Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 25, 2018, 10:43:43 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  General Category
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  The NRA Is At It Again
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The NRA Is At It Again  (Read 1119 times)
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« on: March 13, 2018, 07:52:18 PM »

Oh Goody,

Yesterday, the NRA released a new video by Chris Cox. In it (not until about 3:20 in a 4 minute+ video) he encourages the passage of Extreme Protection Order laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m14GPQlTogo

Once again, the NRA is taking their axe to the Constitution. First with suggesting an end run around the legislative process (ban stuff via Executive Branch agencies without actually changing the law), and now "what the heck is due process? We don't need that stuff!"

If someone is such an immediate threat that their gun ownership is a problem, then you don't remove their guns while leaving them free to continue being a danger to everyone around them! They need to be removed from society via psychiatric commitment or prison for planning a crime.

These Extreme Restraining Orders are the kind of end run around the crucial right of due process that is just begging for abuse. That can practically be guaranteed.

Way to go, NRA. With "friends" like you, we certainly don't need enemies!

Quote
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”
 — Marcus Tullius Cicero
Logged
st381
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2018, 12:05:04 AM »

If you take their guns away I’m sure they will be much safer in society....as long as they don’t find a knife, a rope, a hammer, another hidden gun, a car to run you over with, fists, feet, a hatchet...oh wait!
Logged
scstrain
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2018, 08:30:04 AM »

I guess you did not watch until 3:40 of the video were he talks of Due Process.  So easy to blame the NRA.
Logged
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2018, 09:25:00 AM »

Petitioning the government to “please give me back my rights” after being deprived of them is not due process. Due process is before, not after.
Logged
ttarp
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2018, 02:32:30 PM »

Yeah at first glance it sounds fairly reasonable, but if you're deemed a threat and have your property confiscated, you also fit in the mental health can't own a gun category, so in the hands of the wrong authority that could turn into a mess quickly.  A house divided will fall, and boy are we ever.
Logged
scstrain
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2018, 10:26:18 PM »

Actually it's at 3:36 of the video.  He talks about, "Strong Due Process".
Logged
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2018, 11:50:09 PM »

Actually it's at 3:36 of the video.  He talks about, "Strong Due Process".

Riiight. Here is that "Strong Due Process" from Bloomberg's organization pushing it, "Alliance For Gun Responsibility Foundation": (https://foundation.gunresponsibility.org/faq-extreme-risk-protection-orders/)

Quote
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TEMPORARY EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER?

You may ask the court for a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order if you believe that the respondent poses a significant danger in the near future of causing injury to him or herself or to others by using a firearm. The court can issue this order without the respondent being present in court. The temporary order is in effect immediately and lasts up to 14 days.

For an Extreme Risk Protection Order, the court has a hearing where the respondent has a chance to appear, and the court then has to decide whether the respondent poses a significant danger of causing injury to him or herself or to others. This order will be in effect for one year.

Quote
WILL THIS ORDER PROTECT ME IN OTHER WAYS, SUCH AS KEEPING THE PERSON FROM COMING NEAR ME?

No, this order is just about restricting access to firearms. If you need personal protection such as a domestic violence protection order, please contact your local County Superior Court.

Quote
CAN THE ORDER BE CANCELED OR CHANGED?

The order may not be changed. The respondent may ask the court to cancel the order once in the 12-month period and must prove that he/she no longer poses a significant danger to self or others by having access to firearms.

This is solely about firearms. Notice that even their own FAQ says that is all it covers. And if you think getting your guns back is easy after you've jumped through their hoops, just ask the gun owners who had their guns stolen by the authorities after Katrina how well that worked.

Gun Owners Action League has the most evenhanded analysis I've found on this: (http://blog.goal.org/erpo-attack/)

Quote
One of the startling things about the bill is what it doesn’t do. Everything in this bill is one hundred percent designed to suppress Second Amendment civil rights, that’s it. If there were a legitimate purpose behind the legislation, would there not be more to it? If people that become the subject of a ERPO are indeed an extreme risk, shouldn’t there be more?

For instance, is medical intervention involved if it is determined it is needed? There is no provision in the legislation for this. If a person is determined by the courts to be an “extreme danger”, can they work around children? Can they practice medicine as a nurse or doctor? Can they drive commercial vehicles like gasoline tanker trucks, or any sort of motor vehicle? Can they work as law enforcement? Should they be held for a dangerousness hearing? What if the person is not a citizen, what happens then? Remember, according to Linsky there is a need to address these people. According to him they are extreme public safety risks!

TTAG covers it here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/extreme-risk-protection-orders-greatest-threat-american-gun-rights/
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 12:22:15 AM by EWTHeckman » Logged
EWTHeckman
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2018, 12:17:25 AM »

Here's another excellent article explaining the problem:

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/gun-leaders-approve-of-extreme-protection-orders-opposed-by-aclu/

Quote
“The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order,’” KOMO News reported. “The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year – even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side.”

“There is no statute that addresses whether you can or can’t openly carry,” the Washington State Office of the Attorney General’s website advises, clearly meaning to discourage the practice but not empowered by law to do anything about it.

Hey, maybe the guy is a danger, as a police media advisory suggests, although we should note that if he is, he didn’t go down guns a-blazing when they came for his. Maybe he’s crazy as a loon, which a .25 as his defensive sidearm of choice might suggest. Then again, perhaps it was all he could afford and I wouldn’t automatically dismiss the deterrent effect such a weapon can have as evidenced by the reaction of hysterical locals, nor its effectiveness in a pinch.

But that hasn’t been proven. He’s been disarmed without being convicted of anything. And that concerns, of all groups, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island:

Quote
“The heart of the legislation’s ERPO process requires speculation – on the part of both the petitioner and judges – about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But, the ACLU analysis notes: ‘Psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. The result will likely be a significant impact on the rights of many innocent individuals in the hope of preventing a tragedy.’”

Wait… The ACLU? The organization that counts to ten by skipping two is being more conservative and protective of rights than the NRA?!? Pardon me while I check outside for swine on the wing.

The rest of the article is excellent. Read the whole thing.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!