ERPO Response from my Representative

[Paul455]

Here is how these people think....arrive at your own conclusion:

Mr. Tumolo,

I am sorry that you find it hard to believe the position I took with the above vote, which was 139 in favor and 14 opposed, and included about 2/3 of the Republican Caucus as well. So it is not just a Democratic agenda issue.

The bill does not strip the rights of due process from people, but would remove guns for a certain time period only from a person deemed by a District Court Judge to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others.

Such removal would only occur after full due process. The Respondent would have advance notice of the petition, a full judicial hearing with the opportunity to have counsel, cross examine witnesses, present witnesses and evidence on his or her behalf and expedited appeal rights.

And while you ask about mental health, the House budget for the upcoming fiscal year appropriated $871 million to the Department of Mental Health, the highest level in a decade. Mental health is indeed being addressed.

Our existing process for holding , evaluating and treating people with mental illness who are considered to be dangers to themselves or others remains in place under G. L. Ch. 123 sec.12 and may be fully utilized in conjunction with the Extreme Risk Order.

This is in no way an attack on legal law abiding gun owners. It is very limited in scope, available only to family members and only affect persons thought to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others. And those persons have full opportunity under the law to refute that allegation and even appeal a potential adverse finding.
I hope that this gives you a bit more information on this bill. Thank you for reaching out to me about it.

 

[robjax]

why don't you just ask why they are targeting law abiding citizens with unconstitutional laws and not paying any attention to gangs or drug dealers....would love to see that response..

 

[Boston4567]

• Tell him every other state legislature to pass such a bill, including CA, MD, and CT, used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard, not a "preponderance" standard. Washington State is an exception, but that was passed by ballot initiative. It is not "due process" to eliminate someone's constitutional rights based on "more likely than not", which is what the preponderance standard is.
• Tell him the words "extreme risk" were never in the bill, other than the title. The standard was "significant risk", and the word significant was eliminated. The bill as passed just requires the judge to find you're a "risk".

 

[Freddy B]

Note how he used the Republican vote against us. Another reason to be upset with those Republicans who we normally count on to support 2A rights who voted in favor of this.

 

[namedpipes]

I'm positive that HE think's he's balanced.

 

[Mike S]

No matter what he says about due process the fact remains that he voted for finding someone guilty and making them prove their innocence in court.

That in itself destroys due process.

 

[Junior314]

Note how he used the Republican vote against us. Another reason to be upset with those Republicans who we normally count on to support 2A rights who voted in favor of this.

Yuuuuuup

 

[amm5061]

No matter what he says about due process the fact remains that he voted for finding someone guilty and making them prove their innocence in court.

That in itself destroys due process.

This, right here. It is "Innocent until proven guilty." The other way around is tyranny and people need to be strung up for it.

 

[Boston4567]

No matter what he says about due process the fact remains that he voted for finding someone guilty and making them prove their innocence in court.

That in itself destroys due process.

This argument is where we lose much of the public.

Conceptually, how is the temporary ex parte order different than issuing an arrest warrant based on an affadavit from police that they have probable cause that someone has committed a crime? You wouldn't say that's finding someone guilty before proving their innocence in court, would you? And that's locking someone up, not just locking up their possessions.

I'm not saying I like the legislation, just that we need to stay grounded. If you apply consistent principles, the concept is no more radical than an arrest warrant.

No, the primary legal issue here, and the only workable angle of attack politically, is lack of due process. Same as an arrest, the temporary order should require probable cause.

 

[sieveboy]

This argument is where we lose much of the public.

Conceptually, how is the temporary ex parte order different than issuing an arrest warrant based on an affadavit from police that they have probable cause that someone has committed a crime? You wouldn't say that's finding someone guilty before proving their innocence in court, would you? And that's locking someone up, not just locking up their possessions.

I'm not saying I like the legislation, just that we need to stay grounded. If you apply consistent principles, the concept is no more radical than an arrest warrant.

