Gun Violence Restraining Orders have been spreading throughout these United States. Only now the due-process defiling, court-ordered firearms confiscation orders are called Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO). As our earlier post proved, the civilian disarmament industrial complex is going all-in on ERPOs. Well here’s an image from Washington State’s Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order-Without Notice downloadable docs. It’s a . . .
handy-dandy gun guide for petitioners looking to help confiscatory cops arriving unannounced at a targeted gun owner’s place of work and/or business. Are you supposed to tick the box or write in a number?
And what happens if a TERPOWN target tells the “hello nice day isn’t it we’re here to take all your guns” cops to FOAD? Or says “Guns? What guns?” Or “A single shot shotgun? I’m more of a Benelli man myself. Well I was, before the boat accident”
If a targeted gun owner clings to their guns, citing their Second Amendment-protected right to keep and bear arms and your Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment-protected right to due process, they face an additional five-year gun ban. Or ten years fighting their way past the 9th Circuit (in this case) to the Supreme Court to have this travesty of a law struck down once and for all.
Good luck with that. No really.
Add the symbol of the Pine Tree.
ath.us.com
http://cowhampshireblog.com
http://www.wearehistoricalsociety.org/pineriot.htm
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times. Temporary extreme risk protection orders do not violate due process, as long as there is an opportunity for a contested hearing and the assistance of counsel for a “permanent” order (in the states I know of, that last for 1 year) to issue. The temporary orders typically last only two or three weeks. The Washington statute in question requires an affidavit under penalty of perjury–which has the same force and effect as testimony in court–and, “to enter an Extreme Risk Protection Order, the court must find it more likely than not that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.” The application, which you do not produce or link, has a very detailed factual showing that is required for the issuance of such orders, and again, these orders may only be obtained by a limited pool of close family members and domestic partners.
Yes Robert, I know what your “opinion” is on the due process question, but that and a $1.50 will only buy you a cup of coffee. But not a Starbucks. You are simply, flat out, wrong. And you know what? If you are really really worried your (soon to be ex) wife will be trying to score one of these (which she won’t because she will opt for a domestic violence restraining order that could lead to a lifetime ban that carries a felony punishment if violated), all you have to do is out all your guns in trust and deliver them to a trustworthy friend.
I assume, Mark N, that you are a lawyer too. In 45 years of practice I have NEVER heard of a female affiant in a family court case being charged with perjury by an elected County Prosecutor. NEVER, have you? The experienced “aides” from the local woman’s group write the documents for the “poor thing” so as to guarantee issuance of the order (irrespective of gaps in her story) and badger her until she agrees and signs it. After that the rubber stamp machine goes into action.
7, 14, 30 days later, after being detained (usually at work) and deprived of his property and his home, the man (99%) gets a hearing before a judge who volunteered (bias?) for family court. With a good, aggressive (“So sorry, your Honor, but I do have to “vigorously” represent him”) lawyer and truth telling witnesses, there is a non-zero chance of getting the order lifted or modified to get the guns out of the rusting pile in the back of the police evidence room.
Other than facially, there is nothing fair about “woman’s” court.
Go the civil lawsuit route. Fraud is actionable and it would take it outside the family law courts. Hitting up these women with substantial judgements would stop these games
Sure, small claims court is free or has only a nominal fee in most places. The remedies are, however, very small, and often hard to collect.
Any other remedy is very costly, and out of the question for most of us.
I just read the order. It provides a list of acceptable reasons to take guns with no notice. Included in the list is “recent purchase of a firearm”.
How in the literal fuck are you such a window licking retard that you think that’s not a violation of both the 2nd and due process?!?
I’m sorry councelor. I must have missed the part where these orders were issued after a finding of guilt by a jury of your peers. That is the definition of due process. Don’t like it? Go to hell. The CotUS exists specifically so this sort of bullshit gets rammed right up the ass of the judge who issued it attached to the business end of a pike.
The answer to this is to *never* allow them to create a record of what guns you own in the first place.
Force them to guess where in this big wide world they *might* be.
New York state, California, etc. You’re fvcked…
The same people who vote these types of laws in, are the same ones that vote to register guns.
They have nothing to lose. They aren’t gun owners, what do they care?
