Linsky at it again! Please watch!!

[jonw]

Guns and gadgets


View: https://youtu.be/QY4EoI6sAOY

 

[JayZ0rbot]

Mass reps taking complete advantage of tragic event. They won’t be stopped either. Tyranny staring right at are faces.

 

[HuntMaine]

My guess is a law will be passed that allows Family Members, Police , Doctor and possibly "Partners". To report to Police and then go to court to see if weapons need to be removed from someone who displays mental illness and or violent behavior. The details of what that definition is will be the tricky part. I hope we are part of this process as I'd like to be sure there are safeguards in place and it is not abuse.

 

[JJ4]

My guess is a law will be passed that allows Family Members, Police , Doctor and possibly "Partners". To report to Police and then go to court to see if weapons need to be removed from someone who displays mental illness and or violent behavior. The details of what that definition is will be the tricky part. I hope we are part of this process as I'd like to be sure there are safeguards in place and it is not abuse.

This is what Linksy is planning: MA H.3081 Extreme Risk Protective Orders

 

[HuntMaine]

This is what Linksy is planning: MA H.3081 Extreme Risk Protective Orders

Yes I had read thru his proposal and if indeed that is the route people are going there needs to be much more effort around Due Process so people have a right to respond to these. I bet that these same people pushing the ERPOs would riot if someone tried to take any other right from someone who was deemed at risk.

 

[RG Sports]

One way to help prevent abuse would make the person turning them in is liable if it turns out the person is not a risk.

 

[cbrxx]

My guess is a law will be passed that allows Family Members, Police , Doctor and possibly "Partners". To report to Police and then go to court to see if weapons need to be removed from someone who displays mental illness and or violent behavior. The details of what that definition is will be the tricky part. I hope we are part of this process as I'd like to be sure there are safeguards in place and it is not abuse.

I'm sure it will be a one way street, somewhat like the current restraining orders, that's working out well for those falsely accused.

 

[swatgig]

If the person poses a danger to himself or others, he or she should be involuntarily committed under MGL c. 123 § 12. There's no need for additional laws

Section 12: Emergency restraint and hospitalization of persons posing risk of serious harm by reason of mental illness
Section 12. (a) Any physician who is licensed pursuant to section 2 of chapter 112 or qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist authorized to practice as such under regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of section 80B of said chapter 112 or a qualified psychologist licensed pursuant to sections 118 to 129, inclusive, of said chapter 112, or a licensed independent clinical social worker licensed pursuant to sections 130 to 137, inclusive, of chapter 112 who, after examining a person, has reason to believe that failure to hospitalize such person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness may restrain or authorize the restraint of such person and apply for the hospitalization of such person for a 3?day period at a public facility or at a private facility authorized for such purposes by the department. If an examination is not possible because of the emergency nature of the case and because of the refusal of the person to consent to such examination, the physician, qualified psychologist, qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist or licensed independent clinical social worker on the basis of the facts and circumstances may determine that hospitalization is necessary and may apply therefore. In an emergency situation, if a physician, qualified psychologist, qualified psychiatric nurse mental health clinical specialist or licensed independent clinical social worker is not available, a police officer, who believes that failure to hospitalize a person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness may restrain such person and apply for the hospitalization of such person for a 3?day period at a public facility or a private facility authorized for such purpose by the department. An application for hospitalization shall state the reasons for the restraint of such person and any other relevant information which may assist the admitting physician or physicians. Whenever practicable, prior to transporting such person, the applicant shall telephone or otherwise communicate with a facility to describe the circumstances and known clinical history and to determine whether the facility is the proper facility to receive such person and also to give notice of any restraint to be used and to determine whether such restraint is necessary.

(b) Only if the application for hospitalization under the provisions of this section is made by a physician specifically designated to have the authority to admit to a facility in accordance with the regulations of the department, shall such person be admitted to the facility immediately after his reception. If the application is made by someone other than a designated physician, such person shall be given a psychiatric examination by a designated physician immediately after his reception at such facility. If the physician determines that failure to hospitalize such person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness he may admit such person to the facility for care and treatment.

Upon admission of a person under the provisions of this subsection, the facility shall inform the person that it shall, upon such person's request, notify the committee for public counsel services of the name and location of the person admitted. Said committee for public counsel services shall forthwith appoint an attorney who shall meet with the person. If the appointed attorney determines that the person voluntarily and knowingly waives the right to be represented, or is presently represented or will be represented by another attorney, the appointed attorney shall so notify said committee for public counsel services, which shall withdraw the appointment.

Any person admitted under the provisions of this subsection, who has reason to believe that such admission is the result of an abuse or misuse of the provisions of this subsection, may request, or request through counsel an emergency hearing in the district court in whose jurisdiction the facility is located, and unless a delay is requested by the person or through counsel, the district court shall hold such hearing on the day the request is filed with the court or not later than the next business day.

(c) No person shall be admitted to a facility under the provisions of this section unless he, or his parent or legal guardian in his behalf, is given an opportunity to apply for voluntary admission under the provisions of paragraph (a) of section ten and unless he, or such parent or legal guardian has been informed (1) that he has a right to such voluntary admission, and (2) that the period of hospitalization under the provisions of this section cannot exceed three days. At any time during such period of hospitalization, the superintendent may discharge such person if he determines that such person is not in need of care and treatment.

(d) A person shall be discharged at the end of the three day period unless the superintendent applies for a commitment under the provisions of sections seven and eight of this chapter or the person remains on a voluntary status.

(e) Any person may make application to a district court justice or a justice of the juvenile court department for a three day commitment to a facility of a mentally ill person whom the failure to confine would cause a likelihood of serious harm. The court shall appoint counsel to represent said person. After hearing such evidence as he may consider sufficient, a district court justice or a justice of the juvenile court department may issue a warrant for the apprehension and appearance before him of the alleged mentally ill person, if in his judgment the condition or conduct of such person makes such action necessary or proper. Following apprehension, the court shall have the person examined by a physician designated to have the authority to admit to a facility or examined by a qualified psychologist in accordance with the regulations of the department. If said physician or qualified psychologist reports that the failure to hospitalize the person would create a likelihood of serious harm by reason of mental illness, the court may order the person committed to a facility for a period not to exceed three days, but the superintendent may discharge him at any time within the three day period. The periods of time prescribed or allowed under the provisions of this section shall be computed pursuant to Rule 6 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.

 

[M125X]

Amen.

If the person poses a danger to himself or others, he or she should be involuntarily committed under MGL c. 123 § 12. There's no need for additional laws

No need for additional laws! Killing is already illegal!

 

[TayNinh_66]

If the person poses a danger to himself or others, he or she should be involuntarily committed under MGL c. 123 § 12. There's no need for additional laws

Section 12 is very short term hospitalization, and has ZERO impact on firearm ownership. Police do not have the right to control firearms of a mentally ill person and there are some really dangerous mentally ill people who should not have firearms.

 

[amm5061]

Section 12 is very short term hospitalization, and has ZERO impact on firearm ownership. Police do not have the right to control firearms of a mentally ill person and there are some really dangerous mentally ill people who should not have firearms.

They don't have the right to do so in MA, but they sure as shit have the ability to do so. Suitability means the PD can yank their license and steal their guns.

 

[M125X]

They don't have the right to do so in MA, but they sure as shit have the ability to do so. Suitability means the PD can yank their license and steal their guns.

Yep, for any reason or no reason at all! (Ugh)

No more laws needed.

 

[swatgig]

Section 12 is very short term hospitalization, and has ZERO impact on firearm ownership. Police do not have the right to control firearms of a mentally ill person and there are some really dangerous mentally ill people who should not have firearms.

I disagree. The short answer is that someone who has been committed under section 12 is a prohibited person, both under Federal law and State law.

Check 18 USC 922(g)

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—.
.
.
.(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;
.
.
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce

Also see MGL Chapter 140 § 129B (Firearms Identification Card)

A prohibited person shall be a person who:
(iii) is or has been: (A) except in the case of a commitment pursuant to sections 35 or 36C of chapter 123, committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse

Also see MGL Chapter 140 § 131 (License to Carry)

A prohibited person shall be a person who:
(iii) is or has been: (A) except in the case of a commitment pursuant to sections 35 or 36C of chapter 123, committed to any hospital or institution for mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse

 

[swatgig]

They don't have the right to do so in MA, but they sure as shit have the ability to do so. Suitability means the PD can yank their license and steal their guns.

They are prohibited. No suitability needed

Yep, for any reason or no reason at all! (Ugh)

No more laws needed.

No reason needed. They're prohibited

 

[Len-2A Training]

They don't have the right to do so in MA, but they sure as shit have the ability to do so. Suitability means the PD can yank their license and steal their guns.

Even without what swatgig posted, PDs in MA have a habit of suspending/revoking LTCs in such cases and confiscating everything. They don't need a law to do so, just a policy ("suitability" works).

 

[amm5061]

Even without what swatgig posted, PDs in MA have a habit of suspending/revoking LTCs in such cases and confiscating everything. They don't need a law to do so, just a policy ("suitability" works).

Which just leads me right back to my initial comments when I saw Linsky's stupid name pop up again: he should just go back go screwing his goats and leave the rest of us alone.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I disagree. The short answer is that someone who has been committed under section 12 is a prohibited person, both under Federal law and State law.
Check 18 USC 922(g)
Also see MGL Chapter 140 § 129B (Firearms Identification Card)
Also see MGL Chapter 140 § 131 (License to Carry)

Read the regs you are quoting. Only a court ordered commitment is reportable. Most people who are section 12'd by local PD or MD and fail the pysch eval will sign a voluntary admission. Not reportable to anyone. They will not become PP.

Even if they are involuntarily admitted, they have 3 days to sign a conditional voluntary admission or Hosp can proceed to request court ordered commitment. A court can order a 6 month commitment and Hosp makes the risk very clear so Just about everyone with a shred of sanity left will sign the conditional admission. Again, not reportable to anyone.

The realty is most "commitments" are in fact voluntary admissions because hospitals don't want to spend the time and money on legal fees.

 

[swatgig]

Read the regs you are quoting. Only a court ordered commitment is reportable. Most people who are section 12'd by local PD or MD and fail the pysch eval will sign a voluntary admission. Not reportable to anyone. They will not become PP.

Even if they are involuntarily admitted, they have 3 days to sign a conditional voluntary admission or Hosp can proceed to request court ordered commitment. A court can order a 6 month commitment and Hosp makes the risk very clear so Just about everyone with a shred of sanity left will sign the conditional admission. Again, not reportable to anyone.

The realty is most "commitments" are in fact voluntary admissions because hospitals don't want to spend the time and money on legal fees.

The Section 12 commitments I am referring to come under paragraph (e), which are court ordered.

That requires the petitioner to go to court to get the order of commitment. There is little difference on the part of the petitioner getting an order of commitment vs Linsky's Extreme Risk Protective Order. The system is already in place.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Extreme risk, listening to the video it sounds like I can turn in any of the people in town who I know are liberal and hate guns, just to screw them...

 

[TayNinh_66]

The Section 12 commitments I am referring to come under paragraph (e), which are court ordered.
That requires the petitioner to go to court to get the order of commitment. There is little difference on the part of the petitioner getting an order of commitment vs Linsky's Extreme Risk Protective Order. The system is already in place.

Again, read the regs you are quoting. Para (c) "No person shall be admitted to a facility under the provisions of this section unless he ... is given an opportunity to apply for voluntary admission" Virtually everyone is admitted under voluntary or conditional voluntary status. An admission is not reportable. No court would commit someone based upon a citizens petition. In accordance with Para (e), the court must order a psychiatric evaluation. If the Pysch believes the person needs to be admitted then they are offered option of voluntary admission per para (c)

The process works well most of the time, but does NOT address ownership of firearms. There are no regulations that allow MA to grab the guns of a voluntarily admitted patient. The anti-gun lobby has successsfully passed ERPO legislation in a number of states.

 

[Len-2A Training]

TayNinh, no PD needs a "regulation" to confiscate guns. They will do it based on "suitability" since they carted someone off for a Section 12. No judge will make the PD return the LTC and guns either, too much risk if they are wrong.

 

[swatgig]

Again, read the regs you are quoting. Para (c) "No person shall be admitted to a facility under the provisions of this section unless he ... is given an opportunity to apply for voluntary admission" Virtually everyone is admitted under voluntary or conditional voluntary status. An admission is not reportable. No court would commit someone based upon a citizens petition. In accordance with Para (e), the court must order a psychiatric evaluation. If the Pysch believes the person needs to be admitted then they are offered option of voluntary admission per para (c)

The process works well most of the time, but does NOT address ownership of firearms. There are no regulations that allow MA to grab the guns of a voluntarily admitted patient. The anti-gun lobby has successsfully passed ERPO legislation in a number of states.

I've represented quite a few of these people. Even if they agree to go for treatment, the judge still orders it.

 

[TayNinh_66]

I've represented quite a few of these people. Even if they agree to go for treatment, the judge still orders it.

and I've been working with mentally ill clients for 15 years. All section 12's end up voluntary or conditional. They never go near a judge. Local PD's usually call the ambulance for a section 12 and go on to the next call. The only ones committed by a judge are in the criminal system charged with felonies. They land in Bridgewater and become PP's. Usually with real good reasons.

 

[amm5061]

and I've been working with mentally ill clients for 15 years. All section 12's end up voluntary or conditional. They never go near a judge. Local PD's usually call the ambulance for a section 12 and go on to the next call. The only ones committed by a judge are in the criminal system charged with felonies. They land in Bridgewater and become PP's. Usually with real good reasons.

Even a voluntary commitment is grounds for being found unsuitable by the issuing department and having your LTC revoked. Then they steal your guns.

 

[swatgig]

All section 12's end up voluntary or conditional. They never go near a judge

So I must have dreamt those hearings.

 

[drgrant]

The Section 12 commitments I am referring to come under paragraph (e), which are court ordered.

That requires the petitioner to go to court to get the order of commitment. There is little difference on the part of the petitioner getting an order of commitment vs Linsky's Extreme Risk Protective Order. The system is already in place.

The main difference in linstains case is the bar is probably lower and everyone goes "quack quack!" once they hear "ERPO!" Plus I bet it lets courts fiddle f*** around with someones rights for an indefinite period of time with
less due process.

I read the text of the bill and it seems like an ERPO is a lot wider.

I smell turds floating in the water- from the text of the bill say Joe Smoe gets into an argument with his sister who is a full on moonbat about something, moonbat sis is "scared cause joe yelled at me and he has guns" despite not living in the same house, bam "1 year ERPO cuz guns!" Now in theory the courts are supposed to filter out the
bullshit but we know better than that, having seen the abuse of 209As.....

Section 6. (a) A petitioner requesting an extreme risk protective order shall include in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing physical harm to themselves, the petitioner, or others by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

Translated: "Basically, make shit up about the accused so the court will issue the ERPO- and even if you lie
about it, nobody will care, and nobody will punish you for doing that... cuz well, guns!!!!!!" Basically have an
angry conversation with someone, and someone can smoke you in court for it.... fun.

-Mike

 

[Drunder40]

wait? I thought once the bump stocks were stolen from us that they would be happy and that would be the end of confiscation and legislation and they would be satisfied. Guess not...

They will only be happy when ALL guns are out the hands or law abiding citizens. I am 100% convinced of that..

 

[Johnnyh]

They will only be happy when ALL guns are out the hands or law abiding citizens. I am 100% convinced of that..

You underestimate them. They'll never be happy. After guns they'll come after knives. After knives baseball bats need to be registered, hockey sticks, clubs, pieces of wood like 2x4's. Vehicles would be classified as Weapons of Mass Destruction. They won't rest until it's a totalitarian police state.

 

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

Happening in England, they eliminated points on knives and in Boston you are highly restricted in what you can carry, of course from a LEO friend, knife attacks have climbed in step with tougher gun restrictions

 

[GM-GUY]

Amend Linsky’s bill so it applies to voting, searches under the 4A and access to the internet.

I can make a case all those things are dangerous and someone who can’t own a gun shouldn’t be allowed access to those either - see how that flies.