No, the primary legal issue here, and the only workable angle of attack politically, is lack of due process. Same as an arrest, the temporary order should require probable cause.

an arrest/arrest warrant must have an associated crime, ERPO is taking without a crime. We lose the public cuz gunz. If this Bill involved the taking of iPhones, television sets, puppies or Doritos --- torches and pitchforks would be out.

 

[Boston4567]

an arrest/arrest warrant must have a crime, ERPO is taking without a crime. We lose the public cuz gunz. If this Bill involved the taking of iPhones, television sets, puppies or Doritos --- torches and pitchforks would be out.

If the legislation is properly constructed, an ERPO order is issued based on probable cause that someone is a significant/imminent risk to themselves or society. There are myriad laws that allow for coercive court orders based on things other than crimes.

 

[namedpipes]

This argument is where we lose much of the public.

Conceptually, how is the temporary ex parte order different than issuing an arrest warrant based on an affadavit from police that they have probable cause that someone has committed a crime? You wouldn't say that's finding someone guilty before proving their innocence in court, would you? And that's locking someone up, not just locking up their possessions.

I'm not saying I like the legislation, just that we need to stay grounded. If you apply consistent principles, the concept is no more radical than an arrest warrant.

No, the primary legal issue here, and the only workable angle of attack politically, is lack of due process. Same as an arrest, the temporary order should require probable cause.

If the situation isn't serious enough to go arrest the guy and stick him in jail/locked ward, then you probably shouldn't be taking his stuff away, either.

In other words, if it's an emergency, ok. Treat it as such. But if it isn't THAT much of an emergency, it can frigging wait for actual, for-reals due process.

 

[Mike S]

If the legislation is properly constructed, an ERPO order is issued based on probable cause that someone is a significant/imminent risk to themselves or society. There are myriad laws that allow for coercive court orders based on things other than crimes.

Yah, I'm sure the next time the House Ways & Means Committee decides to rewrite a bill in its entirety, then release it with almost no time to amend, they will be glad to invite a representative from GOAL to help them craft the language.
[insert roll eyes emoji here]

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I'd ask how it is that "full due processes" makes it such that;

(1) A person must surrender their property in violation of #2 and #4 as many as 10 days before facing a judge or their accuser in their own defense.

(2) A person has a "right to representation", but not representation provided by the court if they cannot afford it themselves. They absorb the cost.

(3) A person faces a 51/49 standard of evidence (preponderance) which essentially means "as likely as not" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

(4) A person incurs legal costs and faces violation of #2 and #4 having committed no crime, based on the idea that perhaps they "might" in the future.

(5) A persons property may be sold by town/police for their own profit simply by refusing to re-issue an LTC or failure to re-transfer, even if the ERPO fails.

Finally, what does this prevent? What happens to knives, swords, gasoline, cars, pressure cookers, fertilizer, acid, chemicals, rental trucks, chainsaws, crossbows, spears, home-made cannons, or whatever else? What happens to the person, if ERPO'd, who's committed no crime nor been accused of one? Are they sent home to build a bomb or continue their job flying 747s or driving school busses?

 

[Nick Fury]

Not to mention the floodgates of abuse this will open. From both law enforcement and personal acquaintances.

What about this guy? Even written law did not protect him. Some here even think his trigger locks were not enough. 2A supporters my ass...

Man came to Brockton hospital with cut on hand, gun on his hip

 

[Dadstoys]

The guy is a flat out liar and this is the party line of shit they will feed to the general public to make themselves look like hero's.
It's a work around to the constitution.

 

[MAGA99]

2/3 of ‘republicans’ in Mass are liberal dems in disguise.

 

[Bfatz]

The true irony here is everyone of THESE pond scum leeches are the true Mental cases that need to be reviewed for fire arms confiscation. Any one of them WHO thinks any fictational law they create out of thin air trumps the BIll of Rights is truly Special Needs and warrants a ERPO. I say we file a Mass petition against all these so call law makers and have them reviewed immediatly.

 

[quincy]

I beg to differ on the mental health issue. My dear friend’s son and family have gone through hell trying to get him the help he needs. Without getting into exact details, Was told that unless he does harm to himself or others, no help.

 

[dhuze]

Ask him who pays for the storage of those firearms that will be removed on a whim by any Massachusetts judge?

 

[amm5061]

I beg to differ on the mental health issue. My dear friend’s son and family have gone through hell trying to get him the help he needs. Without getting into exact details, Was told that unless he does harm to himself or others, no help.

This right here is where this legislation could have had a distinctly positive impact if it had been crafted with the aim of helping people and not as a gun confiscation bill.

This bill has nothing to do with helping people or mental illness. The f***ing criminals who put it out there even admitted that fact.

 

[Coyote33]

Yah, I'm sure the next time the House Ways & Means Committee decides to rewrite a bill in its entirety, then release it with almost no time to amend, they will be glad to invite a representative from GOAL to help them craft the language.

I see Todd M. Smola (Ranking Minority) in the House Ways & Means Committee. Isn't GOAL's goal to lobby these people? Can't he be asked to put forth legislation?

This right here is where this legislation could have had a distinctly positive impact if it had been crafted with the aim of helping people and not as a gun confiscation bill.

This bill has nothing to do with helping people or mental illness. The f***ing criminals who put it out there even admitted that fact.

Good point. Worth repeating.

 

[kalash]

Remember when nearly everyone here thought that the gov should've done "something" about mass shooters that had shown signs of violence and/or mental instability? Sandy Hook shooter's mother tried to get him committed and couldn't. Several shooters were watched by the FBI. Parkland shooter had the cops called to his house over thirty times. The list goes on and on. You were all on the bandwagon to "do something" about deranged kids and here you go, MA delivered that "something" as asked. Pick a side: either you think that we should try to keep guns away from bad people or you think that that's pre-crime and cannot be moral - there's no in-between here. Just food for thought.

 

[sig shooter]

Remember when nearly everyone here thought that the gov should've done "something" about mass shooters that had shown signs of violence and/or mental instability? Sandy Hook shooter's mother tried to get him committed and couldn't. Several shooters were watched by the FBI. Parkland shooter had the cops called to his house over thirty times. The list goes on and on. You were all on the bandwagon to "do something" about deranged kids and here you go, MA delivered that "something" as asked. Pick a side: either you think that we should try to keep guns away from bad people or you think that that's pre-crime and cannot be moral - there's no in-between here. Just food for thought.

+1, can’t play both sides, either you want gov intervention or not.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Remember when nearly everyone here thought that the gov should've done "something" about mass shooters that had shown signs of violence and/or mental instability? Sandy Hook shooter's mother tried to get him committed and couldn't. Several shooters were watched by the FBI. Parkland shooter had the cops called to his house over thirty times. The list goes on and on. You were all on the bandwagon to "do something" about deranged kids and here you go, MA delivered that "something" as asked. Pick a side: either you think that we should try to keep guns away from bad people or you think that that's pre-crime and cannot be moral - there's no in-between here. Just food for thought.

The Parkland kid committed crimes that would seem to get anyone else locked up... assault, threatening people with weapons, harming animals, suicide attempts, etc. Nothing was done in response to actual actions, actual crimes, etc. There were programs in place specifically to prevent him from facing consequences and repercussions from his actions, one of which would be statutory disqualification from the ownership of firearms. That wasn't a case of "pre-crime" - just regular crime, which was ignored or deliberately swept under the rug.

What you're asking/stating is a false dichotomy:
"If you wanted these guys stopped in the past, then you must be OK with the removal of due process and the concept of pre-crime."

Those aren't the only two options, and I think most of the outrage over Parkland was that the laws were already in place which would have prevented the shooter from doing what he did, if they had been applied. There wasn't a need for new laws because the old laws covered it; if the old laws weren't enforced, why would you believe the new laws will be enforced? If you believe the new laws will be enforced due to raised interest, then why wouldn't the old laws suffice? Insult to injury, many of the shooters crimes were ignored due to interference from the Feds through programs designed to hide crime.

So no, past calls to "do something" does not mean everyone on NES needs to welcome a law that shreds the bill of rights with open arms.

 

[oldguy68]

Remember when nearly everyone here thought that the gov should've done "something" about mass shooters that had shown signs of violence and/or mental instability? Sandy Hook shooter's mother tried to get him committed and couldn't. Several shooters were watched by the FBI. Parkland shooter had the cops called to his house over thirty times. The list goes on and on. You were all on the bandwagon to "do something" about deranged kids and here you go, MA delivered that "something" as asked. Pick a side: either you think that we should try to keep guns away from bad people or you think that that's pre-crime and cannot be moral - there's no in-between here. Just food for thought.

I want a free society where if you are not in jail you can own any firearm that our goverment owns.

It would be more dangerous but everyone would be able to defend their life, property and their way of life equally!

I say more dangerous due to the fact that there are lots of bad people out there and we would need to be more vigilant in protecting ourselves!

 

[Freddy B]

This was all they had to say: "I am reluctantly voting No on this bill. Like everybody else, I do not want to see guns in the hands of dangerously unstable people. But I am sworn to uphold both the US and Massachusetts constitutions, which both guarantee citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This bill, as currently written, unduly infringes on that right. I look forward to voting Yes on an improved bill which adequately protects both the safety of our citizens and their constitutionally guaranteed rights."

 

[Boston4567]

Those aren't the only two options, and I think most of the outrage over Parkland was that the laws were already in place which would have prevented the shooter from doing what he did, if they had been applied. There wasn't a need for new laws because the old laws covered it; if the old laws weren't enforced, why would you believe the new laws will be enforced? If you believe the new laws will be enforced due to raised interest, then why wouldn't the old laws suffice? Insult to injury, many of the shooters crimes were ignored due to interference from the Feds through programs designed to hide crime.

Indeed. This reminds me of a Milton Friedman quote, except in this case they want more laws instead of more money:

Suppose the same group of people start the same enterprise in the government sector and the initial results are the same. It is a failure; it does not work. They have a very different bottom line. Nobody likes to admit that he has made a mistake, and they do not have to. They can argue that the enterprise initially failed only because it was not pursued on a large enough scale.

[...] With the best intentions in the world, they can try to persuade the people who hold the purse strings to finance the enterprise on a larger scale, to dig deeper into the pockets of the taxpayers to keep the enterprise going.

That illustrates a general rule: If a private enterprise is a failure, it closes down—unless it can get a government subsidy to keep it going; if a government enterprise fails, it is expanded. I challenge you to find exceptions.​

.

 

[Dadstoys]

Remember when nearly everyone here thought that the gov should've done "something" about mass shooters that had shown signs of violence and/or mental instability? Sandy Hook shooter's mother tried to get him committed and couldn't. Several shooters were watched by the FBI. Parkland shooter had the cops called to his house over thirty times. The list goes on and on. You were all on the bandwagon to "do something" about deranged kids and here you go, MA delivered that "something" as asked. Pick a side: either you think that we should try to keep guns away from bad people or you think that that's pre-crime and cannot be moral - there's no in-between here. Just food for thought.

If there was actually anything in it about getting someone dangerous off the streets , you would be right.
But it has nothing to do with this turd of a bill as written.
As it stands now , you show up at said REAL nutcase's house , take guns ( At least the one's they know about.), pat him on the head and leave him to go on his merry way to go kill by some other method.
There was never ANY intent to deal with dangerous people in this whole pile of crap , just a backdoor around average people's right's.

 

[Toast]

Isn’t it treason to violate the oath one swears before entering office?

No. Treason is the only crime described in the Constitution, specifically "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."