Get Ready For More Red Flag Abuse

[Member 53328]

JMHO here, but the actual bigger problem here is that this issue should never have been introduced into a discussion on Red Flag Laws and how they pertain to 2A on a forum that states "We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment."

Everyone else is of course entitled to their own opinion on that, but that is mine

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I'll be damned if someone is shut out just because they don't fit the cookie cutter mold. We may have different views but that doesn't mean we can't be cordial with each other and listen. There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #179

Or......
Try some.......



But, I just had to. Being that it's sooooo relevant to your bunny picture.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....YES. I'll admit that sometimes some people don't/might not "get it."

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I'll be damned if someone is shut out just because they don't fit the cookie cutter mold. We may have different views but that doesn't mean we can't be cordial with each other and listen. There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

I don't disagree with you and it was really only the transgender bathroom issue that I felt had no place in this discussion.

 

[ma96782]

So then.



Aloha, Mark

 

[Old Dog]

You need to read 7.94.030(7) as follows: "If the petition states that disclosure of the petitioner's address would risk harm to the petitioner or any member of the petitioner's family or household, the petitioner's address may be omitted from all documents filed with the court.". The petitioner (complainer) has no burden of proof, or even so much as a need to state why, all they need to do is state their "belief" in order to gain this filing anonymity

Well now, I have actually read the entire RCW and have some familiarity with (1) the process and (2) how the law's been applied in this state (#2 being the important thing).

You can cherry-pick individual paragraphs and clauses all you want. Context is your friend.

What the court has to consider prior to issuing an order:

(2) Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.
(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm;
(b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
(c) Any behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others;
(d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
(e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(h) A conviction of the respondent under RCW 9A.36.080;
(i) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
(j) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
(k) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
(l) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
(m) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
(n) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.

The fact is, mostly the ERPOs are requested by LE, and almost always after the individual has already committed an assault or done something stupid with a firearm.

Doesn't make the law any more constitutional, nor do I like or agree with the law, but history suggests that the law hasn't been abused (yet) in this state.

 

[ma96782]

Well now, I have actually read the entire RCW and have some familiarity with (1) the process and (2) how the law's been applied in this state (#2 being the important thing).

You can cherry-pick individual paragraphs and clauses all you want. Context is your friend.

What the court has to consider prior to issuing an order:

(2) Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.
(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm;
(b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
(c) Any behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others;
(d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
(e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(h) A conviction of the respondent under RCW 9A.36.080;
(i) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
(j) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
(k) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
(l) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
(m) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
(n) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.

The fact is, mostly the ERPOs are requested by LE, and almost always after the individual has already committed an assault or done something stupid with a firearm.

Doesn't make the law any more constitutional, nor do I like or agree with the law, but history suggests that the law hasn't been abused (yet) in this state.

RE : Post #185

Laws usually START, with good intentions.



Aloha, Mark

PS........Yeah, the examples of GOOD INTENTIONS OF THE GOVT are all over. But, no use in expanding on that thought.

Rrrrrright.....it makes some people angry.

BTW......"DV Protection Orders, TROs and Extreme Risk Orders" are different though, sometimes one category is mixed into the next. I'd suspect that the procedures and the treatment of accusations, evidence, and level of "proof required" will also vary. Judges will vary too.

 

[FALshot]

Well now, I have actually read the entire RCW and have some familiarity with (1) the process and (2) how the law's been applied in this state (#2 being the important thing).

You can cherry-pick individual paragraphs and clauses all you want. Context is your friend.

What the court has to consider prior to issuing an order:

(2) Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.
(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm;
(b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
(c) Any behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others;
(d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
(e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(h) A conviction of the respondent under RCW 9A.36.080;
(i) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
(j) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
(k) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
(l) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
(m) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
(n) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.

The fact is, mostly the ERPOs are requested by LE, and almost always after the individual has already committed an assault or done something stupid with a firearm.

Doesn't make the law any more constitutional, nor do I like or agree with the law, but history suggests that the law hasn't been abused (yet) in this state.

I applaud you for taking the time to read the entire RCW.

Context is key in this case. The people who championed this law, in fact all so-called "Common Sense" gun law advocates, ultimate aim is to end private ownership of firearms in the USA. This is an objective fact,...

These anti-gunners wisely understand that a majority of Americans still support our Second Amendment. We're talking about many who do not own firearms, or if they do it may be a family relic. Many just recall their father or grandfather hunting.

This is why anti-gunners coined the phrase "Common Sense Gun Laws." They recognize that eliminating the Second Amendment altogether is not realistic so they are attempting to effectively kill the Second Amendment by a death of a thousand cuts. (Red Flag laws are but one more gash into our Second Amendment.)

This battle is being waged for the support of millions of Americans who are not involved in the shooting sports.

Knowing the anti-gunners ultimate aim, I can say with confidence that the Washington State Law will in fact be abused, stand by!

There is no negotiating with an adversary who's ultimate aim is your destruction.

 

[American123]

JMHO here, but the actual bigger problem here is that this issue should never have been introduced into a discussion on Red Flag Laws and how they pertain to 2A on a forum that states "We are a single-issue organization, focused solely on bringing people together in support of the 2nd Amendment."

Everyone else is of course entitled to their own opinion on that, but that is mine

Dude, this is getting pathetic. You presented the notion that a slippery slope does not exist regarding abuse of red flag laws because the problem had yet to materialize. I presented a tangent to explain that the slippery slope does indeed exist and I used an example of where another contested issues problems/abuses materialized just as it was predicted, despite the nay-sayers claiming "it hadn't been a problem yet."

Was it directly related to gun rights, no, was it an analogy to explain the danger of red flag laws to gun rights, YES!

And it seemed that anyone who was capable of critical thinking understood that pages ago.

 

[ma96782]

RE : Post #174

Serious question, do you think that is any different than how any Prez has selected nominees other than saying it out loud? They all have criteria they use, in the past I recall the geographic location being an issue, and don't forget

Column: The architect of Reagan's pledge to put a woman on the Supreme Court says it was all political

The 1980 promise was about closing the gender gap, says top campaign strategist.

www.latimes.com

Let's say that you are the HR Manager of some big company. And you declared that the next _____say for example Engineer______ hired by your company...... has to have the same "qualifications" as announced by President Brandon.

Seriously.
What do you think would happen?

YES.......
IMHO, saying some stuff "out in the open/out loud" shows/tells someone, or maybe everyone "something, about your own abilities."

????Should we expand.....to the promise of the Student Loan Forgiveness????

Aloha, Mark

PS.....sorry, but I had to (in my own mind) revisit that post. Off topic.......YEAH, sorry.

 

[SpudBob]

????Should we expand.....to the promise of the Student Loan Forgiveness????

If they do enact Student Loan Forgiveness I WANT the untold thousands BACK that I paid off Eons ago!!! Sorry Off topic!!!

 

[ma96782]

I didn't take any Student Loans.

So then.....
Can I get forgiveness for my Credit Card Debts too?

Sorry, off-topic.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....YEAH, Yeah, yeah.....most anything could be possible IF I voted the "correct way." But....save something.....for the next election.

 

[bradsteen]

Well now, I have actually read the entire RCW and have some familiarity with (1) the process and (2) how the law's been applied in this state (#2 being the important thing).

You can cherry-pick individual paragraphs and clauses all you want. Context is your friend.

What the court has to consider prior to issuing an order:

(2) Upon hearing the matter, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period of one year.
(3) In determining whether grounds for an extreme risk protection order exist, the court may consider any relevant evidence including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(a) A recent act or threat of violence by the respondent against self or others, whether or not such violence or threat of violence involves a firearm;
(b) A pattern of acts or threats of violence by the respondent within the past twelve months including, but not limited to, acts or threats of violence by the respondent against self or others;
(c) Any behaviors that present an imminent threat of harm to self or others;
(d) A violation by the respondent of a protection order or a no-contact order issued under chapter 7.90, 7.92, 10.14, 9A.46, 10.99, 26.50, or 26.52 RCW;
(e) A previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(f) A violation of a previous or existing extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent;
(g) A conviction of the respondent for a crime that constitutes domestic violence as defined in RCW 10.99.020;
(h) A conviction of the respondent under RCW 9A.36.080;
(i) The respondent's ownership, access to, or intent to possess firearms;
(j) The unlawful or reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the respondent;
(k) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the respondent against another person, or the respondent's history of stalking another person;
(l) Any prior arrest of the respondent for a felony offense or violent crime;
(m) Corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; and
(n) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms by the respondent.

The fact is, mostly the ERPOs are requested by LE, and almost always after the individual has already committed an assault or done something stupid with a firearm.

Doesn't make the law any more constitutional, nor do I like or agree with the law, but history suggests that the law hasn't been abused (yet) in this state.

Thanks for providing the text for reference. My main concern is that possession of a firearm (or intent to possess a firearm) on its own does not imply that a person is intending to cause harm to self or others. However, in (3), items (i) and (n) are evidence that can be considered by the court when determining whether to issue the ERPO. Is there any language in here that states those items cannot be the sole justification for issuance?

 

[bkroger86]

The 10 Republican Senators supporting this are pretty well established ones. They've all won their districts easily.

 

[mhayd93]

Because there are no absolute rights. The 2nd amendment included. Even the modern 2nd amendment patron saint Antonin Scalia said as much in the Heller decision.

What a painfully misguided understanding of the US Constitution! The Bill of Rights are most certainly designed to be absolute.

Just because the government has made unconstitutional laws restricting our rights, does not mean they had actual legal authority to do so. The Constitution serves as the legal backbone by which all laws are measured; elected officials are beholden to it.

Now, obviously where you are confused, is that government officials have acted treasonously for many years without repercussion. As such, treasonous laws are on the books such as the NFA, GCA, etc…just because they exist is not proof-positive that they pass the Constitution test, or that we were not intended to have absolute rights.

 

[ma96782]

Red flag laws are a green light for gun confiscation: Missouri attorney general | Fox News Video

AG Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., joins Tucker to discuss proposed gun control legislation from the left in response to rampant crime on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

video.foxnews.com

Aloha, Mark

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Red flag laws are a green light for gun confiscation: Missouri attorney general | Fox News Video

AG Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., joins Tucker to discuss proposed gun control legislation from the left in response to rampant crime on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight.'

video.foxnews.com

Aloha, Mark

From what I know of him that is pretty much on brand.

 

[esbshaw]

There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

Amen to that, brother. Just try saying something along the lines of: "Well, since the general consensus seems to be that 18 year olds are too damn untrustworthy and stupid to be allowed to buy a case of tequila, and since there have just been two ghastly and horrific homicidal rampages by 18 year olds wielding AR15s, maybe - just maybe - they might be too damn untrustworthy and stupid to allow to buy AR15s either. Screw 'em, let them wait. Hell, that way they can stop and buy an AR15 on their way home from the liquor store when they DO finally get to buy their case of tequila. Sorry a few bad apples have to spoil it for everybody. And before all the crocodile tears start flowing for those poor abused 18 year olds that have to go fight wars and aren't even allowed to go into a casino...er, I mean, aren't allowed to buy a magazine fed semi auto rifle- I was active duty military when I was 18 years old. So spare me the speeches about the injustice of it all." You will immediately be met with a chorus of: "You are a fudd! You don't understand or support the second amendment! I will now proceed to lecture you as though you were my intellectual inferior... which you clearly are!" And you just sit there and think: "Ahhh, another intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking exchange of ideas on Northwest Firearms".

 

[dancinghippos]

A website with reasons not to sign IP 17. If you can link to it, please do.

Don't Sign IT

Don't sign the IP17 Petition

www.dontsignit.com

 

[Knobgoblin]

There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

Amen to that, brother. Just try saying something along the lines of: "Well, since the general consensus seems to be that 18 year olds are too damn untrustworthy and stupid to be allowed to buy a case of tequila, and since there have just been two ghastly and horrific homicidal rampages by 18 year olds yielding AR15s, maybe - just maybe - they might be too damn untrustworthy and stupid to allow to buy AR15s either. Screw 'em, let them wait. Hell, that way they can stop and buy an AR15 on their way home from the liquor store when they DO finally get to buy their case of tequila. Sorry a few bad apples have to spoil it for everybody. And before all the crocodile tears start flowing for those poor abused 18 year olds that have to go fight wars and aren't even allowed to go into a casino...er, I mean, aren't allowed to buy a magazine fed semi auto rifle- I was active duty military when I was 18 years old. So spare me the speeches about the injustice of it all." You will immediately be met with a chorus of: "You are a fudd! You don't understand or support the second amendment! I will now proceed to lecture you as though you were my intellectual inferior... which you clearly are!" And you just sit there and think: "Ahhh, another intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking exchange of ideas on Northwest Firearms".

Brother, you can't possibly be a Fudd. You'd have been asleep for the last 2 hours at this point.

 

[mhayd93]

There is a lot said on this forum that I don't agree with but at times it's not even worth voicing cause everyone will just come out of the wood work screaming "Shall not infringe!" Cause that is really moving this community in a positive direction…..

Amen to that, brother. Just try saying something along the lines of: "Well, since the general consensus seems to be that 18 year olds are too damn untrustworthy and stupid to be allowed to buy a case of tequila, and since there have just been two ghastly and horrific homicidal rampages by 18 year olds yielding AR15s, maybe - just maybe - they might be too damn untrustworthy and stupid to allow to buy AR15s either. Screw 'em, let them wait. Hell, that way they can stop and buy an AR15 on their way home from the liquor store when they DO finally get to buy their case of tequila. Sorry a few bad apples have to spoil it for everybody. And before all the crocodile tears start flowing for those poor abused 18 year olds that have to go fight wars and aren't even allowed to go into a casino...er, I mean, aren't allowed to buy a magazine fed semi auto rifle- I was active duty military when I was 18 years old. So spare me the speeches about the injustice of it all." You will immediately be met with a chorus of: "You are a fudd! You don't understand or support the second amendment! I will now proceed to lecture you as though you were my intellectual inferior... which you clearly are!" And you just sit there and think: "Ahhh, another intelligent, insightful, and thought-provoking exchange of ideas on Northwest Firearms".

You are on a forum that revolves around embracing the 2nd Amendment and all related activities. What do you expect people to say if you come here advocating for infringements on a right that says "shall not be infringed"?

Obviously your opinion is welcome here, but it's foolish to think that you will find any sympathizers; speaking for me personally, I see "engaging in intellectual discourse" (with restriction-supporters) as offering a foothold to people who are ultimately going to be responsible for the thousandth cut to the 2nd Amendment.

If, for example, I were to join an abortion forum whose goal was to seek full abortion rights, why would I expect these (hypothetical) members to care much for my opinions if I started openly supporting abortion-restrictions?