HB 131 - Here come "Extreme Risk Protection Orders"......

[ELB]

...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

[mojo84]

...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

[ELB]

...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

Didn't say that, did I?

I did say that if a person is dangerous enough to cause a problem by using a gun, he's dangerous enough to cause a problem by using his fists, a car, a bomb or whatever. The focus of any law controlling dangerous persons should be the dangerous person, not guns and cars and stuff used by everybody else.

[mojo84]

...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

Didn't say that, did I?

I did say that if a person is dangerous enough to cause a problem by using a gun, he's dangerous enough to cause a problem by using his fists, a car, a bomb or whatever. The focus of any law controlling dangerous persons should be the dangerous person, not guns and cars and stuff used by everybody else.

You weren't the only one quoted. You did agree with the person you quoted that said it.

My point is, those that think we should lock people up without due process are promoting an even worse infringement on one's rights than temporarily taking their guns away? Also, when did we start locking people up because we think they may be dangerous or may commit a crime?

Like I said previously, I haven't made my mind up one way or another but believe the subject of dealing with seriously and dangerously mentally ill people needs to be discussed and addressed in some manner. Especially family members need a way to get someone help and keep them and others safe while doing so.

[clarionite]

You weren't the only one quoted. You did agree with the person you quoted that said it.

My point is, those that think we should lock people up without due process are promoting an even worse infringement on one's rights than temporarily taking their guns away? Also, when did we start locking people up because we think they may be dangerous or may commit a crime?

Like I said previously, I haven't made my mind up one way or another but believe the subject of dealing with seriously and dangerously mentally ill people needs to be discussed and addressed in some manner. Especially family members need a way to get someone help and keep them and others safe while doing so.

If you've got enough evidence to violate one constitutional right (2nd) then why don't you have enough to violate the others (4th - 8th)?

[PriestTheRunner]

...

If you've got enough evidence to violate one constitutional right (2nd) then why don't you have enough to violate the others (4th - 8th)?

Din ding ding! My points exactly. By isolating the 2nd above other constitutionally protected rights, anti-gunners are making the 2nd less of a right than the others. Judges will be quick to approve and slow to disallow red flag requests, while being the exact opposite on involuntary commitment...

Show me a mass shooter where (1) red flag laws would have worked and (2) they should not have been found guilty of other felonies or involuntarily committed.

There aren't any- either its a nobody (like Paddock) where basically nothing would have worked because he was under the radar, or its somebody who has been losing it for some time (like Cruz) that should have been locked up for some time (and possibly even committed) and wasn't because the authorities didn't follow through or wanted to keep their crime numbers low...

[jerry_r60]

Other arguments have been made here already. The one word in a phrase that jumped out to me is here:

Art. 7C.06. CONTENTS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER. In a protective
order issued under Article 7C.05, the court shall:
(1) prohibit the person who is subject to the order
from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm for
the duration of the order;

This takes it beyond temporarily giving up a firearm or temporarily taking away the ability to purchase. If you have firarms that are taken, my literal reading of this is that you no longer "own" them. So then there would be nothing that belonged to you to be given back. Even if there was going to be some permanent removal, the person should at least be able to sell them since they are an asset. That's conceding the point of havign to relenquish them to begain with but I'm just making the point of the impact of the prohibition of "owning". Someone else can't just hold them for you as you would still be the owner.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

[mojo84]

I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and what may be a good alternative to address the need to protect the general public from a crazy person that owns and possesses guns. We seem to expect family members to do something but do not provide sufficient legal means to do something.

I'm not sure locking people up without due process is the answer? I'm honestly interested in this as I have close personal experience with a family member that was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had several guns he would not surrender to me or other family members. Even though he was diagnosed PS, they said he wasn't eligible to be involuntarily committed because he promised to take his meds. He is now dead from an overdose of the prescribed meds.

I hope you will offer some insight into a solution and not just opinion dismissing the issue based on gun rights issues since innocent lives could be at stake.

[Gator Guy]

...

If someone is really this dangerous they need to be locked up immediately. ...

This. Focus on the person causing the problem, not the tools of folks not causing the problem.

And double-amen to the advice above from my Army and Air Force bretheren about the inclination for divorce lawyers to misuse any law for an edge. I too have seen military and non-military husbands shafted because the wife's lawyer made fatuous claims about the husband, and it is no secret that divorce courts tilt toward wives.

So, it's better to lock someone up without due process? Isn't locking them up more of a violation than temporarily removing one's guns?

I hope we all agree it's morally wrong and unconstitutional for somebody to be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" by the government. If so, then doing either to an innocent man is bad. Period.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and what may be a good alternative to address the need to protect the general public from a crazy person that owns and possesses guns. We seem to expect family members to do something but do not provide sufficient legal means to do something.

I'm not sure locking people up without due process is the answer? I'm honestly interested in this as I have close personal experience with a family member that was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had several guns he would not surrender to me or other family members. Even though he was diagnosed PS, they said he wasn't eligible to be involuntarily committed because he promised to take his meds. He is now dead from an overdose of the prescribed meds.

I hope you will offer some insight into a solution and not just opinion dismissing the issue based on gun rights issues since innocent lives could be at stake.

I will just be analyzing the Bill, pointing out that it's a poorly veiled fraud on the public, and discussing alternatives available under current law. I'm not a mental health professional, so I'm not qualified to offer treatment suggestions. Mental health professionals have long proclaimed that the vast majority of people suffering from a mental illness do not post a danger to themselves or others. Those that do pose a danger are more likely to harm themselves rather than other people.

It is indisputable that, if any person is a danger to themselves or others, then removing only one of many tools that can be used to injure or kill others will not protect innocent lives. The only way to truly protect people is to remove the dangerous person from society. When and how to do that has been and will always be a very troublesome issue. Stalin, Hitler and countless other despots have used mental illness as an excuse to imprison and murder millions of political opponents. Protecting the innocent also involves protecting the falsely accused.

Chas.

[Abraham]

Aint't that the truth!

Shudder!!

[mojo84]

I'm putting together a TFC Podcast on this Bill. It is a very dangerous bill that must not pass.

Chas.

I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on this and what may be a good alternative to address the need to protect the general public from a crazy person that owns and possesses guns. We seem to expect family members to do something but do not provide sufficient legal means to do something.

I'm not sure locking people up without due process is the answer? I'm honestly interested in this as I have close personal experience with a family member that was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and had several guns he would not surrender to me or other family members. Even though he was diagnosed PS, they said he wasn't eligible to be involuntarily committed because he promised to take his meds. He is now dead from an overdose of the prescribed meds.

I hope you will offer some insight into a solution and not just opinion dismissing the issue based on gun rights issues since innocent lives could be at stake.

I will just be analyzing the Bill, pointing out that it's a poorly veiled fraud on the public, and discussing alternatives available under current law. I'm not a mental health professional, so I'm not qualified to offer treatment suggestions. Mental health professionals have long proclaimed that the vast majority of people suffering from a mental illness do not post a danger to themselves or others. Those that do pose a danger are more likely to harm themselves rather than other people.

It is indisputable that, if any person is a danger to themselves or others, then removing only one of many tools that can be used to injure or kill others will not protect innocent lives. The only way to truly protect people is to remove the dangerous person from society. When and how to do that has been and will always be a very troublesome issue. Stalin, Hitler and countless other despots have used mental illness as an excuse to imprison and murder millions of political opponents. Protecting the innocent also involves protecting the falsely accused.

Chas.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it.