Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: WAGR's new initiative for 2016: Extreme Risk Protection orders

  1. #1
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661

    WAGR's new initiative for 2016: Extreme Risk Protection orders

    Well, looks like we may be off the hook on the "AWB" or preemption repeal, however EPOs are pretty dangerous given their obvious unconstitutionality and despicable nature in creating a new standard of "guilty until proven innocent."
    I doubt the final draft will contain strict or maybe even ANY penalties for making a false claim, or the threshold for proving a claim was made falsely would be so high it'd be impossible.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/anot...scalia-service

    3 states already have this, one being CA which is the same circuit as WA, 9th.

    Anyone know current federal caselaw about this? EPOs by their nature violate:
    -due process
    -right to face your accusers and see the evidence against you
    etc.

    Can we safely let this pass and hope for the courts to nuke it?

    And yes, this is very OC related given that you can't OC if a hostile acquaintance or vengeful family member slanders you to get your firearm seized without notice or even opportunity to respond. Given that the antis often portray OC as evidence of "firearm extremism" and "unbalanced individuals" my guess is OCers would be targeted more by this than the average gun owner.
    Last edited by Alpine; 02-18-2016 at 07:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Well,

    Can we safely let this pass and hope for the courts to nuke it?

    .
    California has had a law like this for at least a year or so. If you anticipate problems or courts nuking or not nuking it, look at the experience in California.

    The proposed Washington initiative seems to be mostly modelled on the California law, with a possible difference in terms of the length of various protection orders. In California, I believe there are several possible lengths of time. I think in Washington, there is only one and it is one year.

    To me this law does not look particularly bad. I think it is probably a good and reasonable law.

    "Studies [allegedly] show that individuals who engage in certain dangerous behaviors are significantly more likely to commit violence toward themselves or others in the near future. These behaviors, which can include other acts or threats of violence, self-harm, or the abuse of drugs or alcohol, are warning signs that the person may soon commit an act of violence."

    The person petitioning for an order seems to be limited to family members, household members or police.

    shall be accompanied by an affidavit made under oath stating the specific statements, actions, and/or facts that give rise to a reasonable fear of future dangerous acts by respondent for which relief is sought.

    (1) Any person who files a petition under this chapter, knowing the information in the petition to be materially false or with the intent to harass the respondent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    You think it's reasonable to lose your gun rights without even a chance to respond? Go watch Divorce Corp. The divorce industry is a $50 billion a year industry and any family lawyer will tell their plaintiffs that any official ROs, TROs and especially any EPOs will help their case a lot. Accusations like this are already gamed in family court for better rulings. This one doesn't even have a penalty for making false statements that's longer than the negative consequences it inflicts!

    According to the 6th Amendment we have a right to face our accusers and see the evidence against us, and according to the 14th Amendment we have the right to due process of law.

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
    Last edited by Alpine; 02-19-2016 at 11:18 AM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    You think it's reasonable to lose your gun rights without even a chance to respond? Go watch Divorce Corp. The divorce industry is a $50 billion a year industry and any family lawyer will tell their plaintiffs that any official ROs, TROs and especially any EPOs will help their case a lot. Accusations like this are already gamed in family court for better rulings. This one doesn't even have a penalty for making false statements that's longer than the negative consequences it inflicts!

    According to the 6th Amendment we have a right to face our accusers and see the evidence against us, and according to the 14th Amendment we have the right to due process of law.
    ok, apparently the Cal law goes into effect January 1, 2016 and so it has presumably been in effect for 6 weeks.

    In washington state, the wagr is agitating for the passing of its initiative or initiatives. I think there were similar bills considered by the leg but not passed . . .

    either police or a family member or household member will have to go through a lot of work to get one of these orders in place. Any ordinary person isn't going to do it and a random person can't do it against another random person or even his neighbor, unless he is going to try to lie about his neighbor brandishing a firearm in a backyard. Judges tend to be skeptical. You seem to be believing that some wife or husband in a nasty divorce or custody proceeding is going to get some "bad" orders and perhaps this is the chief or sole cause of possible harm in the law.

    You would perhaps agree that substantial harm and deaths are being caused by persons with firearms who fit the indicia set out in the proposed initiative?

