MA H.3081/H.3610 Extreme Risk Protective Orders (ERPO) - Linsky Bill

[JJ4]

The H.3081"Extreme Risk Protective Orders" Linsky bill is getting renewed push in the MA Legislature

Edit 2/21/18: H.3610 is still in committee and could be the bill that gets pushed. Info here: Post #52


This bill has been floating around since April 2017 and wasn't getting much traction. It was not, AFAIK, reported out of committee and was set to die there. On Thursday 2/15 there was a rally at the statehouse (Linsky - on news this morning re more gun control) to revive the bill, which received favorable press coverage.

The purpose of this thread is to gather information in one place, to discuss and respond to the actual danger of this bill passing. Please keep your dislike of the people involved in other threads.

Today there are TWO editorials in the Boston Globe and Metrowest Daily News supporting this bill:

• Globe Editorial (clear cookies to read): Mass. should pass ‘extreme risk’ gun law - The Boston Globe
• MWDN Editorial (use Incognito Mode) : OUR VIEW: Making a difference in gun violence: How Massachusetts gun laws might affect mass shooters like Nikolas Cruz at Parkland, Florida

Text of the bill: Bill H.3081
Proponent Propaganda:

• FAQ (see here for TLDR info): https://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MA-ERPO-FAQ.pdf
• One Page Summary: https://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MA-ERPO-One-Pager.pdf
• Brownsburger Info (see resources): Extreme Risk Protective Orders – Will Brownsberger
• Rosenthal (Stop Handgun Violence): Extreme Risk Protective Orders – H.3081 | Stop Handgun Violence

Our Side (GOAL Info):

• GOAL Response: GOAL RESPONDS TO ASSERTIONS OVER “EXTREME RISK” BILL -
• GOAL 2nd response: Extreme Protection Orders - A Masked Attack On Civil Rights

Previous NES Threads with broader focus:

• Oppose New MA Anti Gun Bills
• Linsky - on news this morning re more gun control
• Linsky files new egregious "soundbite legislation"

Example of the stupidity in this bill:
When (a) the patient has communicated to the health care provider an explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identified victim or victims; (b) the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat; and (c) the health care provider knows or has reason to believe that the patient controls, owns, or possesses a firearm

Why this is stupid: Someone who has made an "explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury", they have already committed a crime. They need to be charged and evaluated if they are a serious danger to carry out their threat. Coming and taking away their guns, but doing nothing else, will actually make the situation worse. Now you just pissed off an unstable person.


Due Process is NOT protected
The proponents purport to protect due process by allowing a hearing 10 days AFTER someone has already had their guns seized. It says nothing about what happens to those guns. We know what happens: they go to a bonded warehouse where every single item checked in and out incurs a fee plus daily storage fee. Those fees turn into a de-facto seizure of property when they quickly exceed the value of the items.

 

[Heathen]

Well this has no potential for abuse at all.

 

[Coyote33]

Meanwhile, the sane part of the country is doing this:

Lawmakers Move to Arm Teachers in Response to Florida Massacre

 

[Asaltweapon]

God the stupidity hurts. They would never abuse this law.

I can't get out of this state soon enough.

 

[JJ4]

Here's the problem. This bill had no traction and was set to disappear, but the sound bytes that this would have prevented this event are giving it traction. The idea that this lunatic should have been prevented from getting a gun makes sense, but this is a bad bill that doesn't really do what they say it does.

Pretty much every use case is already covered under existing law. All this does is open up for abuse. Note that police chiefs already have discretion to pull license whenever they want.

 

[enbloc]

This is driving me nuts.

 

[Woody1911a1]

This is driving me nuts.

i wouldn't say that too loud !

 

[evalance]

i called his ass out for the fraud he is

 

[HuntMaine]

This will pass in some form, my hope is we can influence it to limit its abuse but this will become law and then I can see it going to a Fed level. Which irritates me because of the Feds and local leos dis their job in Florida that disaster could have been avoided.

 

[gamma19]

This bill is f***ed up on multiple levels. The list of designated reporters include dating partners and former dating partners. There have been quite a few gun owners in this state who have had their LTC revoked and deemed unsuitable because of a bogus 209A from a vindictive ex. This will make it even easier for ex-partners and spouses to ruin gun owners' lives out of spite.

