Tag Archives: ERPO

Amy Swearer is riding her “red flag” hobby horse again

I’ve previously observed that, for a “Senior Legal Policy Analyst,” Ms. Swearer seems to have a limited grasp of legal issues; particularly “red flag” laws. Or pretends so.

Once again, she is pushing “properly crafted” “red flag” laws.

In a nation with a constitution with a Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment, and where Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312 (1921) yielded a SCOTUS decision that due process must take place before a taking, before an abrogation of constitutionally protected rights, there is no such thing as a properly crafted “red flag” law.

The sort of laws Swearer describes as good “red flag” laws, are not. She describes the existing, standard protective order: accuser presents real evidence, hearing is held in which the accused — who must be informed — can have legal representation and present his defense, and the judge rules. If the ruling is in favor of the accuser, now firearms may be taken.

By deliberate intent, “red flag” laws:

  • Allow no-due process ex parte proceedings in which the accused’s first warning is when the police arrive to SWAT him.
  • Far from facing his accuser, it is unlawful for anyone to tell the accused who did it to him until his eventual hearing.
  • Lower the standard of evidence to the level of I feel that something might happen sometime, but I can’t prove it or I’d file a police report so they could get an arrest warrant.
  • When a ex post facto hearing is eventually held (laws vary from two weeks to a month after the seizure of property), the burden of proof is shifted to the accused. He must prove his innocence of something that hasn’t happened and for which there may have been no credible evidence was going to… because if there was, he could have been arrested already.

That is what makes a “red flag” law: No due process, gossip as evidence, and forcing the accused to prove his innocence. Anything else is a standard, existing protection order process.

Those elements are bad enough. The practical implementation of the laws is worse. In no “red flag” law I have reviewed* is there any requirement to take the allegedly “dangerous” person into custody; neither for “public safety” nor for a mental health evaluation. Florida’s perfunctory nod to that is a requirement that law enforcement merely inform the accuser if they are planning to — eventually — Baker Act the accused.

The accused is so dangerous that he must be SWATted on no notice and forcibly disarmed, but so safe he can be left on the loose to obtain other weapons?

Florida and Colorado allow the initial “hearing,” in which the accuser’s application is considered, to be conducted telephonically. Even an accused murderer deemed too dangerous to transport from jail to courthouse gets a video hearing so the judge can consider little things like the defendant’s demeanor and credibility as demonstrated by gestures, body language, and facial expressions.

The federal “encourage the states to SWAT innocent people” bill includes a pretend protection in the form of a felony perjury charge for a false report. But how does a prosecutor prove that the accuser didn’t really “feel” that “something” “might” happen “sometime”?

“I turned out to be wrong, Your Honor, but I honestly ‘felt’ that at the time.”

So why are people pushing for “red flag” laws? Why does Swearer think they’re so great? Do they honestly believe that they will reduce gun violence, and that makes the constitutional shredding worth it?

Florida passed its “red flag” law in March 2018. They are reportedly flagging an average of five people per day. 2019 data isn’t in yet, but an analysis of 2018 homicide, firearms-related homicide, and suicide numbers strongly suggests otherwise: post-red flag, homicides went up; firearms-related homicides went up; and suicides increased dramatically.

The suicide statistics — suicide rate held steady at 14.1/100K for two years, then suddenly jumped to 15.3/100K post-passage — suggest the law is making that worse. Imagine a borderline suicidal person suddenly betrayed by an anonymous accusation from a supposed loved one, his property stolen without a chance to defend himself; perhaps he’ll cross that borderline now, from potential to successful suicide. Would a depressed person choose not to seek professional help lest a well-meaning busybody “help” him by violating his human/civil rights?

“Red flag” laws are clearly unconstitutional. Far from helping, they may be aggravating the situation.

Protection order procedures with due process already exist in every state. Every state already has a Baker Act equivalent law to take at-risk people into custody for evaluation. “Red flag” laws are not needed… for the advertised purpose.

Which begs the rhetorical question of, “Why push for them?” In some cases, it appears to be ignorance of existing laws. That should not be the case for a “senior legal analyst.”

But consider the backlash to Presidential candidates suggesting the use of overwhelming military force against civilians to confiscate firearms in bulk (and how far we fallen when credible candidates could even think of such a thing). They cannot do it. It is impossible. That is why every “assault weapon” ban proposed prior to the current psychotic Congress grandfathered existing arms; even Feinstein understood the problems of kicking millions of doors because the occupants are well-armed.

If you go at it piecemeal, one firearm owner at a time, you can “boil the frog.” Pass a “red flag” law, use pretend “evidence” against someone who has done nothing, give him the semblance of a day in court, and you can sneak up on everyone. And if you happen to round up an occasional person who really was at risk, the people-controlling politicians and media will be happy to put him on display as the posterboy for wonderful ERPOs. “See? It works! Never mind that he was one in a few thousand.”

And you don’t even need expansive “assault weapon” definitions, because you’re taking everything anyway.


* I freely admit that I have not analyzed every law that has been passed, nor have I analyzed the results of those laws as I did with Florida. I lack the resources to do that. Unlike a “senior legal analyst” funded by a ritzy foundation with tens of millions of dollars to throw around, I do what little I can on my own time and dime. As is, I have to add airtime to my 4.5 year-old dumb flip-fone a bit at a time as I can scrape up the money, and I sold my 23 year-old truck a few months ago. If you would like to see more, and more in-depth, analyses feel free to hit my tip jar below.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Florida Red Flag Law: How is it working out?

Post-Parkland, Florida passed a “red flag” law allowing the confiscation of firearms from people deemed at risk of harming themselves or others. That was in March of 2018.

Since more states are adopting such laws, and federal “red flag” legislation is being considered, I thought it would be a good idea to see if the rights-violation was “worth it” in terms of lives saved.

Recently, we learned that Florida is apparently using its “red flag” law an average of five times a day.

Five times per day. That’s 1,825 people flagged per year. People that allegedly couldn’t be stopped by conventional — due process — means. Preemptively preventing their crimes should make a noticeable dent in homicide numbers. If the “red flag” law actually works.

Let’s take a look.

The law was passed in March, so it was only in effect for nine months. With the 5/day average, that’s approximately 1,350 people who didn’t kill, who otherwise would have, in 2018 (2019 data isn’t available yet).

2017 had 1,057 homicides, of which 791 were firearms-related.

2018 had 1107 homicides, of which 836 were firearmsailerons -related. OK, to be fair, Parkland is included in that count. Let’s exclude that to see how the numbers went down:

1,090 homicides. 819 firearms-related.

The numbers went up? Even when we exclude Parkland? But… but… red flag.

Ah, perhaps all or most of those flagged individuals were suicidal. With the “red flag” law, I’m sure we’ll see a nice decrease in suicides.
2016: 3,122 (14.1/100K)
2017: 3,187 (14.1/100K)
2018: 3,552 (15.3/K)

If the usual homicide:suicide ratio of 1:2 in firearm deaths applied to the “red flagged” people, Florida should have seen a drop of 900 suicides: 2,652. Or, since approximately half are by firearm, perhaps only half of those flagged people were planning to go out that way: 3102. Not an increase of 365 to 3,552.

If “red flag” laws worked.

“Red flag” goes into effect. Homicides go up. Firearm homicides go up. Suicides go up.

They don’t work. The vast majority of firearm homicides are committed by people who aren’t supposed to have guns anyway, and who will get them; generally in an unlawful fashion.

“Red flag” laws may even make suicides worse, by aggravating already disturbed people while leaving them on the loose to die by other means, and by not Baker Acting them so they get help. If I’m correct, 2019 suicide numbers in Florida may well be even worse than the significant increase of 2018.


Added: Based on comments elsewhere, I was apparently too subtle in noting that the law didn’t work as they claimed it would. Since I’ve been noting for years that gun control laws target the demographic not committing the crimes, therefore the unspoken goal isn’t what they claimed, I didn’t bother to say it explicitly again. It’s people control.

I hereby apologize for failing to repeat myself again.

[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP and web host bills. And the rabbits need feed. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Take Two Aspirin

It’s an Opioid epidemic. You hear it all over the news. I read articles about it in my Farm Bureau magazine, it seems to be the “deadly German Shepherd/Doberman/Pit Bull” stories of the day. I’m so old I can remember how different decades had their designated “deadly dog” breed. Which of course is utter bull. Of any breed.

But this Opioid epidemic is so bad, it even has it’s own Wiki entry (/snark). What do we learn?

The worry surrounding the potential of a worldwide pandemic has affected opioid accessibility in countries around the world. Approximately 25.5 million people per year, including 2.5 million children, die without pain relief worldwide, with many of these cases occurring in low and middle-income countries. The current disparity in accessibility to pain relief in various countries is significant; the U.S. produces or imports 30 times as much pain relief medication as it needs while low-income countries such as Nigeria receive less than 0.2% of what they need, and 90% of all the morphine in the world is used by the world’s richest 10%.America’s opioid epidemic has resulted in an “opiophobia” that is stirring conversations among some Western legislators and philanthropists about adopting a “war on drugs rhetoric” to oppose the idea of increasing opioid accessibility in other countries, in fear of starting similar opioid epidemics abroad

Well, clearly something must be done. The government must step in. I know, more snark.

Which has led to many states passing “Prescription Drug Monitoring Program” PDMP. The government given reason is to catch people doctor shopping. The government, in addition to your doctor, feels they need to be aware of every prescription you are given. It will no doubt stop this current epidemic.

In 2016, the medical news site STAT reported that while Mexican cartels are the main source of heroin smuggled into the U.S., Chinese suppliers provide both raw fentanyl and the machinery necessary for its production. In British Columbia, police discovered a lab making 100,000 fentanyl pills each month, which they were shipping to Calgary, Alberta. 90 people in Calgary overdosed on the drug in 2015. In Southern California, a home-operated drug lab with six pill presses was uncovered by federal agents; each machine was capable of producing thousands of pills an hour.

Or not.

So what is the real reason for this intrusive action? Well, I could let Missouri’s Rep. Lynn Morris tell you about it, he’s all in favor of it.

Seems to me like this will mostly prevent people from going to their doctor and getting help when they need it. Depressed? Don’t go to the doctor, or don’t tell them. Want to quit smoking using Wellbutrin like your neighbor did? Not any more. Why not? Because those too, are medications that obama listed as being medications that should deny someone the right to own a gun. The data in the PDMP will of course be shared with other states. And of course it’s going to wind up in the federal government’s hands. I don’t care what they tell you. For example, Missouri has a law that the data obtained to get a driver’s license, for example you had to supply a copy of your birth certificate, was not suppose to leave the state. When Jay Nixon-Demoncrat was governor he betrayed the people of Missouri and turned over the data to MorphoTrust. Most assuredly not in Missouri. And then he lied publicly many times about doing it. They’re politicians, they lie. I’ve met a few honest ones, but so far Moshe Feiglin of Zehut, while on track to enter the Knesset in the next round of elections has still so far refused to come to America and enter the political arena.

But if the medical field is to be the arbiter of what is good, acceptable, legal, and kept private I would wonder how they handle other situations where they have that much power over people’s lives. I mean denying someone their G-d given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights is a pretty big thing. So, how do they acquit themselves?

The VA is restricting veterans’ gun rights without due process

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has placed gun restrictions on thousands of veterans without due process, and Congress needs to address the matter. It is quite ironic that under VA policy, the men and women who protected our nation in the armed forces are effectively becoming disarmed by unaccountable government employees.

Maybe they do better with children?

The Brutal Battle Against Medical Kidnappers

Justina’s plight had become international news in Marty’s backyard. One fateful winter day in February 2013, Justina traveled with her mom to BCH from her West Hartford, Conn., home, seeking relief from a severe case of the flu. Ordinary sickness compounded Justina’s rare medical conditions, including mitochondrial disease and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. But those illnesses hadn’t stopped her from participating in school, competitive ice skating, and an active family life.

Instead of receiving top-notch care and attention at BCH, however, Justina was snatched from her parents and recklessly rediagnosed with a psychological condition, “somatoform disorder.” She was dragged from BCH’s neurology department to its infamous psych ward, where she was reprimanded for being unable to move her bowels or walk unassisted in her weakened state. At Wayside, she was harassed by a staffer while taking a shower. The physical and mental torture lasted 16 months.

The family is now suing the gold-medallion-adorned, scandal-plagued Boston Children’s Hospital.

Justina Pelletier and Medical Kidnapping 4 Years Later – Has Anything Changed?

It has been more than 4 years since the most infamous case of medical kidnapping in the United States occurred when the state of Massachusetts, together with Boston Children’s Hospital, seized custody of then 14-year-old Justina Pelletier over a medical disagreement.

The story exploded across mainstream and international media after her father Lou Pelletier courageously defied an unconstitutional gag order and risked prison to tell his family’s story. With heavy hitters in the national media like Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee and Dr. Phil giving them exposure, as well as an army of advocates by their side, it still took 16 months to get their daughter home.

Justina, to this day, still suffers physical, mental, and emotional trauma from all that happened to her during her captivity.

And from the above story, here’s a little tidbit I had no idea, so in case you didn’t know either:

When Justina Pelletier’s story came to light, the world learned the horrifying reality that children who are wards of the state, including foster children, may legally be used in the United States as medical lab rats or guinea pigs in drug trials and medical research without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

We learned that Boston Children’s Hospital and other hospitals around the country engage in this type of practice that would ordinarily be thought of as something only the Nazis during WWII would have done.

A 2014 article by Matt Barber at WND exposed the written policy of Boston Children’s Hospital that:

“Children who are Wards of the State may be included in research that presents greater than minimal risk with no prospect of direct benefit.”

Well, but that was a few years back, so perhaps the medical field has reined in their abuse of power after things like this came to light, right?

Not so much. At all.

Detroit SWAT team assaults African American mom who refused to medicate her daughter with antipsychotic drugs

Child Protective Services (CPS) personnel attempted to kidnap Maryanne’s 13-year-old daughter. They accused her of not giving her child psychiatric medication prescribed by her doctor.

Maryanne says the medication caused side effects in her daughter and made her condition worse, which is why she refused to give her daughter the medication.