    I personally doubt that persons convicted of drunk driving should be carrying around firearms. You have to be quite unlucky or a multiple drunk driver to actually get caught and to actually get convicted of dui or whatever the acronym is now. "We" have also had persons arrested for drug use or having admitted to drug use, but not convicted, who then go on and kill a group of people.

    We live in an imperfect society . . . are you sure you want convicted drunk drivers carrying firearms . . . admitted drug users carrying firearms . . . and your chief area of concern is that

    1) there are some fraction of marriages that end in a messy and/or nasty divorce proceeding;
    and
    2) that some of the persons in such nasty divorce proceedings will game the system by pre-emptively making false statements about the wife or husband so as to deprive that person of a firearm . . .
    and
    3) that the judge will believe the person making up false allegations over the one who is telling the truth?

    For every person convicted of making a threat, there are 10 or 20 who have been making threats without being prosecuted . . .

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    ok, apparently the Cal law goes into effect January 1, 2016 and so it has presumably been in effect for 6 weeks.

    In washington state, the wagr is agitating for the passing of its initiative or initiatives. I think there were similar bills considered by the leg but not passed . . .

    either police or a family member or household member will have to go through a lot of work to get one of these orders in place. Any ordinary person isn't going to do it and a random person can't do it against another random person or even his neighbor, unless he is going to try to lie about his neighbor brandishing a firearm in a backyard. Judges tend to be skeptical. You seem to be believing that some wife or husband in a nasty divorce or custody proceeding is going to get some "bad" orders and perhaps this is the chief or sole cause of possible harm in the law.

    You would perhaps agree that substantial harm and deaths are being caused by persons with firearms who fit the indicia set out in the proposed initiative?

    I personally doubt that persons convicted of drunk driving should be carrying around firearms. You have to be quite unlucky or a multiple drunk driver to actually get caught and to actually get convicted of dui or whatever the acronym is now. "We" have also had persons arrested for drug use or having admitted to drug use, but not convicted, who then go on and kill a group of people.

    We live in an imperfect society . . . are you sure you want convicted drunk drivers carrying firearms . . . admitted drug users carrying firearms . . . and your chief area of concern is that

    1) there are some fraction of marriages that end in a messy and/or nasty divorce proceeding;
    and
    2) that some of the persons in such nasty divorce proceedings will game the system by pre-emptively making false statements about the wife or husband so as to deprive that person of a firearm . . .
    and
    3) that the judge will believe the person making up false allegations over the one who is telling the truth?

    For every person convicted of making a threat, there are 10 or 20 who have been making threats without being prosecuted . . .
    We live under the concept that we err on the side of innocent until proven guilty.

    William Blackstone said it best: "It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer."

    Define all this "work" that relatives and police will have to go through. At what point will the person whose property is being seized be notified and allowed to respond, before or after their property is seized and their 2A rights suspended?

    Given the lack of notification, do you realize this could actually be used by domestic abusers to disarm their victims to make them easier to murder?

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    snipp...

    We live in an imperfect society . . . are you sure you want convicted drunk drivers carrying firearms . . . admitted drug users carrying firearms . . . and your chief area of concern is that

    1) there are some fraction of marriages that end in a messy and/or nasty divorce proceeding;
    and
    2) that some of the persons in such nasty divorce proceedings will game the system by pre-emptively making false statements about the wife or husband so as to deprive that person of a firearm . . .
    and
    3) that the judge will believe the person making up false allegations over the one who is telling the truth?

    For every person convicted of making a threat, there are 10 or 20 who have been making threats without being prosecuted . . .
    your perception the emergency protection orders are precipitated by divorce proceedings is completely incorrect and actually center around reported partner DV activities within their familial unit. further, EPOs are generally pushed by the nice LEs after violence has occurred which has warranted a formal report in the judicial system.

    as for lack of due process...unless it is an egregious event necessitating an immediate order, the individual the EPO has been about to be issued against is normally served to appear to defend themselves against the allegation of partner violence.

    FYI, EPOs have historically been shown to provide a false sense of safety against partner violence since those DV perpetrators ignore the order anyway.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    your perception the emergency protection orders are precipitated by divorce proceedings is completely incorrect and actually center around reported partner DV activities within their familial unit. further, EPOs are generally pushed by the nice LEs after violence has occurred which has warranted a formal report in the judicial system.

    as for lack of due process...unless it is an egregious event necessitating an immediate order, the individual the EPO has been about to be issued against is normally served to appear to defend themselves against the allegation of partner violence.

    FYI, EPOs have historically been shown to provide a false sense of safety against partner violence since those DV perpetrators ignore the order anyway.

    ipse
    You are apparently agreeing with me and against Alpine?

    If so, thanks . . . but you may wish to make things more clear . . .

  8. #8
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Setting a Bad Precident

    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    You are apparently agreeing with me and against Alpine?

    If so, thanks . . . but you may wish to make things more clear . . .
    If you have about 2 hours to kill you can watch the entire hearing process from TVW Olympia on all the gun bills from this legislative session.
    http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016010214


    If you just want to see just the extreme protection hearing then the following link is what you need.
    hosted.invintusmedia.com/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2016010214&autoStart= false&simple=true&start=2036&stop=4227


    Pay very close attention to Jinkens when she queries the staff regarding sworn affidavits.
    Also note the four entities that can invoke this type of order.


    I am inclined to agree with part of your analysis, yet consider for a moment that it might just be more important to get the person the help they need as opposed to taking their firearms.
    If a person is an "extreme risk" taking their guns would likely only make them a more extreme risk.

    Lastly, how will taking firearms prevent someone from getting another one?

    I think there will be some constitutional hoops to jump through on this proposed initiative but will have to wait for the text to become available.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    king county
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitney View Post
    If you have about 2 hours to kill you can watch the entire hearing process from TVW Olympia on all the gun bills from this legislative session.
    http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2016010214


    If you just want to see just the extreme protection hearing then the following link is what you need.
    hosted.invintusmedia.com/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2016010214&autoStart= false&simple=true&start=2036&stop=4227


    Pay very close attention to Jinkens when she queries the staff regarding sworn affidavits.
    Also note the four entities that can invoke this type of order.
    I haven't read the text of the bills before the leg, but anyone can read and I have read the text of the initiatives filled with the AG for getting a title and being put on the ballot, which is far more likely to be the approach taken by WAGR and related groups.

    You go to the website of the sec of state of the state of Wash and then "elections and voting" and then to initiatives and referenda I think and then you chose those for submission to the people in 2016. There are two of them filed in the last few days and they seem to be quite similar.

    Anyway, of the initiative I read, you would be or could be a family member, household member or police person to file the petition with the court to yank firearm possession from a person. Is there another group I am missing or is the 4th group only found in the leg bill?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    I haven't read the text of the bills before the leg, but anyone can read and I have read the text of the initiatives filled with the AG for getting a title and being put on the ballot, which is far more likely to be the approach taken by WAGR and related groups.

    You go to the website of the sec of state of the state of Wash and then "elections and voting" and then to initiatives and referenda I think and then you chose those for submission to the people in 2016. There are two of them filed in the last few days and they seem to be quite similar.

    Anyway, of the initiative I read, you would be or could be a family member, household member or police person to file the petition with the court to yank firearm possession from a person. Is there another group I am missing or is the 4th group only found in the leg bill?
    Not looking for an argument here, the full text of the proposal is here. http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/init...spx?y=2016&t=p

    Snippets from the proposal. YES I am being nitpicky. Please watch the viedo and note the items I called to attention. I am not trying to change your mind just trying to put ALL the information I have for your assessment.


    ~Whitney

    (1) “Petitioner” means a family or household member of the respondent or a law enforcement officeror agency.



    (2) “Extreme risk protection order” means an order issued by
    a court, pursuant to
    section 4 of this act, prohibiting the respondent from
    having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving
    any firearms
    for a period of one year.

    (3) “Family or household member” means any person related by blood, marriage, or adoption, dating partners, persons who have a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have lived together at any time, any person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year, domestic partners, persons who have a biological or legal parent-child relationship, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren, and any person who is acting or has acted as the respondent’s legal guardian.
    (4) “Respondent” means the person identified in the petition filed under this chapter.


    NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. Extreme risk protection order hearing and issuance.

    (1) Upon receipt of the petition, the court shall order a hearing which shall be held not later than fourteen days from the date of the order and issue a notice of hearing to respondent for the same.

    (a) The court may schedule a hearing by telephone pursuant to local court rule, to reasonably accommodate a disability, or in exceptional circumstances to protect a petitioner from potential harm. The court shall require assurances of the petitioner’s identity before conducting a telephonic hearing.

    (b) The clerk of the court shall have a copy of the notice of hearing and petition forwarded on or before the next judicial day to the appropriate law enforcement agency for service upon the respondent.

    (c) Personal service of the notice of hearing and petition shall be made upon the respondent by a law enforcement officer not less than five court days prior to the hearing. ..............truncated.

    (d)
    The court may issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order pending the hearing as provided in section 6 of this act to be served concurrently with the notice of hearing and petition.


    (3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider
    any relevant evidence, including but not limited to any of the following:

    (a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not this violence involves a firearm;
    (b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence within the past twelve months including but not limited to acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;

    (c) Any dangerous mental health issues;
    (d) A violation of a protection order or no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;

    (e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order;

    (f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order;

    (g) A conviction for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;

    (h) Respondent’s ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;

    (i) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
    (j) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person or of stalking another person;
    (k)
    Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
    (l) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; and
    (m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms.



    (4) The court may:
    (a) Examine under oath the
    petitioner, the respondent, and any witnesses they may produce. In lieu of
    examining the petitioner, respondent, and any witnesses, the court may consider
    sworn affidavits submitted by the petitioner, respondent, and any witness; and


    (b) Ensure that a reasonable
    search has been conducted for criminal history records related to the
    respondent.



    NEW SECTION. Sec. 6.
    Ex parte extreme risk protection orderhearingissuancecontents.

    (1) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, without notice to the respondent, by including in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.

    (2) In considering whether to issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order under this section, the court shall consider all relevant evidence, including evidence described in subsection 4(3) of this act.

    (3) If a court finds there is reasonable cause to believe that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order.
    (4) The court shall hold an ex parte extreme risk protection order hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the following judicial day.

    (5) In accordance with subsection 4(1) of this act, the court shall schedule a hearing within fourteen days of the issuance of an ex parte extreme risk protection order to determine if a one-year extreme risk protection order should issue under this chapter.

    (6) An ex parte extreme risk protection order shall include:


    1. A statement of the grounds asserted for the order;



    1. The date and time the order was issued;



    1. The date and time the order expires;



    1. The address of the court in which any responsive pleading should be filed;



    1. The date and time of the scheduled hearing;



    1. A description of the requirements for surrender of firearms under section 9; and


    (g) The following statement:

    “To the subject of this protection order: This order is valid until the date and time noted above. You are required to surrender all firearms in your custody, control, or possession .You may not have in your custody or control, purchase, possess, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, a firearm while this order is in effect. You must surrender to the [insert name of local law enforcement agency] all firearms in your custody, control, or possession and any concealed pistol license issued to you under RCW 9.41.070A immediately.
    A hearing will be held on the date and at the time noted above to determine if an extreme risk protection order should be issued. Failure to appear at that hearing may result in a court making an order against you that is valid for one year. You may seek the advice of an attorney as to any matter connected with this order.”
    (7) The ex parte extreme risk protection order shall expire upon the hearing on the extreme risk protection order.

    (8) An ex parte extreme risk protection order shall be served by a law enforcement officer in the same manner as provided for in sections 4 and 5 of this act for service of the notice of hearing and petition, and shall be served concurrently with the notice of hearing and petition.

    (9) If the court declines to issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order, the court shall state the particular reasons for the court’s denial.







    Last edited by Grapeshot; 02-26-2016 at 08:15 AM. Reason: rule #19
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    So... based on what I have just read, this is in fact a way to deprive someone of their rights as protected by the constitution without due process of law. Someone can be deprived of their right to bear arms BEFORE a hearing to hear ALL the facts by both sides and it can be done behind closed doors (see the Ex parte part). This should be opposed.
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    So... based on what I have just read, this is in fact a way to deprive someone of their rights as protected by the constitution without due process of law. Someone can be deprived of their right to bear arms BEFORE a hearing to hear ALL the facts by both sides and it can be done behind closed doors (see the Ex parte part). This should be opposed.
    Not only that, once you get to the 14 day hearing they can keep the order for a year SOLELY based on the fact that you recently bought a gun..... Unbelievable. No self-respecting gun owner would support a law that criminalizes them just for having an interest in guns or buying one.

  13. #13
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    If the courts issue one of these protective orders and the subject of the order is not taken into custody for evaluation what have they accomplished?

    It seems that the courts are declaring a person a danger to himself or others but yet let him or her remain free to do their damage to themselves or others

  14. #14
    Regular Member Whitney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poulsbo, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    449

    Two for the price of One

    I wanted to come back to this and fill in some technical "stuff".

    There are actually two proposals for "protection orders" filed with the Secretary of State.

    Both proposals are sponsored by the same person. With the exception of the term "Extreme Risk" in one, and "Emergency" in the other, side by side comparisons reveal they use the same verbiage.

    1. Extreme Risk Protection Orders; filed 2/18/2016 not yet assigned a number.
    2. Emergency Protection Order;also filed 2/18/2016 not yet assigned a number.

    Immediately after filing an initiative with the Secretary of State the office of
    the Code Reviser is provided a copy. The Code Reviser must, within seven (7) working days, perform the following:

    -Review the draft for technical errors and style;
    -Advise the sponsor of any potential conflicts between the proposal and existing statutes; and
    -Return the proposal to the sponsor with any recommended changes and the Certificate of Review. All
    changes made by the Code Reviser are advisory and are subject to approval by the sponsor.

    In this case the seven work days will expire Monday 29 February.

    The sponsor has 15 work days after the initial filing of the initiative to the Code Reviser to file the final draft of the measure, accompanied by the Code Revisers Certificate of Review, with the Secretary of State.

    In this case the fifteen work days will expire Thursday 10 March.

    After the final draft is filed the Secretary of State will assign a serial number to the proposal and forward to the Attorney General for formulation of the ballot title and summary.

    The office of the Attorney General has five working days to formulate and return the ballot title to the Secretary of State and the sponsor. The ballot title will be transmitted electronically to the sponsor and the Secretary of State.

    Provided the government agencies utilize the maximum time allotted this would put the ballot title back to the Secretary of State and the sponsor the week of 14 March.

    The Attorney General must meet specific technical criteria in the ballot title.
    Part 1. A statement of the subject of the petition that is:
    -No more than 10 words.
    -Sufficiently precise to give notice of the measure's subject matter.
    -Sufficiently broad to reflect the subject of the measure.

    Part 2. A concise description of the measure that is:
    -No more than 30 words.
    -A true and impartial description of the measure's essential content.
    -Phrased to clearly identify the measure to be voted on.
    -Without prejudice for or against the measure.

    Part 3. A question that clearly defines the intent of the measure.

    The ballot summary must be no more than 75 words.

    Now the part this short tirade has been getting around to.

    Any person who is dissatisfied with either the ballot title or summary may seek a judicial review of those statements by petitioning the Thurston County Superior Court in Olympia, the judges decision is the final word. This action must be taken with in five working days of the filing of those statements with the Secretary of State. In this example five work days from the week of 14 March puts a petition attempt in the week of 21 March.

    If the initiative petition can collect 246,372 "valid" signatures it will be added to the ballot for a vote in the next general election.

    A simple majority of voter approval makes it a law.

    In the event this comes to fruition I expect we are looking at another 594 slam dunk unless voters are educated and actually vote.

    We should know by the end of March what the ballot title will say.

    ~Whitney
    The problem with America is stupidity.
    I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    ... either police or a family member or household member will have to go through a lot of work to get one of these orders in place. ...
    Disagree. Based on the language shown below it will be very easy.

    NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Ex parte extreme risk protection order—hearing—issuance—contents. (1) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, without notice to the respondent, by including in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.
    Allegations are not probable cause.

    The mere possession of a firearm triggers the deprivation of individual liberty.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause

    The injury to the citizen who is subject to a wrongly issued order is grave indeed. A proper redress of this wrong will be long in coming if it comes at all.
    "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

  16. #16
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Grim_Night View Post
    So... based on what I have just read, this is in fact a way to deprive someone of their rights as protected by the constitution without due process of law. Someone can be deprived of their right to bear arms BEFORE a hearing to hear ALL the facts by both sides and it can be done behind closed doors (see the Ex parte part). This should be opposed.

    19 feb 16: whitney post: quote (2) “Extreme risk protection order” means an order issued by a court, unquote.

    due process has been met.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by zaitz View Post
    You are apparently agreeing with me and against Alpine?

    If so, thanks . . . but you may wish to make things more clear . . .

    sorry, to make things more clear for you...

    NO I AM NOT AGREEING WITH YOU BUT CORRECTING THE MIS-INFORMATION YOU AGAIN ARE THROWING OUT AS GOSPEL.

    since i quoted you in my post and then stated in my topic sentence:
    quote: your perception the emergency protection orders are precipitated by divorce proceedings is completely incorrect...unquote

    that clear things up??
    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Not only that, once you get to the 14 day hearing they can keep the order for a year SOLELY based on the fact that you recently bought a gun..... Unbelievable. No self-respecting gun owner would support a law that criminalizes them just for having an interest in guns or buying one.
    i'm sorry, you (everyone on this thread) have horribly misconstrued this amendment completely out of perspective.

    1. you are engaged in a familial dispute (aka domestic violence) where the nice LEs have come to mediate. OR
    2. you are a partner beater/abuser where your partner suffers in silence and they issue you the ultimatum that they are finished with you.
    3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

    your partner goes to get an RO/PO from the courts and since you stated you are going to or have gotten a firearm...it is now considered an emergency RO/PO and the court issue an emergency decree for the sheriff to serve with the 'normal' RO/PO paperwork.

    now these Orders are not issued by the courts on the basis of one partner's word but rather from a myriad of inputs: partner, friends, offspring, LE documentation, etc.

    ALL this added text is doing is institutionalizing the RO/PO process to get an emergency RO/PO so DUE PROCESS can be afforded you, the partner, the beating/abusing/intimidating inhuman being that you are.

    as stated, RO/POs do not work and provide a false sense of security for the individual who has it.

    bottom line, if it was your sister, aunt, mother, grandmother who needed protection? (not to be sexist: brother, uncle, father, or grandfather is also vulnerable from DV activities!!)

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 02-25-2016 at 09:31 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    i'm sorry, you (everyone on this thread) have horribly misconstrued this amendment completely out of perspective.

    1. you are engaged in a familial dispute (aka domestic violence) where the nice LEs have come to mediate. OR
    2. you are a partner beater/abuser where your partner suffers in silence and they issue you the ultimatum that they are finished with you.
    3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

    your partner goes to get an RO/PO from the courts and since you stated you are going to or have gotten a firearm...it is now considered an emergency RO/PO and the court issue an emergency decree for the sheriff to serve with the 'normal' RO/PO paperwork.

    now these Orders are not issued by the courts on the basis of one partner's word but rather from a myriad of inputs: partner, friends, offspring, LE documentation, etc.

    ALL this added text is doing is institutionalizing the RO/PO process to get an emergency RO/PO so DUE PROCESS can be afforded you, the partner, the beating/abusing/intimidating inhuman being that you are.

    as stated, RO/POs do not work and provide a false sense of security for the individual who has it.

    bottom line, if it was your sister, aunt, mother, grandmother who needed protection? (not to be sexist: brother, uncle, father, or grandfather is also vulnerable from DV activities!!)

    ipse

    Read this carefully:

    (3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence, including but not limited to any of the following:

    ....
    (m) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms.

    Provision (M) can stand alone according to this law in terms of justifying otherwise isolated testimony that can likely be malicious.

  20. #20
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Read this carefully:

    Provision (M) can stand alone according to this law in terms of justifying otherwise isolated testimony that can likely be malicious.
    alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote

    3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

    i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.

    tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!

    Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?

    then you state...isolated testimony...?

    this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.

    this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!

    remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...

    as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...

    bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 02-25-2016 at 10:51 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote

    3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

    i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.

    tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!

    Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?

    then you state...isolated testimony...?

    this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.

    this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!

    remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...

    as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...

    bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...

    ipse
    Ex parte is not due process. If you don't have a chance to respond BEFORE you lose life, liberty or property then you have no way to show the court that the evidence against you is false.

    How would you like it if I told a court that you were a drug dealer so they, based solely on my uncorroborated testimony, seized your bank account and then two weeks later you had a hearing to prove you aren't a criminal?