You can’t run away from this problem. WA and OR 20 years ago would never have seen laws like 100% background checks or ERPO’s, or had AG’s, governors and mayors who openly call for and work towards anti-gun action. Colorado. Arizona, all there or heading that way, when a couple decades back it was unheard of.
Liberalism has not and is not going to stop at any particular state line. Population centers almost without exception turn liberal at some point, and in most if not all states, the population centers dictate the politics of the entire state. WA can count on one county to keep the state liberal, and OR is the same way. WA is even worse off because we have ballot initiatives. Soros, Bloomberg, and douches like Gates or Hannauer can use their money to get the measures on the ballot, and can count on the majority (who are not gun owners) to vote for “common sense” laws that the legislature and senate can do nothing about, regardless of their composition.
Unless SCOTUS rules that these states are out of line on the 2A, things are not going to get better for those living in many densely populated liberal states, regardless of how politically active they are or how much money they expend. Gun owners are a minority, but a minority on the wrong side of the progressive agenda. As far as I’m concerned, SCOTUS is the only thing that is going to save the 2A. By the time people who believe in freedom get fed up enough to do something about it, they will already be registered, tracked, fear for their jobs, the well being of their families, and under- or unarmed. *Every* anti-gun measure passed discourages more people from becoming gun owners and reduces freedom. As non-gun owner numbers rise, proportionately, legal gun owners are less and less of a concern for policy makers.
Lawyers are the single biggest problem with this country today. Long winded, double talking, biased, overcharging, greedy scum.
Allowing the goverment to be run by lawyers the way we have has caused the extreme over regulation and previously illegal taxation of the citizenry to the point of oppression. There are laws against EVERYTHING nowadays….I just saw a law posted in L.A. county that the use of SILLY STRING is illegal from noon on oct. 31st to 7am nov. 1st. I mean come on, really?
I got severly injured at work and had to get a lawyer to force the insurance company to pay me what they were required to by law (and its a joke) so, now they refuse to pay a doctor bill or “forget” to send my check and my lawyer calls their lawyer to call the adjuster and get me my check a week late. My lawyer gets paid, their lawyer gets paid, the adjuster gets to show the company hes doing something and the only one who gets screwed? Yours truly. Can I do anything about it? Nope. They can be two weeks late forever and theres no recourse. Why? Because the laws they have to adhere to are written by lawyers making sure that above everybody the lawyers have ample avenues to rob people. The lawyers in state goverment work with the lawyers for the insurance companies and the people who are lobbying are lawyers who might have these jobs someday so they make it easy for themselves. The court system is so jammed with innane lawsuits and petty “criminal” charges that are illegal for no other reason but to generate revenue. The country has become a toilet of useless and oppressive laws and the lawyers of the world are jiggling the handle. Thanks alot.
Lawyers will argue both sides of a mobius strip.
There is only one side.
“There is only one side.”
That whooshing sound you heard…
“The temporary orders typically last only two or three weeks…”
Really? So it’s okay to violate someone’s Constitutional rights for two or three weeks?
If you get thrown in jail for three weeks without a hearing, is that kosher?
Didn’t think so.
^ This!
Thank you Hannibal.
+1
Why the assumption that a court proceeding does not constitute damages? It sure as hell does in civil court, where frivolous claims are punished. You’re talking the seizure of often a large quantity of valuable items, inevitably damage will befall many of them no matter how fast they are returned, and the very significant chance of institutional prejudice (which is what other posters are describing as an obvious feature of family/domestic courts) failing to uphold justice.
The net result is the frequent expropriation of an individual’s property, with an extremely low threshold for justified cause, and often without a jury of peers once it gets to court. The fifth amendment is pretty clearly in contradiction of this kind of arrangement (as is the 8th, seeing as the punishment being the summary seizure & destruction of valuable property is quite excessive considering *no actual crime has even been committed*)
The fact that governments can often get away with flagrantly violating citizens’ civil rights for a few weeks at a time without court action is a symptom of a inefficient and unresponsive legal system & complacent society; it is not something to aspire to in public policy. Ideally, questionable orders based on dodgy testimony would a) never be approved, b) be contested & voided immediately, and c) result in substantial penalties for the accuser, their lawyers, and the approving judge once overturned. Generally, none of those three things occurs and the burden of the order is borne entirely by the undeserving accused (to the point of loss of personal property, loss of personal reputation, loss of funds in the form of court costs associated with fighting the order & reclaiming the property, and of course a fairly significant exposure to a hostile legal system –all those cops who now know what gun$ you own…)
Most DV cases involve people of moderate means. The cost of a good defense lawyer in a DV (criminal) proceeding and in the inevitable divorce (civil) proceeding — usually different lawyers — will devistate most households. Remember that in the divorce proceeding, the Male gets to pay for everyone’s lawyers.