Doctors are also designated reporters--imagine a gun owner naively filling out the survey sheet they give you at most doctor's offices asking if there are guns in the home. Anti-gun doc asks the patient how he's feeling, patient says something about work being stressful and causing him to have headaches. Doctor calls police, LTC revoked and guns confiscated. Don't think it can't happen.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Oregon, California, Washington, Connecticut, and Indiana have already passed ERPO legislation so the threat is real. It is the major focus of the anti-gun groups and stands an excellent chance of being enacted in some form. It is being sold as suicide prevention and "will save thousand of lives." I agree that allowing ex spouses, former girl friends, any level of social worker, etc will result in significant abuse.

But there is a problem to be considered. If a person owns firearms and has threatened to kill everyone at work or school, there really isn't any clear way to remove their firearms. The police can transport them to a hospital for a pysch eval but if they suck it up and pass the eval they skate on home and resume plotting. I could support something that allowed Police or MD's to apply for ERPO when dealing with a person who has a history of mental illness. I would probably want to see some language that a one year extension would require an MD's clinical report, langauge that allowed the person to petition the court to vacate the ERPO at any time, and maybe some language that temp ERPO that was not extended could not be used as grounds for unsuitability.

I believe the police should have the ability to remove firearms from dangerous mentally ill people as determined by an MD. I also believe Linsky's proposal would setup a disastrous scenario. Ball is in GOAL's court.

 

[gamma19]

Oregon, California, Washington, Connecticut, and Indiana have already passed ERPO legislation so the threat is real. It is the major focus of the anti-gun groups and stands an excellent chance of being enacted in some form. It is being sold as suicide prevention and "will save thousand of lives." I agree that allowing ex spouses, former girl friends, any level of social worker, etc will result in significant abuse.

But there is a problem to be considered. If a person owns firearms and has threatened to kill everyone at work or school, there really isn't any clear way to remove their firearms. The police can transport them to a hospital for a pysch eval but if they suck it up and pass the eval they skate on home and resume plotting. I could support something that allowed Police or MD's to apply for ERPO when dealing with a person who has a history of mental illness. I would probably want to see some language that a one year extension would require an MD's clinical report, langauge that allowed the person to petition the court to vacate the ERPO at any time, and maybe some language that temp ERPO that was not extended could not be used as grounds for unsuitability.

I believe the police should have the ability to remove firearms from dangerous mentally ill people as determined by an MD. I also believe Linsky's proposal would setup a disastrous scenario. Ball is in GOAL's court.

The problem is that it absolutely will be used as grounds for denial based upon suitability--for example plenty of people who have been served 209As never get their LTCs back even after the order is lifted--and any clause stating otherwise is a pipe dream. This bill, like pretty much every gun control bill introduced in this state, was designed to give the finger to gun owners and reduce the number of those eligible by making them PP, not to save lives or prevent violence.

 

[Matt_SERE]

Such an a**h*** of a state rep. and subject.

But, this is how you start a thread with links and background. +1, well done. Thank you.

 

[MachineHead]

If ERPOs are going to come this way, then they should have an inclusion for a second opinion. This seems very heavy-handed on one side. There’s literally no protection to argue the defendants case at all. The same with restraining orders where your rights are taken away without you even having a chance to plead your case. There’s significant abuse there and there will be significant abuse to come with ERPOs.

It’s only going to be a matter of time until people start chatter about not getting mental help they may need or to clam up completely and never seek any help because they’re going to be blackballed completely. It’s unfortunate to see this coming or being considered on a national level even.

 

[HuntMaine]

If ERPOs are going to come this way, then they should have an inclusion for a second opinion. This seems very heavy-handed on one side. There’s literally no protection to argue the defendants case at all. The same with restraining orders where your rights are taken away without you even having a chance to plead your case. There’s significant abuse there and there will be significant abuse to come with ERPOs.

It’s only going to be a matter of time until people start chatter about not getting mental help they may need or to clam up completely and never seek any help because they’re going to be blackballed completely. It’s unfortunate to see this coming or being considered on a national level even.

I would agree there needs to be a mechanism where the defendant gets Due Process and the opportunity to defend themselves. Without this you could very well have a triggered neighbor who hates your NRA sticker call the police on you. That combined with your favorite hunting pic might have you losing your 2nd amendment rights. So they will need to fix that area of the bill and firearm owners better be a part of it or we will regret it

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Example of the stupidity in this bill:
When (a) the patient has communicated to the health care provider an explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identified victim or victims; (b) the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat; and (c) the health care provider knows or has reason to believe that the patient controls, owns, or possesses a firearm

Why this is stupid: Someone who has made an "explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury", they have already committed a crime. They need to be charged and evaluated if they are a serious danger to carry out their threat. Coming and taking away their guns, but doing nothing else, will actually make the situation worse. Now you just pissed off an unstable person.

I don't know about anyone else but this whole thing is beginning to sound like Minority Report. We're assuming someone may do something, so let's take away their rights. Can you imagine if this kind of sick legislation ever found its way into other areas of our civil liberties. "Somebody quick! Kevin is going to vote for a republican candidate!!"

 

[Waher]

If someone is too dangerous to own guns they are too dangerous to be walking around free to obtain and use a multitude of everyday objects capable of inflecting mortal harm. As far as Linsky, I don't know why anyone would take a guy interested in decriminalizing bestiality seriously when he authors 'mental health' bills.

 

[Sparky123]

The H.3081"Extreme Risk Protective Orders" Linsky bill is getting renewed push in the MA Legislature

This bill has been floating around since April 2017 and wasn't getting much traction. It was not, AFAIK, reported out of committee and was set to die there. On Thursday 2/15 there was a rally at the statehouse (Linsky - on news this morning re more gun control) to revive the bill, which received favorable press coverage.

The purpose of this thread is to gather information in one place, to discuss and respond to the actual danger of this bill passing. Please keep your dislike of the people involved in other threads.

Today there are TWO editorials in the Boston Globe and Metrowest Daily News supporting this bill:

• Globe Editorial (clear cookies to read): Mass. should pass ‘extreme risk’ gun law - The Boston Globe
• MWDN Editorial (use Incognito Mode) : OUR VIEW: Making a difference in gun violence: How Massachusetts gun laws might affect mass shooters like Nikolas Cruz at Parkland, Florida

Text of the bill: Bill H.3081
Proponent Propaganda:

• FAQ (see here for TLDR info): https://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MA-ERPO-FAQ.pdf
• One Page Summary: https://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MA-ERPO-One-Pager.pdf
• Brownsburger Info (see resources): Extreme Risk Protective Orders – Will Brownsberger
• Rosenthal (Stop Handgun Violence): Extreme Risk Protective Orders – H.3081 | Stop Handgun Violence

Our Side (GOAL Info):

• GOAL Response: GOAL RESPONDS TO ASSERTIONS OVER “EXTREME RISK” BILL -
• GOAL 2nd response: Extreme Protection Orders - A Masked Attack On Civil Rights

Previous NES Threads with broader focus:

• Oppose New MA Anti Gun Bills
• Linsky - on news this morning re more gun control
• Linsky files new egregious "soundbite legislation"

View attachment 222119


Example of the stupidity in this bill:
When (a) the patient has communicated to the health care provider an explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identified victim or victims; (b) the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat; and (c) the health care provider knows or has reason to believe that the patient controls, owns, or possesses a firearm

Why this is stupid: Someone who has made an "explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury", they have already committed a crime. They need to be charged and evaluated if they are a serious danger to carry out their threat. Coming and taking away their guns, but doing nothing else, will actually make the situation worse. Now you just pissed off an unstable person.


Due Process is NOT protected
The proponents purport to protect due process by allowing a hearing 10 days AFTER someone has already had their guns seized. It says nothing about what happens to those guns. We know what happens: they go to a bonded warehouse where every single item checked in and out incurs a fee plus daily storage fee. Those fees turn into a de-facto seizure of property when they quickly exceed the value of the items.

You don't even need to look at this bill. All you really need to do is look at who's supporting it. That and that alone should tell you everything you need to know.

 

[JJ4]

But there is a problem to be considered. If a person owns firearms and has threatened to kill everyone at work or school, there really isn't any clear way to remove their firearms.
...
I believe the police should have the ability to remove firearms from dangerous mentally ill people as determined by an MD. I also believe Linsky's proposal would setup a disastrous scenario. Ball is in GOAL's court.

The problem is that it absolutely will be used as grounds for denial based upon suitability

This is my biggest concern too. The ERPO, on it's own, if actually crafted in a way that preserves due process, might be something I would support. However, I will NEVER support anything Linsky or Maura push. They have acted in bad faith and made us felons in waiting. With the current system in MA, and ERPO will turn into a de-facto lifetime ban for some people with no due process. Police chiefs will use the ERPO to revolk licenses based on suitability. If you move or every apply elsewhere you would then need to disclose that you had a license revoked.

If GOAL were to put forth a bill that combines shall-issue all-lawful-purpose licenses with ERPO, I might take a serious look at it. The ERPO could replace the current no-due-process suitability system with something that gives people an actual day in court.

 

[namedpipes]

I wonder why the sudden push for it, if it's been hanging around for a year.

Did something happen recently in the news? This sort of push usually only happens when the left get's their wish for dead kids.

 

[DrBurnsides]

soooo.. one life is saved for every 20 EPO issued.. Soooo.. 20 people get royally violated for every life saved.. Sounds like a real winner to me..<-sarcasm.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

However, I will NEVER support anything Linsky or Maura push. They have acted in bad faith and made us felons in waiting. With the current system in MA, and ERPO will turn into a de-facto lifetime ban for some people with no due process. Police chiefs will use the ERPO to revolk licenses based on suitability. If you move or every apply elsewhere you would then need to disclose that you had a license revoked.

How to implement a gun ban in 2 easy steps:

1) Create risk protections laws to grab guns.
2) Everyone goes on the list.

Tinfoil hat for sure but given the people pushing it I wouldn’t trust them.

 

[Individualist]

3. Add more “violations” that qualify as high risk
- speeding tickets, J walking, posting on NES...

 

[MachineryGun]

4. questioning legislators or violations qualifies as high risk...

 

[Coyote33]

... will be used as grounds for denial based upon suitability--for example plenty of people who have been served 209As never get their LTCs back even after the order is lifted...

If ERPOs are going to come this way, then they should have an inclusion for a second opinion. This seems very heavy-handed on one side. There’s literally no protection to argue the defendants case at all. ....

I would agree there needs to be a mechanism where the defendant gets Due Process and the opportunity to defend themselves. Without this you could very well have a triggered neighbor who hates your NRA sticker call the police on you. That combined with your favorite hunting pic might have you losing your 2nd amendment rights. So they will need to fix that area of the bill and firearm owners better be a part of it or we will regret it

These things better all be a part of it! If not, then they should get nothing. I hope GOAL will do exactly this, and more (that was missed here).

...We're assuming someone may do something, so let's take away their rights. Can you imagine if this kind of sick legislation ever found its way into other areas of our civil liberties. "Somebody quick! Kevin is going to vote for a republican candidate!!"

You should testify with this when they hold hearings for this bill.

GOAL, there IS going to be a hearing or hearings for this stuff, right?

 

[amm5061]

GOAL, there IS going to be a hearing or hearings for this stuff, right?

I'll put down good money that if there is, it happens after they've already rammed the law through, just like the f***ing bump stock ban.

 

[JJ4]

You should testify with this when they hold hearings for this bill.

GOAL, there IS going to be a hearing or hearings for this stuff, right?

They already did. This bill has been in the session since last March. They had hearings. It wasn't reported out of committee, which should mean it's dead. But this is the MA legislature and they do whatever the hell they want behind closed doors. Then they'll emerge one day and vote it through with zero public debate.

 

[Coyote33]

If it was last March, isn't that session closed? So then the bill would need to be reintroduced? Didn't everything close shop in July or August?

 

[Mbous]

How soon before they expand the categories of people who can apply for one of these things to basically anyone. I can see some anti-2a nuts basically filling one on everyone because the logic of "they have guns so therefore they are a high risk". Meanwhile they push the courts to keep letting the gangbangers and drug dealers to receive a slap on the wrist or a strongly worded lecture to be good this time every time on of those thugs are caught.

 

[Lank]

Well this has no potential for abuse at all.

Don't you mean that this will be abused?