    This is "guilty until proven innocent." Show me the strict evidence thresholds that prevent these rulings from being based purely on one person's testimony, because I don't see it anywhere in the initiative.
    Last edited by Alpine; 02-25-2016 at 11:04 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote

    3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

    i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.

    tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!

    Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?

    then you state...isolated testimony...?

    this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.

    this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!

    remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...

    as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...

    bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...

    ipse
    The proposed initiative does not state that you are a perp it only demands that:
    NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Ex parte extreme risk protection orderhearingissuancecontents.

    (1) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, without notice to the respondent, by including in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.


    (2) In considering whether to issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order under this section, the court shall consider all relevant evidence, including evidence described in subsection 4(3)(h)(m) of this act.
    If the only "credible evidence" is the petitioner's allegation, which includes the respondent currently possessing a firearm, then the court has no alternative than to issue the ex parte order and let the court work it out later.

    Anyway, to get further into the weeds, 4(3)(m) does not exempt this subsection consideration if the "recent acquisition of firearms" is not a first time firearm purchase.

    Where individual liberty is concerned there can be no ambiguity and the law must be specific and if we can find these ambiguities and inconsistencies why not the numbskull writing the initiative.

    Bad law this will be...worse than Terry v. Ohio.
    "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

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
    Ex parte is not due process. If you don't have a chance to respond BEFORE you lose life, liberty or property then you have no way to show the court that the evidence against you is false.

    How would you like it if I told a court that you were a drug dealer so they, based solely on my uncorroborated testimony, seized your bank account and then two weeks later you had a hearing to prove you aren't a criminal?

    This is "guilty until proven innocent." Show me the strict evidence thresholds that prevent these rulings from being based purely on one person's testimony, because I don't see it anywhere in the initiative.
    Really bad example...knowing that CIs are used all the time and are always credible and 100% correct...according to LE anyway.

    Thank God for qualified immunity and not having any criminal penalties for not providing evidence of LE's culpability in railroading citizens.
    "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

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    OC4ME, et al., i'm sorry this entire statute is the RO/PO directive to provide guidance. it is a DV generated statute which means the 'respondent' of the issue RO/PO is actively violent towards or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member otherwise know as a DV perpetrator!!

    the emergency guidance was lacking from the original statute, it is being put in to provide due process. the provision states there is due process but due to the perp presenting an immediate threat, real or imaged, the RO/PO is judicially issued with discussion with the principles involved and the justification scheduled at the statute's mandatory 14 day hearing in front of the judge.

    the same provisions apply for judicial consideration for issuance of a 'normal' RO/PO where after the statute's MANDATORY 14 day hearing and judgement is issued, the 'respondent' loses their right to have firearms!!

    please folks, do not forget, the complainant must go before a judicial official to be granted this RO/PO and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

    there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

    this statute has a mandatory hearing clause for both general and emergency RO/POs issuance

    quit using emotional bs, alpine quote... you lose life, liberty or property unquote.

    don't be a DV perp and you don't need to worry about 'false' accusations eh?

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 02-25-2016 at 11:34 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    OC4ME, et al., i'm sorry this entire statute is the RO/PO directive to provide guidance. it is a DV generated statute which means the 'respondent' of the issue RO/PO is actively violent towards or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member otherwise know as a DV perpetrator!!

    the emergency guidance was lacking from the original statute, it is being put in to provide due process. the provision states there is due process but due to the perp presenting an immediate threat, real or imaged, the RO/PO is judicially issued with discussion with the principles involved and the justification scheduled at the statute's mandatory 14 day hearing in front of the judge.

    the same provisions apply for judicial consideration for issuance of a 'normal' RO/PO where after the statute's MANDATORY 14 day hearing and judgement is issued, the 'respondent' loses their right to have firearms!!

    please folks, do not forget, the complainant must go before a judicial official to be granted this RO/PO and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

    there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

    this statute has a mandatory hearing clause for both general and emergency RO/POs issuance

    ipse
    No arguments from me until the ex parte subsection. The items (protections?) you cite above are not required for ex parte orders. The language is clear and the issuance of the ex parte order is easy for a agreeable judge. I know of no judge these days who would not issue a ex parte order based only on the affirmation of the petitioner given the latitude (lack of specificity in proving the petitioner's case) in the law...just in case. Count me cynical until proven wrong, and I'm not cynical regarding the petitioner...the judge.
    "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

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
  •