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:
Text of the bill: Bill H.3081
Proponent Propaganda:
Our Side (GOAL Info):
Previous NES Threads with broader focus:
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.
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.
Last edited: