Washington Redmond man has EPO and guns taken

[awshoot]

EPO provides due process, he gets a hearing within 10 days or less iirc, just like a lot of other court actions, eg domestic violence protective orders. I don't know this guy but he is an idiot for posting what he did when he did. No sympathy here. Being a gun owner carries with it a higher responsibility to behave safely, not scare people, and not make the rest of us look like loons or some 30 year old dweeb living in his mother's basement.

Folks, I've had it with these kinds of idiots. If he wants pics holding an assault rifle and playing badass he can go enlist in the real army, if he has the b---- to do it. If he did he damn sure knows it's nothing to joke about.

Rant over.

Numerous issues:

1) Due process? You realize that a preponderance standard (example: RCW 7.94.040: Hearings on petition—Grounds for order issuance. ) most often used in these, is barely better than a coin flip? Should constitutional rights be abridged on a test that is only slightly better than chance? If you got charged with stealing a Snickers bar, the State would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt you did it. To have your 2A rights abridged? A feather's weight of evidence over a decision based on PURE CHANCE will suffice. Judge could sit there and flip a coin (*). I don't think people really get how bogus that standard is:



2) 1A. We don't have a Bill of Rights to protect what everyone agrees with or which conforms to whatever it is people deem "normal" -- the Bill of Rights is there to prevent a tyranny of the majority, to protect minority opinions and rights. Whether he was a doufus for posting a picture or not is absolutely 100% beside the point, because if the 1A doesn't apply for something even slightly stupid (or try this: unpopular) -- it doesn't apply at all and America aint' what it's marketed as.

(*) EDIT: forgot to add, when judges are elected or appointed to less-than-life terms, and the standard requires just a smidge of weight over chance, let's be honest about this: people aren't computers -- 50/50 is as good as a preponderance in human perception and secondly, there is literally zero downside for the judge to take your guns and enormous downside if they let that 1 in a million who is dangerous, keep the guns. With odds like that, nobody will ever win these. Ever.

 

[Pacesetter]

Could just be crappy writing, but they make it sound like you have guns listed on your CPL and he did something wrong by having more than listed. That's not how CPLs work on WA.

Anyone notice how many errors or misleading statements are in news reports nowdays?

Typical lib komo news making it seem like there's a limit on handguns law now -

 

[Pacesetter]

Did the fbi and local police just destroy the Constitution or did I miss something in the story ?

 

[lucky guy]

Numerous issues:

1) Due process? You realize that a preponderance standard (example: RCW 7.94.040: Hearings on petition—Grounds for order issuance. ) most often used in these, is barely better than a coin flip? Should constitutional rights be abridged on a test that is only slightly better than chance? If you got charged with stealing a Snickers bar, the State would have to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE doubt you did it. To have your 2A rights abridged? A feather's weight of evidence over a decision based on PURE CHANCE will suffice. Judge could sit there and flip a coin (*). I don't think people really get how bogus that standard is:

View attachment 624628

2) 1A. We don't have a Bill of Rights to protect what everyone agrees with or which conforms to whatever it is people deem "normal" -- the Bill of Rights is there to prevent a tyranny of the majority, to protect minority opinions and rights. Whether he was a doufus for posting a picture or not is absolutely 100% beside the point, because if the 1A doesn't apply for something even slightly stupid (or try this: unpopular) -- it doesn't apply at all and America aint' what it's marketed as.

(*) EDIT: forgot to add, when judges are elected or appointed to less-than-life terms, and the standard requires just a smidge of weight over chance, let's be honest about this: people aren't computers -- 50/50 is as good as a preponderance in human perception and secondly, there is literally zero downside for the judge to take your guns and enormous downside if they let that 1 in a million who is dangerous, keep the guns. With odds like that, nobody will ever win these. Ever.

Go read the real rules, you are hopelessly confused. It is not beside the point that this idiot did this, it makes us all look bad and then a post like this shows up and makes us look even more like idiots.

It's up to some of us to call it out and put a stop to it. I'll say it again, he was an idiot for doing it, deserves to be checked up for a while. If you think what he's doing is cute you're part of the problem too.

You throw a lot of big words around, how about you explain some of them to us? Do you understand protective orders and why they are given before a hearing can be held? And yes, tell me about how this violates due process. Why is a EPO any different than any other protective order, because it has that religious icon "gun" in the law?

So without all the bs lawyering, tell me directly what you think of this guy waving ak's around and making not so veiled threats. You support him? Is he a victim of da man?

 

[Jcon268]

You mean, in Oregon, if you have firearms BEFORE you get a CWP, you can have it revoked and ALL your firearms taken?

The man had been issued a concealed permit license in May for two handguns, but he was found to have eight weapons and his license has been revoked, Redmond police said. Police officers were able to remove all the guns from his house Wednesday without incident.

CWP = concealed weapons permit? Then it said he had eight weapons...but what if some of those are shotguns or rifles? Who is going to be concealed carrying those?

 

[AMT]

CWP = concealed weapons permit? Then it said he had eight weapons...but what if some of those are shotguns or rifles? Who is going to be concealed carrying those?

Exactly. Confusing article isn't it? I am guessing that it was written by a kommiefornia transplant who now works for this "new agency" in Redmond. Can't get anything right or straight.

"The man had been issued a concealed permit license in May for two handguns ". Why would anyone need to be issued a CPL for any amount of handguns that they own? A CPL isn't specific to any one firearm. It is for all firearms that they own, and any particular one that they want to carry concealed. Were they trying to imply that the CPL was only good for the two handguns that he owned at the time of issue, and not anymore that they may have purchased afterwards?

"but he was found to have eight weapons and his license has been revoked, Redmond police said. " So for whatever reason he had more weapons than his two original handguns, so they revoked his license?

Redmond used to be a nice Red area. It is now past purple and starting to turn a shade of dark blue.....

 

[Talos32]

Go read the real rules, you are hopelessly confused. It is not beside the point that this idiot did this, it makes us all look bad and then a post like this shows up and makes us look even more like idiots.

It's up to some of us to call it out and put a stop to it. I'll say it again, he was an idiot for doing it, deserves to be checked up for a while. If you think what he's doing is cute you're part of the problem too.

You throw a lot of big words around, how about you explain some of them to us? Do you understand protective orders and why they are given before a hearing can be held? And yes, tell me about how this violates due process. Why is a EPO any different than any other protective order, because it has that religious icon "gun" in the law?

So without all the bs lawyering, tell me directly what you think of this guy waving ak's around and making not so veiled threats. You support him? Is he a victim of da man?

Did awshoot say that he thinks regular protective orders (meaning the forfeiture of gun rights that comes with them) meet the standard of due process? I missed it if he did. Just because they've been around longer, and the courts have decided to ignore due process in the name of expediency doesn't mean that we're all OK with them.

And yes, I and everyone else here knows "why" they issue both protective orders and ERPOs. The belief that there isn't time to afford the accused due process because they're such a danger to others (except they're not such a danger as to merit arrest and they haven't actually broken any laws). The problem is, you can make that exigency argument in favor of suspending/breaking almost any law-recent anti-terrorism statutes anyone?

When you have a system of laws, there will invariably be one-off and outlying cases where the law didn't work well, but if you can suspend the law at will for people that "don't deserve" its protections (in your eyes) then you don't really have a system of law anymore. And you certainly don't have America as envisioned under the Constitution.

No less than four of the first ten amendments deal with the rights of people accused of a crime. Clearly the people that founded this country and our system of laws thought this to be an extremely important issue. The fact that you would so easily throw all of it away because one jerk "deserves what he got" (in your eyes) disturbs me.