The "moms" call us in and they do not get charged with false reports.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  15. #15
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    Remember those "moms against everything" people? Remember them telling the membership to call 911 every time they see an open carrier? Do you really think this will be advantageous? Are you really Jsanchez?

    The "moms" call us in and they do not get charged with false reports.
    let them call until their fingers bleed I need another 8,000 dollars.

  16. #16
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    [QUOTE=OC Freedom;2129357]West vs Eastern Washington was another reason I left Spokane after living there for 15 years. The I-5 corridor from Oregon to Canada is full of left wing gun control nut-jobs, forcing their Anti-American laws upon the rest of the state.

    It seems this bill is moving



    there is a new sub bill that got added haven't read it yet

    this comment is directed to everybody on this thread that seems a little paranoid,
    turn off the Fox News come out of the bunker it's springtime, you might want to get your groundwater checked because there might be something in it this causing this paranoia.

    if you don't like this bill come up with a better one and stop hating.
    hating hasn't won any battles.

  17. #17
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    <snip>

    At 12 pm this motion is filed with the court, "My brother did 3 tours in Iraq. He has nightmares due to PTSD and is taking Prazosin for it. Yesterday his wife told me he bought an assault rifle and 4 high capacity clips for it and a case of bullets. I'm afraid he is going to shoot his wife or kids because of PTSD. " The judge has to issue or deny the protective order that same day. What do you think the judge will do?

    </snip>
    This, right here ^^^^^

    I can't believe that anyone would support a law that would allow a court to remove someones' Right to Arms without due process.

    -MH
    Last edited by March Hare; 02-24-2015 at 12:38 PM.
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  18. #18
    Regular Member March Hare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arridzona - Flatlander
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post

    It seems this bill is moving



    there is a new sub bill that got added haven't read it yet

    this comment is directed to everybody on this thread that seems a little paranoid,
    turn off the Fox News come out of the bunker it's springtime, you might want to get your groundwater checked because there might be something in it this causing this paranoia.
    Nice application of Rule #5;
    ďRidicule is manís most potent weapon.Ē There is no defense. Itís irrational. Itís infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    if you don't like this bill come up with a better one and stop hating.
    hating hasn't won any battles.
    Why does there need to be a bill in the first place? This is a solution in search of a problem!

    -MH
    Last edited by March Hare; 02-24-2015 at 12:49 PM. Reason: Clarification of who was quoted
    $2 Bill - Calling Card of the 2A Movement
    If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
    Seriously, who is John Galt?
    Vires et honestas

  19. #19
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    It seems this bill is moving



    there is a new sub bill that got added haven't read it yet

    this comment is directed to everybody on this thread that seems a little paranoid,
    turn off the Fox News come out of the bunker it's springtime, you might want to get your groundwater checked because there might be something in it this causing this paranoia.

    if you don't like this bill come up with a better one and stop hating.
    hating hasn't won any battles.
    Not paranoia, just Common Sense.

    You already have one outrageous law passed this year and now you think we need more laws? OK. Got it. Brilliant.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 02-24-2015 at 12:52 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member wittmeba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    New Castle, Va
    Posts
    146
    Quote Originally Posted by 44Brent View Post
    One of the problems citizens have is that no organization is providing information as to:

    1) Which anti-bills have a strong chance of passing. and need a strong public response.
    2) Which anti-bills have a weak chance of passing, and can be safely ignored.
    3) Which pro-bills are feasible and which are not feasible.

    Joe Waldron sends out GOAL alerts on a fairly regular basis, but he doesn't provide sufficient information that ranks bills as to which ones need public pressure, supporting or opposing. I asked him to do something to prioritize his requested actions, but he doesn't want to do this.

    Right now pro-freedom citizens are essentially leaderless in WA (in comparison to other states such as Virginia) and we are passive observers, instead of acting as strongly focused action groups.
    Perhaps you are already aware, but you can view the Virginia tracking tool and by the "thumbs up" determine which are most important in their eyes. And if you signup to receive the alerts Philip does a good job of asking for help, contacting politicians when needed.
    http://www2.vcdl.org/webapps/vcdl/2015leg.html
    Last edited by wittmeba; 02-24-2015 at 01:43 PM.
    I was born in Great Falls, Mt. My parents moved when I was 5. I found them when I was 9. They were in California.

  21. #21
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    Not paranoia, just Common Sense.

    You already have one outrageous law passed this year and now you think we need more laws? OK. Got it. Brilliant.
    I don't consider the background check law an outrageous law just some of the wording that was included in it as far as letting my friend shoot my guns

    there are a hundred murders a year in Washington State this law might stop some of them from happening and if it doesn't restrict law abiding citizens gun rights I don't see where it hurts anything and I do see where it helps things.

    change is going to come. all you can do is participate in the process and protect your rights.

    we are all law abiding citizens here, this law will help people that are going through mental issues of self control and anger management control themselves for a period of 48 hours or 14 days or 1 year and give them time to make the mental transition from whatever hardship they're going through ie post traumatic stress ie divorce.it keeps the rest of us safe and keeps our gun rights safe by these mentally handicapped people being helped through their struggle.
    Last edited by jsanchez; 02-24-2015 at 03:58 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienni...lls/1857-S.pdf

    First, here's the list of who can request the order (pages 1 and 2):

    17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. For the purposes of this chapter "family
    18 or household member" means spouses, domestic partners, former
    19 spouses, former domestic partners, persons who have a child in common
    20 regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together
    1 at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult
    2 persons who are presently residing together or who have resided
    3 together in the past year, persons sixteen years of age or older who
    4 are presently residing together or who have resided together in the
    5 past year and who have or have had a dating relationship, persons
    6 sixteen years of age or older with whom a person sixteen years of age
    7 or older has or has had a dating relationship, and persons who have a
    8 biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents
    9 and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.

    Pretty wide definition of "family or household member". Second, the part where any of those listed above, + law enforcement officers, get the opportunity to screw you over without you ever appearing before the judge (and that's due process?) (page 2):

    10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) A family or household member of a
    11 person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting
    12 that the court issue an emergency extreme risk protection order on an
    13 ex parte basis, pending a full hearing, enjoining the subject of the
    14 petition from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing,
    15 possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a
    16 firearm or dangerous weapon.

    Here's where the judge gets 1 day maximum to "examine the evidence" (pages 2-3):

    37 (4) An emergency extreme risk protection order must be issued or
    38 denied on the same day the petition is submitted to the court, unless
    39 the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review,
    1 in which case the order must be issued or denied on the next day of
    2 judicial business in sufficient time for the order to be filed that
    3 day with the clerk of the court. The court may hold the emergency
    4 hearing in person or by telephone.

    This is where your purchase of a firearm or ammo in the last six months can be used as evidence against you (page 4):

    5 (4) In determining whether grounds for an emergency extreme risk
    6 protection order exist, the court may consider any other evidence of
    7 an increased risk for violence including, but not limited to,
    8 evidence of any of the following:
    17 (e) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or
    18 other dangerous weapons.
    19 (5) For purposes of this section, "recent" means within the six
    20 months prior to the date the petition was filed.

    This is where you only get two weeks maximum to find a lawyer and defend yourself against a 1 year extension of the order (page 4):

    28 (7) Within fourteen days after the date of issuance of the order,
    29 before the court that issued the order or another court in the same
    30 jurisdiction, the court shall hold a hearing pursuant to section 6 of
    31 this act to determine if an extreme risk protection order should be
    32 issued under this chapter.

    If you get an order issued against you, you get one AND ONLY ONE chance at a request to have the order terminated per year (page 8):

    26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1) A person subject to an extreme risk
    27 protection order may submit one written request per year at any time
    28 during the effective period of the order for a hearing to terminate
    29 the order.