The $64,000 question in 2017 is, when the milk is so free, why are so many men buying the cow?
That temp order in Nueva York will take you about 4 months to see a judge if you’re lucky. Dont be surprised if the order is for 6 months and even IF they rescind it it wont be rescinded until the 6 month date. You’ll be very lucky not to have your guns sold out of the storage locker by the brave local authorities by then.
Mark N.’s not from here.
Hey Mark, soros pay well?
Mark N.,
While your statement accurately reflects the current mindset (of prosecutors, judges, and lawyers) of what is proper, that mindset is WRONG for all of the reasons that other posters already listed.
While there is bare due process of the TERPO mandates the confiscation of firearms after the hearing (and I confess I’m unclear if the confiscation happens prior to or after the hearing) the threshold for granting a restraining order in the states I’ve practiced in is exceedingly low. that calls into question whether the forms of basic due process are sufficient because the legal system has created an unbalanced system which favors the first tonaccuse. Although the prima facie burden may be on the petitioner, because the bar is set so low as to the proof required, its practical effect is to require the reapondent to prove the negative.
You are either an anti-gunner or live in your own fantasy world. Anyone who lives in the real world has seen these orders abused over and over again, without any repercussions. This is due to the fact that the only legal requirement for these orders to be valid is that the reporter must only ‘fear,’ that their life is in danger. As long as they can state, at the time, that they ‘feel,’ they were in danger, the truth of their statement(s) does not matter.
Can we make our own forms entitled “Extreme Treason Protection Order” and have the pictures of all politicians, judges, and elected officials currently trying to circumvent, undermine, or destroy the principles of the US Constitution?
We could, but we’d have to write ~really small~ to fit it on one sheet of paper.
“the court must find it more likely than not that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.”
Courts don’t have a good track record for making good decisions, not being bias, or throwing out BS cases in a timely manner. All this “order” does is open up law abiding citizens to harassment by ignorant people or people with obvious anti-2A agendas.
“The application, which you do not produce or link, has a very detailed factual showing that is required for the issuance of such orders, and again, these orders may only be obtained by a limited pool of close family members and domestic partners.”
Right, because we all know how logical close family members and domestic partners can be, particularly if they are ignorant of gun laws, the Constitution, are bias, politically swayed, or are anti-2A.
This whole thing is a SJW / leftist wet dream that leaves all gun owners vulnerable to BS litigation.
Not to mention that only close family members/etc would potentially be in the cross-hairs of these theoretical red-eyed killers.
Yup, just the immediate family. And friends. And neighbors. And cousins. And local police. And family doctor. And teachers, and social workers, and psychiatrists, former roommates, and of course lawn scapers & solicitors. Hell, include psychics while we’re at it, since they are better than all these other people at reading minds, anyway. You know, since we have so much faith in the vox populi to divine right from wrong, let’s also give the majority of voters the authority to disarm individuals as well.
As a practical matter in DV cases the court STARTS with the assumption that the petition meets a more likely than not standard BECAUSE the Womans Group “aides” know exactly how to write her statement, accurate or not, to guarantee the order will be issued.
Unfortunately this is not new to WA.
I had to go get a “temporary” restraining order before the anti’s passed the XRPO garbage, and it too had a statement about firearms and having them removed from the “perpetrator”.
Note that the process for an emergency protection order removed due process, and only required a judge(? may have been a court employee less than a judge) to respond affirmatively to your request, which was done on a computer at a police station, without any assistance from LEO. I went in, sat at a computer, alleged said things happened on an electronic form, submitted on the same computer, four hours later or so, I had an approved emergency protection order which allowed me to involve police to have an individual removed from a premise, which I did.
There was no due process, and I could easily have said that the individual had a firearm, had pointed it at me, etc. to attempt to make the judge more sympathetic to my request and have them barred from possessing a firearm until a court hearing weeks later. Other states may be different, but WA was already in that boat, and the fact this law passed was somewhat laughable, as it changed nothing.