The medication was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication known for causing serious side effects such as abdominal pain, vomiting, aggression, anxiety, dizziness and lack of coordination

Child “Protective” services called the police to take the child away, a SWAT team got involved, it was just ugly.

Armed SWAT team violently storms family’s home, kidnaps three children for not being vaccinated

In this one, a Mother took her flu-stricken 2 year old to a “doctor” who decided since the child wasn’t vaccinated it must have meningitis and told the Mom to take it to the ER. Child’s fever broke shortly after that and was soon playing with it’s siblings. Mom called the “doctor” said child was ok and they didn’t need to go to the ER. Doctor told them to go anyway. Mom disobeyed the “doctor” and didn’t. This resulted in a 0100 door busting entry by the local SWAT team to remove all 3 children.

And now you understand the term M. Deity complex.

But hey the judge that signed off on this offered some great words of encouragement.

Despite arguments from the family’s lawyer that they did what they believed to be the best thing for the child who had the fever, the judge ultimately sided with the state and DCS, telling the parents that they needed to “remember” that the state had a “family-reunification plan” in place, whatever that means.

And this is the same government that is going to monitor the medications you or your family members do or don’t take. It matters not to me if you take vaccines or not, I realize there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate although I notice the people that choose vaccines seem to be much more hostile about it. Calling those that don’t want them “anti-vaxxers” while those that don’t want the vaccine don’t seem to care what anyone else does, they just don’t want it themselves.

But for those that choose to put every vaccine available in themselves and their children and insist everyone else do the same at the point of a governmental gun or have their children seized. Have you considered what happens when the government, chooses to do something you disagree with? You want to home school? Too bad. You want to send your child a home made lunch rather than buy the obama lunch? Too bad. Will child protective services take you child? When you demand government make laws affecting other people’s children, someone else is demanding laws that will affect yours.

But with the medical field showing itself to be rabidly anti-gun does anyone think the PDMP will not be abused to compromise the Second Amendment? What form will that abuse take and how far will it go?

What an unholy alliance! The BATFE, the AMA and adding in a PDMP. Yesh. The cherry on top? The “red flag” ERPOs, that alphabet soup should be enough to give anyone indigestion. But whatever you do, don’t call your doctor!

Actually there may be a cure.

Missouri is called the “Show Me” state, and they may be showing us the way to handle some of this. They currently have legislation being heard called the Second Amendment Preservation Act. They’ve been trying for a few years to get it passed. The VNRA (Bear, I poached your term) lied about it one go round and killed it. But they are trying again and it’s a fabulous piece of legislation.

It’s based on the “Anti-Commandeering” clause. Here is a good synopsis. Anti-Commandeering: An overview of five major Supreme Court cases from The Tenth Amendment Center.

And here is a good video to explain it. It won’t help with the states that are foolishly enacting ERPOs and PDMPs but it may help with some other things. Like for example, government agencies that make gun rules on a whim.

I recently renewed my CPR certification, it’s required for my job. In it, in every scenario it was stressed over and over again that one of the main factors determining survival rates was the speed with which CPR was started and the effectiveness of the CPR.

So, anti-gun medical people*, explain to me a faster and more effective self-defense tool than a gun? Oh yes, prevention is important. But just as vaccines do not prove effective every time, home defense prevention doesn’t always work. Will you wait for the ambulance to come rather than starting CPR (because after all, that should be left to the professionals) even though that wait may prove fatal? Well, why do you expect me to wait for the Deputies to come when I could have had something more effective and faster? Hypocrisy much?

*I most certainly realize not all medical people are anti-gun. Not all doctors ask patients and parents “Do you own a gun” and make it part of the patients medical records. But many do, and it’s part of the patients records, records no longer kept just at the doctors office due to obamacare. If you think these Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs won’t be abused? You possibly have a fever and are delusional, or have meningitis. Take two aspirin and skip calling the doctor in the morning. Just have some nice coffee.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Let’s Ex Parte!

Ah, the fad for Extreme Risk Ex Parte Protective orders. You know, I shall henceforth refer to them as EPPOs.

Supposedly, these are to get guns out the hands of “dangerous” people, but the fact is that every state already has laws — for years — that allow that. The only thing EPPOs “add” is stripping away due process, through ex parte “star chamber” proceedings with the subject not even being aware of the accusation until the cops show up to steal his property. That’s the point.

Besides ex parte proceedings stripping away human/civil rights being morally repugnant, that don’t meet the federal definition of due process, which requires a hearing with the accused before the rights-stripping. (You hear that, NRA?)

So yes, I oppose EPPOs. But allow me to make a little suggestion. This isn’t actually being offered as a compromise, just a thought experiment to see how the victim-disarmers react. Let’s modify the basic “ERPO.”


The individual applying for an EPPO shall, in addition to any court/filing fees, post a $10,000 bond.

