Washington Tyranny Begins in Seattle

[Voidshot9]

And so it begins:

Tyranny Begins In Seattle As Man Who Broke No Laws Has Guns Confiscated - David Harris Jr

Apparently this happened back in March. Anyone know if this report is 100% accurate?

Read More

 

[druiseeker]

It'd be great if there was some sort of readily understood STANDARD for the erpo's. I hope there is some sort of process that requires a standard to take away someones rights. I used to think that standard was the constitution. My bad.

 

[SUPER X]

And so it begins:

Tyranny Begins In Seattle As Man Who Broke No Laws Has Guns Confiscated - David Harris Jr

Apparently this happened back in March. Anyone know if this report is 100% accurate?

A .25 is smaller than most cell phones they must have been the ones eye balling him hard to even notice it.

 

[Goosebrown]

I'm threatened by people protesting. Take their cars do they can't get to the rallies.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Just goes to show that , anything you say or do may come back to "haunt you".

Be very careful with what you say and do with your firearms...

Perception can mean more than the truth , to some people...

Chances are that when the news media or any social media reports something about guns...its usually negative to the gun or the gun owner...So watch your back when doing any activity with a firearm...

I am not a computer expert ...but I have no doubt that whatever I have typed here in a post , can be retrieved , even if I deleted it...

Be careful with what and how you post...You never know just how something might be creativity "edited" or interrupted to mean something completely different...
Andy

 

[Mikej]

And so it begins:

Tyranny Begins In Seattle As Man Who Broke No Laws Has Guns Confiscated - David Harris Jr

Apparently this happened back in March. Anyone know if this report is 100% accurate?

What a freaking HACK that guy is. It's people like him that make US look like lunatics! Absolutely NO credibility if he's going to present stories like that!

Don't trust any source completely, ESPECIALLY if they are getting all dramatic.

Read the stories from different sources, please.

Handgun seized in Belltown under extreme risk protection order

Seattle PD Crisis Response Squad Serves Extreme Risk Protection Order Warrant, Seizes Handgun

When I first heard this I though 'Oh-oh" here we go, but after seeing the news article, and hearing more of the story. Looks to me like this guy was really on the edge.

 

[partsed]

They forgot the third zip tie thru the barrel.... Or did they run out of them.....

 

[nwslopoke]

There will be no admission of, yes we were lying all the time when we said we weren't trying to take any guns. If we told the truth we would never get them. Now excuse me. I need to use the ladies bathroom before I go buy some weed. (My autocorrect is being a **** today)

 

[Voidshot9]

What a freaking HACK that guy is. It's people like him that make US look like lunatics! Absolutely NO credibility if he's going to present stories like that!

Yeah, I totally agree. Seems David Harris Jr. is just going for shock value as opposed to accurate reporting.

Here's the actual Seattle PD legal document on the complaint: Complaint McKenzie

ERPO laws still scare the crap out of me, though. It's the lack of due process.

 

[4Freedom]

I don't care if people think this guy deserved to lose his 2nd Amendment rights. My question is, did he commit a crime and do something that violated our constitutional laws that protect our civil rights and liberties? If not, he should have his guns returned to him immediately and the authorities who seized them should be brought to justice for violating our constitutional laws. I mean, what if a city made a rule stating that certain ethnicities cannot use certain water fountains or can ride only in the back of the bus? This is why we have a Bill of Rights and have courts, laws and a sound method called Due Process to determine if such people violated laws that require them to lose their civil liberties as punishment.

Now, if he threatened to harm somebody with a gun, that is a crime, as it is illegal to threaten to hurt people and that can be considered a criminal harassment, stalking among various other offenses. If he threaten to murder someone with a gun, he is a violent threat and can be arrested and charged with a crime that would then temporarily result in loss of firearm rights as he is considered a danger to society due to the nature of the crime he is being charged with. I am not sure how this would work in other situations, but if someone robs a liquor store and is caught would he then have access to his firearms? If someone is going around with a gun threatening to kill people or hurt them why would it be different?

Maybe, I am confused about the situation, but I know that these ERPOs will eventually be used against law abiding citizens in the long run. A pissed off ex-girlfriend who is mad that the ex-boyfriend has a new girlfriend. Or, maybe an angry co-worker who doesn't agree with the politics of a person and then makes a report that the person is talking about harming people. So, our 2nd Amendment rights are not rights at all, anymore. What they are now, is a privilege that we get to keep as long as nobody has any resentment against us and a group of people with no true legal authority come and tell us we no longer have these so-called rights anymore.

We already have laws that make it illegal to threaten or cause bodily harm to other people. I am not sure why we need more than that? But, if a person has not committed any crime, then stripping them of their constitutional rights is the first step to an authoritarian ruled fascist regime. What may start out as being justifiable and sensible actions of stripping away a questionable person of their gun rights, will one day be used against you for criticizing the new mayor of your city, governor of your state or even the President. Maybe one day you will be considered a threat because you practice a certain type of religion or part of some sub-culture or group people find revolting (such as a local militia)?

Remember, Extreme Risks are very subjective and the government will most certainly keep modifying and amending their criteria of what the definition of an "Extreme Risk" will be. What may start out as a crazy person threatening people can one day turn into a person who hates the current political environment, has a certain religion or maybe just likes buying large quantities of firearms (Feds have murdered quite a few people who committed this extreme risk action).

 

[2ndtimer]

My grave concern about Extreme Risk Protection Orders is that a great many of the leftist liberals that control many of the local government (and sit on court benches) believe that the mere ownership of firearms is prima facie evidence of a mental disorder. Basically, that anyone (other than police officers) in possession of a firearm is mentally unbalanced and therefore a potential threat to public safety and security. Kind of like their opinion that only insane people are capable of murder, therefore all murderers are insane, and not responsible for their evil acts. Kind of goes along with their "everyone is a victim and no one is responsible or accountable for their actions". That is why they try to blame the weapon and not the person, when horrific acts occur. Of course, if only the police have firearms, and they control the police, no one can stand against them, and they will have complete control. Scary!

 

[notazombie]

In my opinion this is the most dangerous anti-2A thing going on right now.

 

[Swiss_Cheeze]

Well Seattle can go f*<( themselves. Only way i can protest is not spend a penny there. When i visit and if i do (because of family) i will drive to other cities to stay, fuel, and eat. Unfortunately while I ,as one will not even scratch the surface, it's my start to feeling like i am doing something.