So are semi-automatic shotguns not covered?
More people have lost their gun rights to a domestic violence charge than to a drug charge. I have no proof to back this up. Its just my thinking. Most of these fights between men and women don’t involve punching. But many times both are intoxicated.
The same people who said government should stay out of the bed room are the same ones putting government in the other rooms in the house.
DV has everything to do with being first to claim the other person committed violence against you, and getting the responding officers to believe you over the other person.
In my experience, most women bruise easier than most men, it would be EXTREMELY easy for a female to bang a forearm into a table to create a bruise that is then “proof” in a she said he said argument, that is near impossible for the other party to refute. It may sound far fetched….but.
Having gone through a DV situation for the first time, most people are completely unaware of how stacked the laws are against them as a generally law abiding person, when faced with a liar that has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by having you arrested for DV. Getting another party arrested under DV provides evidence for future litigation, such as divorce, particularly when children are involved.
DY
I sorry for you or anyone to have to go through a false charge arrest. The “system” has been weaponized against men, women and even children. I hate illegal drugs but the court system is even worse.
This is why I think restraining orders, temporary or otherwise, are unconstitutional. Want to infringe my rights? Go get a jury. Until then, are you as ready to die to take my rights as I am to defend them?
Unfortunately you will probably get shot and killed especially if it’s a leftist enclave. You have a sizable percentage of the population who view the Constitution as a impediment. And the use of deadly force by police officers will not be considered as gun violence by the supporters of such trash legislation.
Can we give them a 1/2 point for writing “assault rifle” instead of “assault weapon”? Just askin’.
Am confused is this a Washington county, Oregon form? There is no Washington county in the state of Washington. Tho I think both states adopted similar measures
Don’t get romantically involved with anyone you wouldn’t trust with this sort of power.
Amen, amen, and AMEN!
If you want to be really careful, start a “practice argument” over something relatively small to see how the potential significant other behaves in a dispute, and/or how easily they get unhinged, BEFORE letting them in on the fact that you have firearms. If they get unduly irrational, that’s an “Exit” sign.
One of my pet tricks to put some justice back into our legal system (which I know will never happen) is to change the fundamental nature of warrants. basically, change them into a bet — you can do anything you want with a warrant, as long as it’s relevant to the case, but if it turns out to be in error, if your execution violates the written warrant, or if you lose the case itself — then the warrant rebounds on you. You searched some guy’s house? He gets to search yours. You arrested some guy in public, say at work, and got him fired? He gets to pull the same stunt on you, making sure it’s so humiliating that you too stand a good chance of getting fired. You broke into a house under no-knock rules and shot the family dog, and didn’t find what your warrant said was there? They get to break your door down without warning, in the middle of the night, with lots of public humiliation, and take your dogs away.
Of course, you can offer wads of money as substitution. That’s between you and him.
The point is to make sure false warrants and false gets get retribution, that “emergency” warrants, no-knock raids, property confiscation, and eery thing else involved holds someone accountable when things don’t work out.
You want to confiscate my guns as an emergency temporary measure? You damn well better take real good care of them, and when it turns out you lied about the danger I pose, I am going to confiscate your furniture, your car, you bedroom curtains, and whatever else has equivalent value, and take equivalent care. or you can pay me a pile of money for me to leave you alone, as you should have left me alone.
That’s my fantasy, or at least one of them.
The PBR (and, I suppose, several others) have such a rule; you can challenge the ruling of the judges, and it will be reviewed.
But if you’re wrong, you lose $500.
Anyone else disappointed there wasn’t some comically-obscure weapon like a Wildey or a Thompson SMG or XM8 used for the silhouettes?
Psycho gun grabbers push divorce, then use the parties against each other to help the fing POS (D) head POS (D). They will try with the courts to do what they cannot achieve legislatively in daylight. There’s a lot of guilty parties, and complicit parties. There’s a wad of fake news pushing to get their first amendment rights revoked. There’s a sh_t-ton of POS (D) out there, and we’ll likely have at many times before we ever see the end of it, But F the lot.
I posted many times here, and it’s still true.
If you live in a “blue” state, you MAY be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, progressive, communist, globalist, or a RINO,
THE PROBLEM IS
P A R T
O F
Y O U
and your mother owes us an abortion.
I don’t give a flyin’ F if you “like guns too”. YOU and your kind ARE THE PROBLEM and you are an fing scourge. Your the reason fir everything bad we discuss here.
#NaCl
One of the most batshit crazy things I’ve ever seen involved a guy I knew and his wife.
They had a bit of a party at their house which resulted in her having a few to many and her husband taking her keys away so that she couldn’t get a DUI. Well, that started a fight and she called the cops but before she called the cops she stood in the middle of a room and screamed “You’re going to jail you fucking bastard!!” before taking a running start to smash her face into the wall.
Even with a dozen witnesses backing him up the guy almost went to jail for DV anyway because there was damaged drywall and she had visible injuries. Did they charge her for a false report? Ha! No.
Suffice to say her served her with divorce papers a few days later.
It’s 2017. Who doesn’t have a phone with a video camera ? Why didn’t the husband ( or anyone else ) just film her injuring herself and then show the cops ?
He didn’t say it happened in 2017. And some people still look to take action, not video an event in the making. There were witnesses already, why would anyone NEED a video with them?
The point is, crazy people and those with less to lose than you, can use the legal system to harm you. These sorts of laws expand that ability.
Please…my obsolete flip phone had video capability, not a new feature for 2017.
If the wife announced her intention, then proceedef to carry it out to completoon, then no one took action.
It makes perfect legal sense to record the crazy wife for the same reason police use use dash cams and now body cams. It removes the questionable”heresay” aspect and replaces it with incontravertible evidence.
No one had any idea she was going to yell that and run directly into a wall. This escalated from her looking for her keys to yelling to running into a wall in about 60 seconds because crazy happens fast.
On top of that, maybe I’m just odd for a 32 year old, but I’ve quite literally never had the reaction of “Oh, shit! I better take video!” until after I should have taken the video.
This is why we talk about the need for cop’s cameras to ALWAYS be on.
Regardless, why would anyone blame the victim of a baseless claim for not being able to prove they are innocent?
That is flawed thinking from the get-go, and the whole point of why due process should never be circumvented, as the anti-gun laws do. Proving your innocence is not how our legal system is designed, and for good reason.
Okay. Additional details provide clarity. Without context it is easy to assume this was not a split-second reaction by the wife.
No experience with DV, but I’ve witnessed fights between males where a fair amount of time was spent trash talking before blows were actually exchanged and which was more than enough time to pull out a smart phone for legal reasons or othetwise.
D Y asked: “Regardless, why would anyone blame the victim of a baseless claim for not being able to prove they are innocent? ”
Here in the US, at least in theory, you aren’t supposed to prove your innocence. The other side is supposed to prove your guilt.
Unfortunately, evidence is faked, people lie under oath, and no consequences ensue. It happens all the time. On a day off, sit in a courtroom and listen to some testimony in a really frivolous case (traffic court, or small claims court) and listen to the truly outlandish “testimony” that goes on with no punishment for the obviously contradictory claims made. Why, indeed? Because this is what passes for “justice” here in the US today.
Can we award 1/2 points for using “assault rifle” instead of “assault weapon”?
Google shows me only two states that actually have enacted ERPO laws, California and Connecticut. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m sure that loony leftists would like to foist this nonsense on all of the states, but for the present I expect that their success will be limited to the Left Coast and the Northeast.
There are three gun owners residing in this home. So, would all guns be confiscated, or just my guns? No registration in Texas, and I have purchased a couple of guns as gifts for the two other occupants.
I am capable of locking up guns away from whomever the ERPO order is issued against. I am able to store them elsewhere. I do believe that if someone is set on committing suicide, removing guns will only cause them to choose another option. As for domestic violence, the three of us have coexisted peacefully for 19 (Son) and 25 years (husband).
They (the anti’s) would gladly deprive all of you your rights in the name of “safety”.
In California they can and will prevent people from having firearms if they are cohabiting with someone who is not allowed to possess firearms. There have been multiple instances of this occurring.
When registration is allowed (in the form of new gun sales, mandatory background checks on all weapons sales, concealed carry permits, etc) the government knows you have weapons, and invariably, when the time is right, they will use that data against you.
Comments are closed.