When the ex parte hearing is held, the judge shall either issue the order or deny it.

  • If the order is denied, $5,000 of the bond will be delivered to the subject of the EPPO application, in restitution for the attempted infringement of the subject’s rights. The subject will be informed of the denied application and the identity of the accuser.
  • If the order is issued, $10,000 will be delivered to the subject when the police remove the firearms.

If the order is issued, the after-the-fact appeal better-late-than-never-due-process hearing will be heard by a judge other than the judge who issued the order, who has no conflict of interest in case.

If that judge does not uphold the original order, the first judge who issued the order will be suspended from the bench without pay and criminally charged under 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law. A civil judgement will be entered against the offending judge ordering him to pay the subject of the order $10,000.

In any case, the subject of the order keeps the original $10,000 in restitution for the rights-violation which occurred before he had a hearing. No shall the subject of the order incur any court costs, filing fees, or fines; and all of the subject’s legal expenses will be borne by the party who applied for the rights-violation.

None of the restitution paid to the subject in this process shall be construed as disallowing additional compensation awarded through other civil or criminal proceedings.


OK, victim-disarmers. Put up or shut up. Is it your goal to protect people from themselves, or to make cheap, anonymous SWATting of gun owners legal?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Baker Act vs. ERPO

There’s a fad for “red flag” extreme risk protective orders that makes the pet rock craze look rational. Even the Vichy NRA backs this supposed tool to keep guns away from “dangerous” people.

Except when they claim they don’t. Oh no, says the VNRA, we only back ERPOs with “due process.” Except when they don’t.

Why the demand for ERPOs, with their intended lack of due process? If the goal is to prevent a potentially dangerous person from harming himself or others, one could implement a Florida-style Baker Act.

The Baker Act allows an adult to be involuntarily held for mental health evaluation for up to 72 hours (12 hours for a minor). The 72 hour limit conforms to the usual 72 hour maximum that criminal suspects may be held without charges.

Neither a 72 hour questioning period nor a 72 hour mental health evaluation result in a permanent or semi-permanent loss of Second Amendment human/civil rights. In either case, a loss or suspension of rights would come only after a due process hearing (indictment or involuntary committal), resulting from the outcome of the questioning or evaluation.

It is noteworthy that victim disarmament advocates, and the VNRA, do not see any need for due process before rights are violated. In fact, typical “red flag” laws do not require that the allegedly dangerous person be taken into custody at all (the VNRA suggests this as an option available to a judge in an ex parte proceeding). The target is merely one class of weapons, not the person allegedly in need of help.

One class of weapons: firearms. Not baseball bats, knives, nor even motor vehicles, which in 2016 were implicated in almost 2,000 more deaths than firearms, even though estimates of the number of motor vehicles is 138,360,614 less than the number of firearms in America. ERPOs take firearms useful for defense, but not statistically more deadly automobiles. Not even the driver’s license.

Does that sound like something meant to ensure safety?

Another difference between a Baker Act hold (or hold for questioning) and “red flag” laws is that a person held for evaluation or questioning is allowed representation and communication. The subject of a “red flag” order never has the chance for either, because the first he knws about the order is when the police show up to seize his property, or kill him. And where is the due process for someone whose firearms are taken, because someone else was subject to a “red flag” order?

Further, standard “red flag” law language imposes a long-term loss of 2A rights even if the person is never found to require treatment, nor accused of an actual crime. Typically, the accused may petition for restoral of rights after a set period. In contrast, a criminal suspect released from custody without charge retains all of the rights he enjoyed prior to questioning.

“Red flag” extreme risk protective orders protect no one. Not the accused, not anyone else whom he allegedly might harm.

ERPOs are designed from the ground up to violate the rights of gun owners without pesky things like hearings or trial. ERPOs are legislatively and judicially blessed SWATting, no guilt required.

So why does the VNRA support “red flag” ERPOs, with ex parte proceedings instead of a simple Baker Act-style law in which no one loses their constitutionally-protected rights until adjudication has occurred?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

[Update] Red Flag Orders: Weasel-wording from the VNRA

See below, for more hypocrisy.


No, for once, I’m not going to talk about bump-fire stocks (anyone who doesn’t understand that problem by now can’t, or won’t, comprehend it).

Let’s talk about ERPOs. And the Vichy NRA.

Call them extreme risk protective orders, red flag orders, gun violence protection orders, or what have you, they had been floated for years, but became particularly popular after the Parkland school shooting. Rather irrationally, since the local, state, and federal authorities had plenty of time and warnings to stop the murder before he escalated to the deaths of humans (per reports, he’d been killing animals for years). The point was to deflect attention from their own failures. If only we’d had ERPOs (in addition to unused protective orders, unused Baker Act, unused arrests/indictments/convictions for what he’d already done, maybe even ignored prohibited person status), we could have stopped him.

