So far there have been SIX people who've been ERPO'd in MA

StevieP

NES Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
10,373
Likes
8,054
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Massachusetts judges have issued 6 ‘extreme risk’ orders under new law


BOSTON (AP) — The state’s court system has issued six orders allowing police to confiscate firearms from individuals since a so-called “red flag” law took effect last summer.

That’s according to the first annual report on extreme risk protection orders issued by the Massachusetts Trial Court.

The law approved by the Democratic-controlled Legislature and signed by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker allows a relative or someone else with close ties to a legal gun owner petition a court for a 12-month extreme risk protection order if the individual is exhibiting dangerous or unstable behavior.

The report says of the seven petitions submitted since July, six were approved by judges, all against male gun owners.

One petition involving a female gun owner was denied by a judge, though it was not deemed to be fraudulent.

Anyone heard any of the details on these six cases? Were they appealed?
 
I was involved in one of these. Judge ordered chief to file ERPO. Person no longer lived in that town (making police chief improper petitioner). Person's LTC had already been suspended and guns seized. Since person did not have LTC or FID, person was improper respondent. Person did not have access to guns, so petition was facially insufficient. Law states person gets seven days notice of hearing. This person got 20 minutes notice.

Shockingly, the judge issued the order.
 
I was involved in one of these. Judge ordered chief to file ERPO. Person no longer lived in that town (making police chief improper petitioner). Person's LTC had already been suspended and guns seized. Since person did not have LTC or FID, person was improper respondent. Person did not have access to guns, so petition was facially insufficient. Law states person gets seven days notice of hearing. This person got 20 minutes notice.

Shockingly, the judge issued the order.
Massprudence??
 
I was involved in one of these. Judge ordered chief to file ERPO. Person no longer lived in that town (making police chief improper petitioner). Person's LTC had already been suspended and guns seized. Since person did not have LTC or FID, person was improper respondent. Person did not have access to guns, so petition was facially insufficient. Law states person gets seven days notice of hearing. This person got 20 minutes notice.

Shockingly, the judge issued the order.

Shocking, a piece of shit judge in MA who doesn’t GAF about the law if it’s standing in the way of his or her agenda.
 
I was involved in one of these. Judge ordered chief to file ERPO. Person no longer lived in that town (making police chief improper petitioner). Person's LTC had already been suspended and guns seized. Since person did not have LTC or FID, person was improper respondent. Person did not have access to guns, so petition was facially insufficient. Law states person gets seven days notice of hearing. This person got 20 minutes notice.

Shockingly, the judge issued the order.

I find that hard to belie. . . . .HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Sorry. I couldn't keep a straight face. One would hope that a judge - someone who is dealing with crime and guns and weapons and drugs and stuff - would get MORE of their information from teh real world than from Law & Order reruns. :(
 
"The report says of the seven petitions submitted since July, six were approved by judges, all against male gun owners.
One petition involving a female gun owner was denied by a judge, though it was not deemed to be fraudulent."
Discrimination!!! [angry2]

IANAL but under “disparate impact” or “adverse impact” analysis, a plaintiff can prevail by establishing a policy or practice affects members of the protected group so disproportionately that courts can infer discrimination from that impact. Only problem is discrimination on the basis of sex seems to only apply to the female sex.

"One petition involving a female gun owner was denied by a judge, though it was not deemed to be fraudulent." So if it wasn't fraudulent, then it was valid? If so, what was the basis of the denial?
 
Without trial!

More weight, more weight.

Giles_Corey_restored.jpg
 
Update Massachusetts’ ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Needs An Update

So in our state of 6.7 million — almost twice that of Connecticut’s — we are petitioning only one-fifth as frequently. In my experience as a forensic psychiatrist, I see two dozen cases meriting petition a year, easily.

Massachusetts should modify our ERPO law to allow certain categories of licensed clinicians to petition the courts for an extreme risk protection order. Clinicians should be allowed to do so via a downloaded document, such as exists for initiating mental health involuntary commitments. This will allow clinicians to petition the court without leaving their clinical settings.

Massachusetts should also enact a law that allows certain categories of licensed clinicians to report to the police chief where the patient lives and that the patient should not have gun access. This should be based on a judgment about dangerousness, not mental illness. The disclosure of medical information relating to dangerousness should be as narrow as possible. Something like: Chief, this is Dr. Rosmarin. In my opinion this person is dangerous and should not have a gun. The chief would then have discretion to interview the owner, revoke the license and to seize any guns.”
 
Update Massachusetts’ ‘Red Flag’ Gun Law Needs An Update

So in our state of 6.7 million — almost twice that of Connecticut’s — we are petitioning only one-fifth as frequently. In my experience as a forensic psychiatrist, I see two dozen cases meriting petition a year, easily.

Massachusetts should modify our ERPO law to allow certain categories of licensed clinicians to petition the courts for an extreme risk protection order. Clinicians should be allowed to do so via a downloaded document, such as exists for initiating mental health involuntary commitments. This will allow clinicians to petition the court without leaving their clinical settings.

Massachusetts should also enact a law that allows certain categories of licensed clinicians to report to the police chief where the patient lives and that the patient should not have gun access. This should be based on a judgment about dangerousness, not mental illness. The disclosure of medical information relating to dangerousness should be as narrow as possible. Something like: Chief, this is Dr. Rosmarin. In my opinion this person is dangerous and should not have a gun. The chief would then have discretion to interview the owner, revoke the license and to seize any guns.”

Good gosh, David Rosmarin is quite the tool, isn't he? WBUR calls him an MD, but I can only find a Mass license for him as a Psychologist.

-Gary
 
Good gosh, David Rosmarin is quite the tool, isn't he? WBUR calls him an MD, but I can only find a Mass license for him as a Psychologist. -Gary

The guy who takes care of my lawn is a Lawn Doctor - I’d trust him more than “Doctor” Rosmarin to give me advice about my goofy friends and relatives...
 
He is becoming an argument as to why people don't seek help. More and more all I see is people wanting additional power over others, I guess every small mind is looking for a fiefdom.
 
Back
Top Bottom