National How a temporary restraining order for guns could help stop mass shootings

[Joe Link]

One relatively unknown tool for stopping gun violence may soon get a lot more attention.

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.

As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.

Everytown's deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. "We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018," he said.

"There is a growing consensus," added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, "that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others."

Continue Reading: The tool that could help stop mass shootings

Read More

 

[notazombie]

"that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others."

"First step". All I need to hear.

 

[RicInOR]

Prove you are innocent. Or, Prove you didn't do something you didn't do. And, who is going to pay for that? Puts undo burden on women and the poor.


" The person's access to firearms is blocked until they can demonstrate that the risk is over. "

 

[HB of CJ]

Extraordinarily dangerous. Seizure of property without due process. If they were popping personal possessions like clothing, collectibles, vehicles, knickknacks or whatever it still would be bad enough. We never hear of such happening. All can be dangerous.

But the nasty and pesky fact that they are focusing upon firearms make me shiver with dread. Serious. In the distant past it took TWO registered nurses PLUS one special mental health MD to declare a person a danger to himself or others in society.

This was done during or at the conclusion of a NON VOLUNTEER three day or 72 hour hold. Then we had to get a Judge to issue the mental restraining order against specific persons or the general public. This all took time. It was a set procedure.

Not now so it seems. Any ex girl, (or boy) friend or family or former or existing business associate or just about anybody who is willing just to perjure themselves can just verbally accuse just about anybody. Sounds very much like the Salem Witch hunts.

HB of CJ; ex psyk RN (ya' gotta be a little nuts yourself to help the REAL fruitcakes)

 

[Caveman Jim]

Their fears do mot Trump my rights!!!!
That's the message that we need to convey!!!

 

[Goosebrown]

No ex parte decisions. If you're a threat then they can put you in court and you can defend yourself.

 

[Mark W.]

Show me how this would have stopped any of the mass murders of late?

 

[Stomper]

Because "crazy" people will obey what some lawyer wearing a black robe tells them to do....

 

[MasterChief]

I think doing this is 100% WRONG and would very likely infuriate people even more... Take someone's stuff, then they go on a real rampage... I know I would be pretty ticked off. Do people really think the "affected" couldn't find other means to do whatever they wanted?

Like @RicInOR said "Prove you are innocent. Or, Prove you didn't do something you didn't do." Nope....not for me.