Of course, the VNRA was blamed, too. So the VNRA had to put up their own deflector shields. They jumped on the ERPO bandwagon. Yeah, red flag laws are a great idea!

And the knowledgeable gun community — for once — exploded.

ERPOs have a little constitutional and moral problem.

I’m going to generalize, because the specifics vary from state to state. Getting a regular protective order is relatively easy. The person who thinks they may be threatened goes to a judge and asks for an order keeping the accused away from them. The court sets a hearing date. Parties involved show up and speak their piece. The judge decides if the order is justified, and if so issues it. He may set special conditions: some monitored contact, maybe zero contact, no threats, if he sees a particular danger he may order the accused to turn in any firearms he possesses. And with the order in place, he cannot lawfully obtain another firearm.

Whoa. Wait. Full stop. I’ll bet newcomers to this thought newly empowering judges to take those guns was the point of ERPOs. Victim disarmament advocates — like the mainstream media — have certainly done their best to convey that impression. But, generally, judges already have that power.

Though adjudication, a hearing in which the accused has the chance to defend himself before hand.

ERPO laws don’t change that power. What they do change is:

  • The accused doesn’t get the chance to defend himself. He isn’t even told of any hearing before his firearms are taken.
  • The claim that the accused is dangerous doesn’t have to come from anyone who feels threatened. In fact, as some laws have been written, the accused and accuser need never have met. The accused might not even know of the accuser’s existence

The first a person has any idea that he’s been accused may be when the police show up to kill him. Some people call that SWATting. I do.

ERPOs have even been executed against people who aren’t accused of being “dangerous” (they took firearms from an innocent third party because the accused thought he might be able to steal guns from him; might, not “could”).

That is what ERPOs are. And that is what the VNRA endorsed. Initially.

When gun owners (and even the ACLU) noted due process problem with ex parte proceedings, and the whole “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” thing, the VNRA backed off. Oh, no! What we MEANT was that we back ERPOs with due process.

Specifically, the VNRA said:

Just in case they decide to retroactively edit reality, here’s a screencap showing their support for ex parte proceedings.
  • Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
  • A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.

Make up your minds, VNRA. Stop weasel-wording on the issue. Would the VNRA allow ex parte (the accused not given the opportunity to participate) hearings or not?

Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.

Due process is defined in 5 U.S. Code § 554 – Adjudications. It requires the subject to be informed of the hearing before it is held. That excludes any ex parte action.

And yet, the VNRA is still (as of January 8, 2019) allowing for ex parte hearings with no due process.

If the VNRA wants due process hearings for protection orders, then “red flag” ERPOs are exactly what they should oppose.

Smart people — which seems to exclude VNRA “leadership” — understand that. The framers of the Constitution certainly did.

Article 1, Section 9
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

What’s a Bill of Attainder?

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs)
[…]
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.

No trial: Check.

Nullifies civil rights: First Amendment rights to speak in a hearing denied, Second Amendment rights to firearm denied. Check.

Takes property: Check.

Heck; 4A, 5A, 6A, and 9A gone. Check.

The VNRA officially supports unconstitutional Bills of Attainder which strip anonymously accused people of their rights and property with no due process.

The Vichy NRA officially supports Star Chamber-ordered SWATting with no due process.

Update: The VNRA is “opposing” a red flag law in North Dakota.

Not only do they fail to provide any sort of mental health treatment but they allow the state to deny law-abiding gun owners their due process of rights. If the state can deny due process to these law-abiding residents then what’s to stop them from denying any right to any group of people?”

Which is exactly why I am calling out the VNRA’s hypocrisy in supporting ex parte proceedings lacking in participation, before the deprivation of 2A human/civil rights, by the accused.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Escaping An Abusive Relationship

My dear, it’s time to admit it. You are in an abusive relationship. He doesn’t really love you. He loves controlling you. You may even suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which you’ve come to believe that he does this for your own good.

He is manipulating you with fear. He tells you that you have to give up some things, or freedoms, or you risk losing more.

That’s his modus operandi. “Just give them what they want, or they’ll take everything.”

It’s time for you to take your family and escape from his abuse. You can’t save this “relationship.” It isn’t a relationship, it’s enslavement. Get out, and go to a shelter that will protect you.

It’s time to leave the NRA.

In 1934, the NRA backed the National Firearms Act. They told you they did it to save handguns. But what it did was make militia grade weapons unaffordable, inaccessible, for most militia members. A black eye.

In 1968, the NRA compromised on the the Gun Control Act. They told you it was to prevent worse infringements. But it established licensing and large classes of “prohibited persons” with no constitutional rights. It effectively ended mail order of firearms. Bruises.

The NRA compromised on the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act. They told you it “protected’ you from unconstitutional state abuses. Those abuses still exist. And what you got was a complete ban on new machineguns, making the few in circulation far more expensive. A missing tooth.