    This bill is designed to give a single judge the power to remove your right to keep and bear arms for 1 year at a time while placing the subject of the order at an extreme disadvantage at being able to defend themselves against the order.
    all I can say to this post is everybody should read the bill for themselves and see exactly what it says and how it protects our gun rights and helps the mentally ill people get the help that they need and I believe the majority of gun owners want that because that is in the best interest of the majority of gun owners

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanchez View Post
    all I can say to this post is everybody should read the bill for themselves and see exactly what it says and how it protects our gun rights and helps the mentally ill people get the help that they need and I believe the majority of gun owners want that because that is in the best interest of the majority of gun owners
    Please don't speak for me. This has nothing to do with the mentally ill, this has to do with gun control, but it is a win for criminals, they love any type of gun control the state passes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

  24. #24
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by OC Freedom View Post
    Please don't speak for me. This has nothing to do with the mentally ill, this has to do with gun control, but it is a win for criminals, they love any type of gun control the state passes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo
    so says one from the minority.

    please enlighten us as far as how this has to do with gun control.

  25. #25
    Regular Member jsanchez's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienni...lls/1857-S.pdf

    First, here's the list of who can request the order (pages 1 and 2):

    17 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. For the purposes of this chapter "family
    18 or household member" means spouses, domestic partners, former
    19 spouses, former domestic partners, persons who have a child in common
    20 regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together
    1 at any time, adult persons related by blood or marriage, adult
    2 persons who are presently residing together or who have resided
    3 together in the past year, persons sixteen years of age or older who
    4 are presently residing together or who have resided together in the
    5 past year and who have or have had a dating relationship, persons
    6 sixteen years of age or older with whom a person sixteen years of age
    7 or older has or has had a dating relationship, and persons who have a
    8 biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents
    9 and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren.

    Pretty wide definition of "family or household member". Second, the part where any of those listed above, + law enforcement officers, get the opportunity to screw you over without you ever appearing before the judge (and that's due process?) (page 2):

    10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. (1) A family or household member of a
    11 person or a law enforcement officer may file a petition requesting
    12 that the court issue an emergency extreme risk protection order on an
    13 ex parte basis, pending a full hearing, enjoining the subject of the
    14 petition from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing,
    15 possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a
    16 firearm or dangerous weapon.

    Here's where the judge gets 1 day maximum to "examine the evidence" (pages 2-3):

    37 (4) An emergency extreme risk protection order must be issued or
    38 denied on the same day the petition is submitted to the court, unless
    39 the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review,
    1 in which case the order must be issued or denied on the next day of
    2 judicial business in sufficient time for the order to be filed that
    3 day with the clerk of the court. The court may hold the emergency
    4 hearing in person or by telephone.

    This is where your purchase of a firearm or ammo in the last six months can be used as evidence against you (page 4):

    5 (4) In determining whether grounds for an emergency extreme risk
    6 protection order exist, the court may consider any other evidence of
    7 an increased risk for violence including, but not limited to,
    8 evidence of any of the following:
    17 (e) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or
    18 other dangerous weapons.
    19 (5) For purposes of this section, "recent" means within the six
    20 months prior to the date the petition was filed.

    This is where you only get two weeks maximum to find a lawyer and defend yourself against a 1 year extension of the order (page 4):

    28 (7) Within fourteen days after the date of issuance of the order,
    29 before the court that issued the order or another court in the same
    30 jurisdiction, the court shall hold a hearing pursuant to section 6 of
    31 this act to determine if an extreme risk protection order should be
    32 issued under this chapter.

    If you get an order issued against you, you get one AND ONLY ONE chance at a request to have the order terminated per year (page 8):

    26 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. (1) A person subject to an extreme risk
    27 protection order may submit one written request per year at any time
    28 during the effective period of the order for a hearing to terminate
    29 the order.

    This bill is designed to give a single judge the power to remove your right to keep and bear arms for 1 year at a time while placing the subject of the order at an extreme disadvantage at being able to defend themselves against the order.
    look at the lines of text that he left out of his postI wonder why he did that.

    maybe they weren't conducive to the point that he was trying to make.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •