STOP ERPO TODAY!!! - Light Up The State House Phones!

Just a complaint to start, and a judge (or hearing official - not sure if it won't be a magistrate or something else) determines preponderance. They have a hearing, without you, listen only to the people who want to steal your property and rights - do you any question how the ruling goes?

You neighbor complains that you are pointing a gun at her house and yelling incoherent things in the back yard.

What you are actually doing is shooting on your range or going to the club range, the yelling is your kids playing on the other side of the fence.

Since you aren't at the hearing, the next thing that happens are the boys in blue show up and take your stuff, no appeal, no way to stop them (that we want to talk about) and it's a year in a bonded warehouse.
I'm pretty sure the bill is a one year timeframe of confiscation = forfeiture in this state.


If you don't have something 'off the books', get something NOW. Test it, Clean it, lube it well, and store it with lots of ammo in a hidden place.
 
First of all this should not be.....


BUT....

no severe penalty for false claims well, because gunz.....

Needs to be criminal and civil penalties for false claims.

Problem is that due process is gone.

So now that this applies to guns i want the same restriction on non-constitutional items such as cars.

Same process....someone might drink and drive I want his car towed and held until there can be a hearing at which time a judge can determine if he was going to drink and drive.

Golf clubs...someone might skakel that girl. I want them prohibited from playing golf or touching a golf club until a judge can hear the case and determine the validity of the claim.
 
Of course, with the changes to remove due process, this bill is even worse. However, it is also now blatantly unconstitutional. If they didn’t remove due process, we know damn well that most people wouldn’t get their firearms back anyway. They would go to the bonded warehouse and never been seen again due to unfair and astronomical fees. At least now with the blatantly unconstitutional bill, we have a better chance in court. Maybe a bright side?
 
PappyM3 said:
Of course, with the changes to remove due process, this bill is even worse. However, it is also now blatantly unconstitutional. If they didn’t remove due process, we know damn well that most people wouldn’t get their firearms back anyway. They would go to the bonded warehouse and never been seen again due to unfair and astronomical fees. At least now with the blatantly unconstitutional bill, we have a better chance in court. Maybe a bright side?
Click to expand...


and every gun owner has enough money to hire an attorney to fight these unconstitutional battles? How is that a bright side?

This is tyranny and extortion at the very least.
 
robjax said:
and every gun owner has enough money to hire an attorney to fight these unconstitutional battles? How is that a bright side?

This is tyranny and extortion at the very least.
Click to expand...

Donate to comm2a, I am sure they will be leading the way through the court system with all this garbage
 
Word I heard from the Statehouse is that there are many amendments lined up for this abomination, but it is likely that any proposals to bring the bill up to some type of constitutional standard will be heavily argued against. We need to know who is arguing against and what they say so it can be used against them later.

Best of luck out there folks.
 
If the law is unconstitutional don't comply with it when they come for your guns anyone remember "April 19,1775". Of course pretty much everyone on here has the family/kids excuse. But,just as recently as a couple years ago in the Bundy Ranch situation the government did back down to a well-armed militia.
 
Mike S said:
...and no burden of proof for the petitioner.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure many of you know, a "he said - she said" is all it takes to meet preponderance of the evidence hurdle. I personally have fallen victim to this with a restraining order against me where someone made claims with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE (as evidence would not be possible as they claimed I made verbal statements which I didn't make). And why would a judge EVER not rule in the complainant's favor when they utter the words "he said he was going to shoot someone". One of my best friends was given a 3-month restraining order (practically unheard of as a ruling against you is almost always for one year, and the judge told his attorney he did that because he didn't find the complainant very credible). What?! What about these ERPOs? How can you win one unless the complainant has a demonstrable history of lying under oath in similar situations?

It is only a matter of time before the already broad group of people who can make one of these complaints is increased, which currently includes anyone currently or formerly related to you by blood or marriage, anyone currently or formerly in a romantic relationship with you (so someone you hooked up with once on tinder?!), anyone living with you, etc. I guarantee that, like restraining orders, it is only a short time before anyone can make one of these complaints. If the complaint revolves around a private conversation that wasn't recorded, the complainant can make these allegations with absolutely no chance that they can be proven a liar. Anyone with a grudge that knows you own guns can basically take that from you now. And that is EXACTLY what the politicians want!

All the more reason to NEVER let anyone know you are a gun owner - until they are crawling through your window in the middle of the night.
 
Al458 said:
Donate to comm2a, I am sure they will be leading the way through the court system with all this garbage
Click to expand...

At the rate the a.g. and legislature are making up this crap,

Comm2a is going to have to enough donations to fund 4 floors next to ropes and grey in the pru.
 
bostonjd said:
As I'm sure many of you know, a "he said - she said" is all it takes to meet preponderance of the evidence hurdle. I personally have fallen victim to this with a restraining order against me where someone made claims with ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE (as evidence would not be possible as they claimed I made verbal statements which I didn't make). And why would a judge EVER not rule in the complainant's favor when they utter the words "he said he was going to shoot someone". One of my best friends was given a 3-month restraining order (practically unheard of as a ruling against you is almost always for one year, and the judge told his attorney he did that because he didn't find the complainant very credible). What?! What about these ERPOs? How can you win one unless the complainant has a demonstrable history of lying under oath in similar situations?

It is only a matter of time before the already broad group of people who can make one of these complaints is increased, which currently includes anyone currently or formerly related to you by blood or marriage, anyone currently or formerly in a romantic relationship with you (so someone you hooked up with once on tinder?!), anyone living with you, etc. I guarantee that, like restraining orders, it is only a short time before anyone can make one of these complaints. If the complaint revolves around a private conversation that wasn't recorded, the complainant can make these allegations with absolutely no chance that they can be proven a liar. Anyone with a grudge that knows you own guns can basically take that from you now. And that is EXACTLY what the politicians want!

All the more reason to NEVER let anyone know you are a gun owner - until they are crawling through your window in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...
I know way too many people that have had that happen to them with the fake 209a and the judge just lets it happen anyways (mostly crazy women accusers) along with the confiscation for a year and the fight to get your stuff back. That's why I always have my phone ready to record and a camera with audio recording at my place constantly. Nothing beats the "I have a tape defense". I saw an episode of Matlock when I was a kid and just saying he had a tape made them recant even though the tape was nothing.
 
GM-GUY said:
Just a complaint to start, and a judge (or hearing official - not sure if it won't be a magistrate or something else) determines preponderance. They have a hearing, without you, listen only to the people who want to steal your property and rights - do you any question how the ruling goes?

You neighbor complains that you are pointing a gun at her house and yelling incoherent things in the back yard.

What you are actually doing is shooting on your range or going to the club range, the yelling is your kids playing on the other side of the fence.

Since you aren't at the hearing, the next thing that happens are the boys in blue show up and take your stuff, no appeal, no way to stop them (that we want to talk about) and it's a year in a bonded warehouse.
I'm pretty sure the bill is a one year timeframe of confiscation = forfeiture in this state.


If you don't have something 'off the books', get something NOW. Test it, Clean it, lube it well, and store it with lots of ammo in a hidden place.
Click to expand...

The standard is "reasonable cause" for the temporary ex parte order. There's been some talk here that the temporary orders are new or unusual - they aren't, they're in all the state ERPO bills. The use of a "reasonable cause" standard instead of "probable cause" DOES seem to be on the less reasonable side.

The "preponderance" standard at the full adversarial hearing is the main issue here, because it makes it impossible to appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. As bostonjd was saying, it's 100% he said she said - and "she" doesn't even need to be convincing.
 
Boston4567 said:
The standard is "reasonable cause" for the temporary ex parte order. There's been some talk here that the temporary orders are new or unusual - they aren't, they're in all the state ERPO bills. The use of a "reasonable cause" standard instead of "probable cause" DOES seem to be on the less reasonable side.

The "preponderance" standard at the full adversarial hearing is the main issue here, because it makes it impossible to appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. As bostonjd was saying, it's 100% he said she said - and "she" doesn't even need to be convincing.
Click to expand...
That's why I tell everyone don't meet women online they are all crazy there's a reason they have to go on dating websites and always record any altercations you think may turn into a legal matter.
 
Boston4567 said:
The standard is "reasonable cause" for the temporary ex parte order. There's been some talk here that the temporary orders are new or unusual - they aren't, they're in all the state ERPO bills. The use of a "reasonable cause" standard instead of "probable cause" DOES seem to be on the less reasonable side.

The "preponderance" standard at the full adversarial hearing is the main issue here, because it makes it impossible to appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. As bostonjd was saying, it's 100% he said she said - and "she" doesn't even need to be convincing.
Click to expand...


The real issue is that it's not even "he said, she said." It's entirely "she said," and as you mentioned, it doesn't even have to be convincing. "He" gets no say at all, ever. This is tyranny of the first order.
 
For what it is worth.
I was part of a work related meeting yesterday with Speaker Deleo. After the meeting I was able to speak with him one on one for a moment. One of the points I tried to express to him was the potential of this ERPO to be weaponized like restraining orders and that the potential for law abiding second amendment supporters to be targeted is real. I asked him to consider the language GOAL has put forth. He told me he would, we'll see.

I also had a conversation with my Rep yesterday, he has amendments submitted, we'll see if any of them are taken up.
 
I see in the bill's text that these ERPOs will be entered into NICS. While we likely can't stop this bill from becoming law, there is the potential to create some pressure at the Federal level. I'd like to see the NRA get off its duff and work with the White House on an executive order dealing with the issue.

The EO should direct the AG to develop a regulation creating a federal standard for due process protection in state ERPO laws. The AG should be directed to evaluate all state enacted ERPOs against the federal standard. Any state whose ERPO law doesn't meet the standard shall be prevented from having their orders entered into NICS. From there, a free state such as NH could pass a state law prohibiting any state agency or official from honoring or recognizing an ERPO issued by a state that doesn't meet the federal standard.

This step wouldn't stop a sh*tty law from passing in a place like MA but, it would at least allow someone impacted by one to move to a free state and have their rights "restored".
 
Boston4567 said:
The standard is "reasonable cause" for the temporary ex parte order. There's been some talk here that the temporary orders are new or unusual - they aren't, they're in all the state ERPO bills. The use of a "reasonable cause" standard instead of "probable cause" DOES seem to be on the less reasonable side.

The "preponderance" standard at the full adversarial hearing is the main issue here, because it makes it impossible to appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence. As bostonjd was saying, it's 100% he said she said - and "she" doesn't even need to be convincing.
Click to expand...
Exactly, how does one prove innocence in this case, when all that is needed to trigger the shitstorm is hearsay.
 
I've called my rep (John Rogers) 3x in the past week regarding this. Usually his staff is pretty responsive but not this time. The only response I got back via email last week was " I will make sure it is on the pile of documents we go through when researching the bill." Great.
 
I just got off the phone with my Representative's office (Kafka). They have received some calls, both pro and con, so people are calling. 4517 is the current number and it's scheduled for a floor vote today. Not much time left, so call now.
 
bigred460 said:
For what it is worth.
I was part of a work related meeting yesterday with Speaker Deleo. After the meeting I was able to speak with him one on one for a moment. One of the points I tried to express to him was the potential of this ERPO to be weaponized like restraining orders and that the potential for law abiding second amendment supporters to be targeted is real. I asked him to consider the language GOAL has put forth. He told me he would, we'll see.

I also had a conversation with my Rep yesterday, he has amendments submitted, we'll see if any of them are taken up.
Click to expand...
Did he also promise he loves you no s**t, the checks in the mail ,and he won’t **** n your mouth?
 
rogues said:
I've called my rep (John Rogers) 3x in the past week regarding this. Usually his staff is pretty responsive but not this time. The only response I got back via email last week was " I will make sure it is on the pile of documents we go through when researching the bill." Great.
Click to expand...
Yup. That means he is going to vote for it. I think that the House votes today, no?
 
GomerPile said:
Amendment #40 also want to take away someone's income.
Click to expand...
In this context, adding professional licenses to the list of things that can be taken away is a good thing. You're expanding the stakes, and the impact, beyond just guns. A judge that doesn't care about gun rights still might care about peoples' right to make a living, and appellate courts certainly will take it much more seriously.
 
These types of bills actually endanger public safety because if the person really is a danger, stealing their property which is what taking it without due process is, could set them off and they still have plenty of things available to them to commit carnage. If someone's truly a danger the only way to provide actual safety to the public is to remove them from society.
 
The absurdity that a statement like "hey bitch I'm going to f U up if you do XXXX" could turn into loss of gun and job. Which in turn leads to loss of car, place to sleep, and food. If you were not going to F her/it up before the process you will probably want to after [rofl] after dismembering the body with a rock lashed to a tree branch the pols can say "Aren't you glad we took his guns...imagine what he would have done otherwise"

[cheers]

Boston4567 said:
In this context, adding professional licenses to the list of things that can be taken away is a good thing. You're expanding the stakes, and the impact, beyond just guns. A judge that doesn't care about gun rights still might care about peoples' right to make a living, and appellate courts certainly will take it much more seriously.
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

The new NES stud club member badge - the blue envelope from state police!
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
headednorth
headednorth
Anyone run this light
Replies
10
Views
564
jkelly1229
J
Going To The Nut House??? Being Forced Into The Nut House Without Losing Your Gun Rights
2
Replies
30
Views
699
GL2020
GL2020
Suspect Dead After Opening Fire on Officer During NY Traffic Stop
Replies
5
Views
273
kevin9
kevin9
House Republicans sell us out
2 3 4
Replies
114
Views
3K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Back
Top Bottom