The NRA rolled over on the Undetectable Firearms Act. They told you it was to protect existing guns. But it killed research and development of new firearms technologies. A broken, bloody nose.

Gun Free School Zone Act: For the children. But it could make you a felon for walking in the area of a school you couldn’t even see. More bruises, a cracked rib.

Brady: It’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the NRA told you. They didn’t tell you that a supermajority of criminals get guns through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. You got a prior restraint on your human/civil rights, more expensive guns, delays, and the FBI keeping records of purchases. A concussion.

The NRA helped write an “assault weapon” ban. They told you it was because if they didn’t write it, it would have been worse. The NRA’s ban included SKSes with fixed ten-round magazines. Is that blood leaking from your ear?

Remember when the NRA thought constitutional carry — honest folks being armed for defense without begging the state’s permission, and paying for the privilege — was bad? The NRA actively sabotaged state-level CC efforts; successfully in New Hampshire. Slap. Punch.

The NRA supported Fix NICS, which includes language that encourages states to add people to NICS without any trial, hearing, or notice; for non-criminal activities. Boom. Coma.

The NRA petitioned the federal government to “regulate” bump-fire stocks as machineguns, then feigned surprise when they discovered that bump-fire stocks would now be banned post-1986 machineguns… thanks to the NRA’s FOPA compromise. And if bump-fire stocks “easily convert” semiautomatic rifles to machineguns… The all semiautomatic rifles are machineguns under the same open-bolt ban, or ban of semiauto ARs that could accept an M-16 trigger group. The NRA is punching and kicking your unconscious body.

The NRA has endorsed no-due process extreme risk protection orders, so-called “red flag” laws, allowing the confiscation of firearm from someone not accused of a crime. And now they’ve been used to confiscate firearms from folks who simply know someone who wasn’t accused of a crime. Oooh. Fractured skull.

So, my dear, it’s time to wake up and escape your abuser, while you still can. The NRA isn’t beating on you because it loves you; just your money. And when your abusive partner demands money to fix the injuries he inflicted upon you, find something creative to do with those NRA fundraising letters.

Leave the National Rifle Association. For good. That marriage cannot be saved.

(edit: corrected “by passing” to “bypassing”)

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

“What could go wrong?” she chirped.

The NRA, Trump, and a gaggle of gun controllers and politicians have pushed for “red flag” Extreme Risk Protection Orders The alleged idea is to bypass due process to confiscate firearms from someone who supposedly poses a threat to himself or others, no evidence needed. “Due process” would come after the theft — sometimes weeks later — and leaves the allegedly “dangerous” person free to do whatever they think he might do sometime in the future.

Just yesterday, I wrote a bit of satire about the just-signed rule banning bump-fire stocks, and added this bit:

When asked about the NRA’s position on “red flag” extreme risk protection orders, another controversial gun control proposal the NRA has supported, Aikiddin whined, “No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, has anything to fear from red flag laws. And we think that balancing PRE-crime infringements of rights with POST due process offers legal symmetry.”

“What could go wrong?” she chirped. “But we can raise money on that, too.”

I stand corrected.

No one who isn’t potentially thinking about doing something, but hasn’t, and doesn’t know someone who maybe might consider doing something eventually, has anything to fear from red flag laws.

UPDATED: Police, school officials avert Middlebury middle school shooting
After confirming the whereabouts and establishing short-term plans for both young suspects, police turned their attention to securing their alleged source of guns.

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

Not the suspect. Firearms safely secured. And they executed an “extreme risk order against an innocent person no one had even claimed was a risk.

They just violated someone’s human/civil rights for as much as six months, and without the chance to beg for restoral for up to two weeks. Because someone else — who may not even reside in that home — was accused of a pre-crime.

And the minors whom they believe were planning a crime?

“There may be some other charges down the road, but right now it’s the treatment issues we’re dealing with.”

They confiscated ten firearms from someone else based on something that they not even charge anyone for.

What could possibly go wrong? It isn’t as if anyone will ever further abuse that precedent.

Right?

 

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

 

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

ERPOs: Everyone is STASI now

Sane people already know that so-called “extreme risk protective rights violating orders” are… insane.

  • Not a single bill I’ve read actually requires taking into the custody the allegedly “dangerous” person. Just one type of weapon. Just make him angry, and leaves him free to act on it, with something else.
  • None include — by deliberate design — anything approaching due process meeting federal legal standards. The accused is specifically excluded from any chance of defending or explaining himself before his property is stolen. Which, of course, is why he’ll be angry.
  • Few, if any bills, include penalties for someone filing a false report. At least one state specifically legislature voted down an amendment to add penalties for false reporting. A no-cost way to screw with one’s enemies.
  • By design, these bills allow petitions from people with minimal contact with the accused.
  • ERPOs require a standard of “evidence” for depriving someone of rights far below that of even a misdemeanor conviction. The standards are well below that of ordinary civil lawsuits. No evidence; just an unsubstantiated claim good enough for a judge who hates guns.

So how can they possibly get any worse?

What? You never heard of New York, or Gov. Cuomo?

Cuomo: Allow teachers to petition judges to seize guns
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to allow teachers to ask a judge to remove guns from the homes of troubled students.

The Democrat said on Tuesday that he will introduce the idea as legislation. He acknowledged it will face criticism from Republicans.

Under the measure, teachers and school administrators would have legal standing to petition a court to remove any firearms from the homes of students considered a threat to themselves or others.

This would allow teachers to obtain rights-violating orders against not the student, but anyone and everyone in the student’s home. Whom the teacher may have never met. Whom — supposedly — isn’t even the alleged “dangerous” person.

Don’t like guns? Start reporting students and get entire families of innocent people disarmed, without any pesky need for evidence. This being New York, I’ll guarantee they’ll find oath-breaking judges who’ll sign victim disarmament orders. I can see NYS school districts sending out memos to teachers to start collating lists of students/families to target, based on known/suspect gun wnership by a family member. Probably starting with those whose parents demand parent-teacher conferences; the damned uppity troublemakers who dare question the faculty’s authority.

I don’t live in New York (and you would have enjoyed the discussion the time a boss tried to talk me into relocating to New York City), so this wouldn’t affect me.

Yet.

The problem is that, like “standard” extreme rights violating order legislation, the gun people controllers will take any legislation Cuomo comes up with and use it as a model in other states. I can make some good guesses as to which legislators in Atlanta would leap at the chance to sponsor it here.

I have a disturbed niece who has publicly stated that she hates guns, and wants everyone over the age of 55 eliminated. What happens when she realizes she can start filing no-evidence ERPOs to fulfill her genocidal dream?

What happens when anyone having a lawncare dispute with a neighbor can send the confiscation cops out to screw him over?

What happens when ERPO legislation makes everyone a STASI informer?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail

Consider if you will

-annoying rap ringtone-

“Yeah? Mikie here. Oh, Lemonjello.* Yeah, I know, but I ain’t got the money. I know, I know; I said I’d pay it back last month, but, sh*t bro, you know how it goes… No, don’t tell Sharisse; she’d kill me. F*** it, man, I gots some cash coming next month. Leave me ‘lone till then.”

-puts multi-hundred dollar phone away-

“F*****g a**hole. I’ll pay his a** back.”

-pulls phone out again-

“Crimestoppers Hotline.”

“Yeah, I know this who’s gonna rob a bank. His name’s…”

“Sir, is this a crime that has already occurred?”

“Well, naw. But he’s gonna rob it.”

“Sir, I’ll forward you to the Detectives division.”

-click- -obnoxious elevator music-

“Investigations. Sgt. Holloway.”

“Yo, man. I know a dude what’s gonna rob a bank.”

“Really? And you know this how?”

“Like, he’s talking ’bout needin’ cash, and he got this gun… His name’s Lemonjello Sm…”

“What bank do you believe he’s targeting?”

“Umm… Well, he gots an account at the Second First National on Highland.”

“He’s going to rob his own bank?”

“Sure; he know where that one is.”

“He told you about his plans?”

“Naw, but you just know…”

“Right. Tell me about this gun he has. What type, where he got it.”

“I ain’t seen it. But he said he bought something for protection at Falcon Tactical Guns a while back.”

“He bought this at a gun store?”

“Sure.”

“So we have a guy with a lawfully owned firearm, who hasn’t said anything about robbing anything, but you just know. Has he robbed anything else? Muggings, assault, anything else?”

“No, but…”

“Let me guess. You owe him money, and you’re trying to get out of paying. We see that all the time.”

“Wait! Maybe he’s gonna…”

-click-

“Well, shit.”

-punches numbers again-

“Red Flag Hotline. Who is in danger from whom?”

“Yo, Lemonjello Smith done got a gun, and he’s gonna hurt somebody. And… and… Yeah! He’s real depressed-like and gonna kill hisself when he done.”

“Thank you for the warning, sir. We’ll get right on it. Please spell the poor man’s name.”

“L-e-m-o-n-j-e-l-l-o S-m-i-t-h.”

“Lemon Jello?”

“Yeah, his momma love the stuff. And you should see his sister Deserta.”

“Lemon Jello and Deserta?”

“Yeah, ain’t none of them right in the haid, if ya know what I mean. And he gots a gun.”

“Yes, this sounds very serious, sir. Let me get the rest of the information, and we’ll get a protection order to take his gun right away.”

“Cool! Thanks be to Jesus for red flag orders, huh?”

“Yes, sir.”


* Pronounced leh MAHN jeh LOW.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail