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

[jason812]

This is not good and is nothing but an emotional bill. The people that will want this to pass, you probably won't be able to reason with. It's hard to argue against emotions.

Seriously, a police officer can request this to a prosecuting attorney? This will never be abused if passed. Problem I see happening is police officers that refuse to act upon these laws, will be ran off the force.

[MaduroBU]

This is not good and is nothing but an emotional bill. The people that will want this to pass, you probably won't be able to reason with. It's hard to argue against emotions.

Seriously, a police officer can request this to a prosecuting attorney? This will never be abused if passed. Problem I see happening is police officers that refuse to act upon these laws, will be ran off the force.

The law as written is a way to take stabs at gun owners. A law that does the same good things without giving individuals with spurious motives the power to abuse the rights of others could be written. Simple opposition seems to me to be a less effective strategy than carefully worded counter offers.

We aren't arguing with "guns are the devil" Democrats; we're arguing with moderates who are tired of watching crazies kill innocents.

[K.Mooneyham]

This is not a personal situation, but as a "retired" USAF Senior NCO, I saw several airmen and NCOs go through bitter divorces. It's generally understood that many divorce lawyers will use any and every edge to get a "win" in the proceedings. What better thing to use for leverage than an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" filed by one of the two parties, likely the wife, at the behest of a lawyer looking for that win? Sure would gain some sympathy from some judges who might not be so 2A friendly in the first place. I understand the INTENT of the thing, but again, it would seem just too easy for abuse.

[oljames3]

This is not a personal situation, but as a "retired" USAF Senior NCO, I saw several airmen and NCOs go through bitter divorces. It's generally understood that many divorce lawyers will use any and every edge to get a "win" in the proceedings. What better thing to use for leverage than an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" filed by one of the two parties, likely the wife, at the behest of a lawyer looking for that win? Sure would gain some sympathy from some judges who might not be so 2A friendly in the first place. I understand the INTENT of the thing, but again, it would seem just too easy for abuse.

As an Army officer, I was tasked to supervise one of my senior sergeants as he moved out of his house due to divorce. In my own case, I have no doubt that my ex would have employed the ERPO option, had it been available. I see no way to implement this as proposed without trampling on Constitutionally protected rights. It seems to me that existing law is sufficient.

[TexasJohnBoy]

Due process means due process.

14th Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Ex Parte orders forcing the removal of property from someone based upon the complaint of a single individual is so far from due process that it's not even funny.

[Gator Guy]

Due process means due process.

And shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

By and large, the people in power now don't respect the Constitution of the United States. They'll just say that some guns travel in interstate commerce, so that gives them the power to regulate all guns, even those you build in your home workshop. No different than the anticonstitutional decision in Wickard v. Filburn.

[Maxwell]

If somebody is too dangerous to be allowed to keep the guns they already own, they're too dangerous to be allowed access to knives, bats, cars, rope, etc.

This is what commitment proceedings are for. It's called due process and the red flag laws do not follow due process, or even the Bill of Rights!

[mojo84]

This is not a personal situation, but as a "retired" USAF Senior NCO, I saw several airmen and NCOs go through bitter divorces. It's generally understood that many divorce lawyers will use any and every edge to get a "win" in the proceedings. What better thing to use for leverage than an "Extreme Risk Protection Order" filed by one of the two parties, likely the wife, at the behest of a lawyer looking for that win? Sure would gain some sympathy from some judges who might not be so 2A friendly in the first place. I understand the INTENT of the thing, but again, it would seem just too easy for abuse.

There are already laws on the books that can easily be used to make a false claim.

[Abraham]

This piece of awful is in the House?

If so, (obviously I'm not well informed about it) will our rinos in the senate quash it or do their mealy mouth kow-towing to the commies in the house?

[mojo84]

It's important to note not just anyone can file for the extreme protective order. It is limited to certain people that can file the application.

(a) An application for a protective order under this chapter may be
filed by:
(1) a member of the respondent's family or household;
(2) a parent, guardian, or conservator of a person who
is under 18 years of age and a member of the respondent's family or
household; or
(3) a prosecuting attorney acting:
(A) on behalf of a person described by
Subdivision (1) or (2); or
(B) at the request of a peace officer.

So "Family" includes extended family?
"Conservator" includes teachers, daycare workers, Church volunteers...?
Literally any police officer?

I'm sorry but my estranged ex (if I had one) shouldn't be able to get a fly-by-night judge to sign a backroom order with no immediate means of appeal and a risk for permanent ban.

(d) At the close of the hearing, if the court finds by clear
and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an immediate and
present danger of causing bodily injury, serious bodily injury, or
death to any person, including the respondent, as a result of the
respondent's serious mental illness and access to firearms, the
court shall issue a protective order that includes a statement of
the required finding.

Sorry but I'm not EVER going to be one who if ok with taking away fundamental rights without the accused having committed an act for which they can be punished. If someone is dangerously violent, we have a process for booking them into a care facility that deals with such.

But now this person will be out on the street with access to all kinds of dangerous things (including cars, acid, bomb making supplies, gasoline, arson supplies, knives, clubs, literally just about anything else that could be used to kill another person) and somehow that is supposed to keep our society "safe"... Because they don't have guns.

The revolting level of boot-licking required to be ok with this is sad.

First off, can you not make a case or argument without involving insults? I've noticed a trend with you.

It's also apparent you haven't had to deal with such a situation personally or you are just ill informed with regard to the challenges a family can have when it comes to dealing with a family member that is a danger to themselves or others. Look at several of the mass shooters. Once of the first things many of us think of is how did the parents or family members not see what was going on and take their guns away prior to them going of the tracks and committing mass murder.

Also, about locking someone up instead, how is that better than removing their guns from them? With the difficulty and time it takes to get someone involuntarily taken into custody or committed, It makes sense to have a method of temporarily removing the tool they may be inclined to use to do harm.

I have mixed emotions about this bill. At this point, I am neither for it or against it. However, I do believe their needs to be a quicker method to address a potentially dangerous situation before something bad happens. Maybe that is an expedited trial or maybe is it is something similar to what is being proposed. However, just to dismiss it totally without considering all sides is irresponsible.

Here is the definition of conservatorship since you appear to be unclear of who a conservator is and what is involved in one being appointed. www.caregiver.org/conservatorship-and-guardianship

As far as having someone involuntarily committed, the process that is already on the books is not all that different than what is proposed in the bill. www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio ... ntID=30801

[MaduroBU]

The key phrase here is emergency. It appears that we all agree that the bill as written is an overbroad gun grab. That doesn't mean that any similar bill couldn't have utility. It DOES imply that any similar bill will incorporate massive potential for abuse, and in my opinion that's where we should focus our efforts.

I believe that something like this will be passed, and our option is to try and push back the tide or make sure that the final law isn't carte blanche to take guns.

[PriestTheRunner]

As far as having someone involuntarily committed, the process that is already on the books is not all that different than what is proposed in the bill. www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Sectio ... ntID=30801

It is drastically different... There is a licensed MD's opinion required within 24 hours (The certificate). There are strict requirements on the timeline for a trial. By the time you get to trial, you have to have TWO MD's verify whether the patient is a danger our not. You have checks-and-balances through multiple witnesses and a judge that takes this very seriously.

By focusing on the firearm, you have now enabled judges to make a sole, permanent decision based on their opinion of the facts. There is no requirement for one, much less two, MD's to submit their opinions. There are not any listed guidelines on appeal, duration or changes of circumstances. There is just the judge's opinion of the facts. If they believe that no one should have guns anyway, it is a very low threshold for them to bar someone of their second amendment ownership for life.

Also, I do not see a single insult in my posts above. I stand by the fact that I believe someone who is OK with this without drastic changes has already succumbed to the siren of "big government" so to speak. There are already systems in place that are rightfully difficult for removing someone of their rights. That system is difficult for a reason. Nikolas Cruz should have been "Chapter 5'd" by local police under Florida's law after about the 30th call to that residence, preferably sooner. If you are dealing with someone with mental health issues such that they may commit a mass murder, they need to be involuntarily committed. Setting a lower bar for some rights is unacceptable.

Thank you for the clarification on conservatorship. I had seen it used differently in the past but clearly this law is using the phrase as you pointed out. The bill does not have the definition or point to another code with the definition, so I was misunderstanding what it was referencing.

[TXHawk]

https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/Hi ... Bill=HB131
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/b ... 00131I.htm

This needs to be stopped before it spreads to Texas.

These "Red Flag" laws are dangerous. Not to mention where is the due process? Scary times.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maryland-o ... armed-man/

[Gator Guy]

When government officials declare themselves enemies of the Constitution, the best defense is a good offense. Domestic enemies are much more dangerous to life and liberty than somebody in a sandbox on the other side of the world.