Posts Tagged extreme risk protection order

Gun Control Toolkit Leaked

From Ammoland:

“This document,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “raises alarms because there’s a lot in it about taking someone’s guns, but only two paragraphs about returning firearms to their rightful owner.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Red Flag Law Abuse Has Started, As Predicted

From Bearing Arms:

Backers of Colorado’s new red flag law aren’t saying much about the first high profile abuse of the Extreme Risk Protection Order process and for good reason. The case of Susan Holmes has revealed that not only will some individuals try to abuse the system, but the state’s mental health system is likely in need of an overhaul as well.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Red Flag Fallout In Colorado

From Reason:

Commonly referred to as a “red flag law,” this type of legislation is part of a state-by-state strategy pushed by gun control activists who were galvanized by the 2018 shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Prior to the Parkland shooting, five states had some sort of red flag law on the books; not including H.B. 1177, there are now 14.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Washington Expands Reasons For Taking Guns

From Bearing Arms:

Now, the state wants to use ERPOs for more gun owners who, like the man who went to Northwest Hospital in early April, threaten to commit hate-fueled violence. Among a slew of gun violence prevention bills signed by Governor Jay Inslee in early May was an amendment to the current ERPO law that specifies that judges should consider whether a troubled gun owner has been convicted of “malicious harassment,” a category that includes behaviors like burning crosses and defacing property with swastikas. It’s the first hate-specific ERPO law in the country.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

“Red Flag” Laws Rigged Against Gun Owners

From Reason:

Depending on what counts as a “significant risk,” the probability that the subject of a temporary order actually would have used a gun to hurt himself or someone else may be quite low. If 10 percent is significant, for example, that probability might be around 5 percent (51 percent times 10 percent). So even if judges are weighing the evidence with such precision, they will be taking away the Second Amendment rights of people who almost certainly would not have committed suicide or murder.

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments