Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ERPOs - "Extreme Risk Protection Orders"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    ERPOs - "Extreme Risk Protection Orders"

    A couple articles about them today on TTAG. I think there's something in the 5A about due process. But what do I know?

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ye-gun-rights/
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ary-image-day/

    ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ Spreading Across U.S.: Say Goodbye to Your Gun Rights


    Press release: PROSECUTORS, STATE LEGISLATORS, LAW ENFORCEMENT JOIN FORCES TO PUSH FOR COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS – Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Domestic Abusers and People At Risk

    Prosecutors Against Gun Violence (PAGV), members of American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention (ASLGVP), and the Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence have convened here in a national summit on gun violence prevention.

    At the conclusion of the summit on Tuesday, April 4th, prosecutors, state legislators, and police will formally announce a multi-state effort to enact state legislation in two key areas:

    – Proposals in 20 states to create Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which enable family and law enforcement to prevent gun tragedies by petitioning a court to temporarily restrict access to firearms for individuals who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.
    – Bills in 5 states to enact stronger laws aimed at removing guns from domestic abusers.

    Both of these initiatives are based on strong empirical evidence from experts in gun violence and public health regarding circumstances that lead to a heightened risk of gun violence, and practical steps that can be taken to prevent it.

    “Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and those in crisis will save lives,” said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, co-chair of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. “Prosecutors, law enforcement and legislators join in supporting these commonsense gun violence prevention measures because they’re based on solid evidence. These proposals deserve wide, bipartisan support.”

    “Strong state and local gun laws are more important than ever, and these proven measures are simply commonsense,” said District Attorney Vance, co-chair of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. “People in the midst of a mental health crisis should not have unfettered access to firearms, nor should those convicted of domestic abuse or subject to a temporary protective order. I would like to thank New York State Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh and the American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention for their leadership on these issues. I am proud to support our law enforcement and legislative partners working to prevent gun violence in states across the country.”

    “For a number of years now, state and local officials have played a leading role in enacting and implementing laws and policies to prevent gun violence and keep our communities safe. Whatever happens in Washington, we remain as dedicated as ever to that task,” said New York Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, Chair of American State Legislators of Gun Violence Prevention. “Today’s announcement is a result of many thoughtful discussions among legislators, prosecutors, and law enforcement agencies, and research conducted by gun violence experts and public health advocates—all aimed at developing practical steps we can take and laws we can enact to save lives, while respecting basic rights of due process.”

    The 20 states included in today’s announcement of new proposed ERPO legislation include: Alaska, Alabama, Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wyoming.

    The 5 states where new laws were announced to keep guns out of domestic abusers’ hands are: Arizona, Florida, Missouri, New York, Utah.

    Extreme Risk Protection Orders, which focus on individuals who are exhibiting dangerous behavior, have been enacted in various forms in four states. They have been demonstrated to be an effective means of temporarily preventing people in crisis from having access to guns, while respecting rights to due process. Family members and loved ones are often the first to know if someone is experiencing a crisis and may be at risk of dangerous behavior. Even if they report their fears to law enforcement, police in most states may not have the authority to intervene, resulting in preventable tragedies.

    In 2014, California became the first state in the nation to enact a law empowering family members as well as law enforcement to request that a judge issue an ERPO based on evidence that a person is at risk of harming him- or herself, or others. In 2016, Washington State enacted a similar measure through ballot initiative. Legislation allowing law enforcement to seek a court order has been on the books for years in Indiana and Connecticut. Researchers have demonstrated that Connecticut’s law has led to a measurable reduction in suicides.

    “When we know a person is in mental health crisis, and we know that person has ready access to a gun – we have a moral obligation to try to prevent that crisis from escalating into a tragedy. Concerned family members should not have to wait until it is too late to sound the alarm; and this bill will encourage states to consider this issue and develop ways to try to keep everyone safe,” said Cook County State’s Attorney Kimberly M. Foxx.

    “We need every tool at our disposal to protect our residents from injury or death by gunfire, and Gun Violence Restraining Orders would help prevent tragedies. We must have the ability to disarm dangerous people. I support the Gun Violence Intervention Act of 2015, which would make it a crime for anyone subject to such a restraining order from obtaining a firearm while the order is in effect,” said Bronx District Attorney Darcel D. Clark.

    In recent years, many states have also focused increasingly on the particular dangers posed by guns in domestic violence incidents—including a 500% increase in the risk the victim of abuse will be killed, and many have already enacted stronger laws.

    Legislators Proposing Legislation on Extreme Risk Protection Orders

    ...

    New York Senator Brad M. Hoylman – “Extreme Risk Protection Orders establish a legal process to remove guns temporarily from people who may harm themselves or others, thus averting violent crimes and suicides. I’m grateful to American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention and its chairman, New York State Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, for their leadership on this important issue of public safety. I’ll work hard for passage of this legislation in Albany, which I sponsor in the State Senate.”

    ...
    Last edited by BLAMMO!!; 04-05-2017, 09:57 PM.
    I don't need a gun.
    I have never needed a gun.
    I hope I never need a gun and in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
    However, if I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
    Therefore, I have a gun.


    Regards,
    Chris

    #2
    As you can see from the date of the OP, I started this thread a few months back but it didn't get much attention. Well, ABC is trying to bring more attention to this wonderful means of infringement.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/temporary-r...ry?id=51042163

    ...
    An Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) empowers family members and police to take guns away from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. The person's access to firearms is blocked until they can demonstrate that the risk is over. Essentially, ERPOs are a temporary restraining order for guns.
    ...
    Really gotta wonder what all the pro-2A organizations, to whom we send money, are doing about this.

    From TTAG:
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...an-gun-rights/
    I don't need a gun.
    I have never needed a gun.
    I hope I never need a gun and in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
    However, if I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
    Therefore, I have a gun.


    Regards,
    Chris

    Comment


      #3
      Actually, I wouldn't object IF, (and that's a mighty big IF that we know will never happen) if rather than to immediately confiscate guns on the say-so of a family member, the state actually moved to an immediate hearing so there would be due process BEFORE confiscation.
      "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
      Tucker Max

      Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
      Finicky Fat Guy

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Finicky Fat Guy View Post
        Actually, I wouldn't object IF, (and that's a mighty big IF that we know will never happen) if rather than to immediately confiscate guns on the say-so of a family member, the state actually moved to an immediate hearing so there would be due process BEFORE confiscation.
        Agreed, but that never seems to be the point of these things. Due process is not on the minds of people writing this legislation. They only understand knee-jerk reactions.

        My other concern would be abuse of the system. It is already all too common in Nassau for lawyers to encourage women going through a divorce to make accusations against their future ex-husbands, which then get their firearms confiscated, in order to improve their standing in front of a judge. I don't have a problem with this when the accusations are true, but I don't see any prosecution or prison time for false accusers, and I have a real problem with that.

        Comment


          #5
          How would you demonstrate to a court that you ARE NOT a danger to yourself or others? I mean, OMG!! You have guns, ferchrisesake.

          Can't prove a negative. Clear violation of due process. And by "temporary", they mean a year. Not days, weeks or even months until an independent evaluation can be done. One year, automatically, then you can probably apply to get your guns back. GFL.
          I don't need a gun.
          I have never needed a gun.
          I hope I never need a gun and in all likelihood, I will never need a gun.
          However, if I ever need a gun, I had better have a gun.
          Therefore, I have a gun.


          Regards,
          Chris

          Comment


            #6
            Total bullshit and another attempt at chipping away at our rights. The thinking behind this is to prevent a possible crime based on hearsay. If hearsay isn't admitted in court as evidence, why would it be allowed here. Using this line of reasoning, ANY tool that can be used to inflict self harm or harm to others should be removed from the accused's posession....take away bats, hammers, knives, ropes....and his/her car while you're at it. TOTAL BULLSHIT.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by rlitman View Post

              Agreed, but that never seems to be the point of these things. Due process is not on the minds of people writing this legislation. They only understand knee-jerk reactions.

              My other concern would be abuse of the system. It is already all too common in Nassau for lawyers to encourage women going through a divorce to make accusations against their future ex-husbands, which then get their firearms confiscated, in order to improve their standing in front of a judge. I don't have a problem with this when the accusations are true, but I don't see any prosecution or prison time for false accusers, and I have a real problem with that.
              this happened to a friend of mine , his ex accused him while he was in Calif. on business and got arrested at Kennedy airport . did not matter to the judge at all that he was on other side of country ... nassau pd did some damage to his stuff .......
              if your a danger to yourself or others why are you not detained immediately and them find out the truth , if your not there must be a way of suing the ex, the judge and the lawyers .... might be jail time for false accusers and then this would go away .
              but no one should hit a woman or abuse one

              Comment


                #8
                So if you piss off a neighbor or family member that knows of this law, they can get revenge by petitioning the court your a danger?? gtfoh. Too many moving parts to this one, , don't hold your breath "the man" will give your guns back

                Comment


                  #9
                  Because if you remove their legally purchased firearms there's no way for them to obtain another...
                  “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." - Benjamin Franklin

                  Comment


                    #10
                    This could be a very good tool to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

                    Unfortunately, they will turn this tool into a tactic.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Why does it matter if domestic abusers have guns? If they are going to kill the woman, how would a limited choice of implements stop them? Let's arm the women instead. THAT might make a difference.

                      The other idea is ripe for abuse.
                      ​​​

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X