HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[Jaybeez]

After a lot of discussion on this topic, it appears that any agency accepting the surrender or seizure of firearms, and letting a respondent go free, would open themselves up to a ton of liability.
I believe that an emergency psychiatric petition would end up being filed along side the red flag 99% of the time, as SOP to cover any agencies butt.

Unfortunately, law enforcement was not present in the room to address this issue.

 

[daNattyFatty]

After a lot of discussion on this topic, it appears that any agency accepting the surrender or seizure of firearms, and letting a respondent go free, would open themselves up to a ton of liability.
I believe that an emergency psychiatric petition would end up being filed along side the red flag 99% of the time, as SOP to cover any agencies butt.

Unfortunately, law enforcement was not present in the room to address this issue.

Not if they’re being ordered “lawfully” by the court.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[whistlersmother]

is any information entered into NICS after seizure of firearms?

Is there any order to respondent NOT to buy additional firearms as part of the initial red flag?

Would seem to me that respondent could legally buy a rifle / shotgun next day, either in-state or out-of-state. 4473 11h instructions indicate the person must have had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings that lead to the restraining order. There is no opportunity for the person to participate in the initial application. Thus, 4473 11h is not applicable. All other questions ask about charges, indictments, and convictions.

If so, what's the point of taking firearms in the first place?

 

[iH8DemLibz]

If you mean an emergency psychiatric petition as a way for the state to determine if the respondent's cheese will or will not slide off of his/her cracker after the guns are returned, it'll never happen. No doctor is going to put their license or livelihood on the line like that. NEVER!!!

Noggin Docs don't have crystal balls and they don't throw chicken bones on a table as a way of reading the future. If the state demands a doctor's note prior to releasing the firearms, it's because the state is looking for a way to keep the firearms. Permanently.

After all, how can the state be so irresponsible as to release the guns if there's a shred of doubt as to the shooters mental health. Better to be safe than sorry. Yes. Sarcasm.

 

[buellsfurn]

If you mean an emergency psychiatric petition as a way for the state to determine if the respondent's cheese will or will not slide off of his/her cracker after the guns are returned, it'll never happen. No doctor is going to put their license or livelihood on the line like that. NEVER!!!

Noggin Docs don't have crystal balls and they don't throw chicken bones on a table as a way of reading the future. If the state demands a doctor's note prior to releasing the firearms, it's because the state is looking for a way to keep the firearms. Permanently.

After all, how can the state be so irresponsible as to release the guns if there's a shred of doubt as to the shooters mental health. Better to be safe than sorry. Yes. Sarcasm.

Didn't SQ testimony state he had to have a Dr release .

 

[ddeanjohnson]

possession of firearm by respondent is criminal offense

Is there any order to respondent NOT to buy additional firearms as part of the initial red flag? Would seem to me that respondent could legally buy a rifle / shotgun next day, either in-state or out-of-state. 4473 11h instructions indicate the person must have had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings that lead to the restraining order. There is no opportunity for the person to participate in the initial application. Thus, 4473 11h is not applicable. All other questions ask about charges, indictments, and convictions.If so, what's the point of taking firearms in the first place?

In the House-passed HB 1302, page 17, lines 3-8, it provides that the "interim extreme risk prevention order" (this is the order issued in an ex parte proceeding -- you find out about it when the deputies show up at your door to serve you with the order) shall contain the following language: "A warning to the respondent that violation of an extreme risk prevention order is a crime and that a law enforcement officer shall arrest the respondent, with or without a warrant, and take the respondent into custody if the officer has probable cause to believe that the respondent has violated a provision of the interim extreme risk prevention order." This refers to the language found on page 15, lines 31-33, and page 16, lines 1-2: "The interim extreme risk prevention order shall order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent's possession and to refrain from possession of any firearm for the duration of the extreme risk prevention order."

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Didn't SQ testimony state he had to have a Dr release .

If SQ did get a doctor's note, I would think the doctor new SQ for some time. And could vouch for him.

I'm talking about random Joe citizen having his firearms taken. Then having to thumb through the yellow pages to find a random doctor to make a quick determination as to the respondent's soundness of mind. I just don't see that working out well.

It would be great if SQ could jump in and tell us if he new the doctor or if the doctor was called in just to provide a note. I'm not asking a member to divulge too much personal information. Obviously.

 

[j_h_smith]

For those who were at the hearing, would you say that the House Bill as written is dead?

 

[Squaregrouper]

If you mean an emergency psychiatric petition as a way for the state to determine if the respondent's cheese will or will not slide off of his/her cracker after the guns are returned, it'll never happen. No doctor is going to put their license or livelihood on the line like that. NEVER!!!

Noggin Docs don't have crystal balls and they don't throw chicken bones on a table as a way of reading the future. If the state demands a doctor's note prior to releasing the firearms, it's because the state is looking for a way to keep the firearms. Permanently.

After all, how can the state be so irresponsible as to release the guns if there's a shred of doubt as to the shooters mental health. Better to be safe than sorry. Yes. Sarcasm.

Didn't SQ testimony state he had to have a Dr release .

Yup. I was advised to have no discussions about firearms with my PCP (and later a psychologist). My PCP was to provide written statements as to my medical history and any past issues. I later provided results of a brief psych evaluation and a MMPI.
Firearms were never brought up with either practitioner. My lawyer friend advised they would never sign off if it was firearms specific. All I asked for was a clean bill of medications and mental stability and got it. Both statements were addressed "To Whom It May Concern..."

.

 

[Squaregrouper]

Yup. I was advised to have no discussions about firearms with my PCP (and later a psychologist). My PCP was to provide written statements as to my medical history and any past issues. I later provided results of a brief psych evaluation and a MMPI.
Firearms were never brought up with either practitioner. My lawyer friend advised they would never sign off if it was firearms specific. All I asked for was a clean bill of medications and mental stability and got it. Both statements were addressed "To Whom It May Concern..."

.

I don't fully understand how a MMPI works, but you answer a shit ton of yes/no questions and they seem to be inter-related to each other and asked over and over with different phrasing.
The important thing is that it is supposedly pretty good at weeding out whack jobs who are trying to hide something.

 

[buellsfurn]

Yup. I was advised to have no discussions about firearms with my PCP (and later a psychologist). My PCP was to provide written statements as to my medical history and any past issues. I later provided results of a brief psych evaluation and a MMPI.
Firearms were never brought up with either practitioner. My lawyer friend advised they would never sign off if it was firearms specific. All I asked for was a clean bill of medications and mental stability and got it. Both statements were addressed "To Whom It May Concern..."

.

and 2 years later he was able to retrieve his collection another part of this bil that scares is the abuse /perjury if the state except this ass law then the state should be going after the plaintiffs that commit perjury.It should not be the burden of the accused your word against their word isn't that hearsay

 

[iH8DemLibz]

Yup. I was advised to have no discussions about firearms with my PCP (and later a psychologist). My PCP was to provide written statements as to my medical history and any past issues. I later provided results of a brief psych evaluation and a MMPI.
Firearms were never brought up with either practitioner. My lawyer friend advised they would never sign off if it was firearms specific. All I asked for was a clean bill of medications and mental stability and got it. Both statements were addressed "To Whom It May Concern..."

.

Thank you for weighing in and not being offended at me asking you to speak up.

That test you referenced sounds like many pre-employment tests I've taken over the years.

Have you ever taken an office pen home with you? If you found a nickel on the floor at work, would you pocket it or take it to human resources? Etc.

 

[MJD438]

For those who were at the hearing, would you say that the House Bill as written is dead?

There were several mentions by the Chairman that they have to pass something (I interpret that to mean there is direction from leadership that some form of gun control bill(s) WILL pass the legislature this year). So, the likelihood that this bill is dead completely is highly unlikely; as I have said before, nothing is dead until the gavels fall on Sine Die. While they (the opposition) may be open to some amendments, they are not going to simply roll over and allow the bills to die outright. Is that right? No. Is that fair? No. Is that representative government? Maybe/maybe not, depends on whether or not their constituents are actually communicating their opinions to their legislators.

 

[Squaregrouper]

and 2 years later he was able to retrieve his collection another part of this bil that scares is the abuse /perjury if the state except this ass law then the state should be going after the plaintiffs that commit perjury.It should not be the burden of the accused your word against their word isn't that hearsay

What I didn't have time to explain in my testimony was they wouldn't provide a list of what was needed to get my firearms back. Instead, they asked for "A" and got it. They asked for "B" and got it. They asked for "C" and got it, etc. It appeared to me they were going to keep coming up with requests until I was unable to provide an acceptable answer.

Maybe a BPD LEO can confirm or deny the statement below...
I got them back via a couple BPD cops I knew talking to the officer who signed them into Evidence Control. They led me to believe that until said officer signs off on a release, I wouldn't get them back short of a court order- which I couldn't afford to get.

 

[whistlersmother]

In the House-passed HB 1302, page 17, lines 3-8, it provides that the "interim extreme risk prevention order" (this is the order issued in an ex parte proceeding -- you find out about it when the deputies show up at your door to serve you with the order) shall contain the following language: "A warning to the respondent that violation of an extreme risk prevention order is a crime and that a law enforcement officer shall arrest the respondent, with or without a warrant, and take the respondent into custody if the officer has probable cause to believe that the respondent has violated a provision of the interim extreme risk prevention order." This refers to the language found on page 15, lines 31-33, and page 16, lines 1-2: "The interim extreme risk prevention order shall order the respondent to surrender to law enforcement authorities any firearm in the respondent's possession and to refrain from possession of any firearm for the duration of the extreme risk prevention order."

thanks for that. so, when order expires, 6 days wasn't it, respondent may then legally purchase firearms.

Someone hell-bent on destruction is probably going to ignore the paper warning and be able to buy anyway - since NICS is the only manner FFL have to confirm non-prohibited, and if nothing gets reported to NICS, then such a person could buy from FFL. Question 11h states respondent must have had an opportunity to participate in proceedings, so no lying was done on the 4473.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[zoostation]

Yup. I was advised to have no discussions about firearms with my PCP (and later a psychologist). My PCP was to provide written statements as to my medical history and any past issues. I later provided results of a brief psych evaluation and a MMPI.
Firearms were never brought up with either practitioner. My lawyer friend advised they would never sign off if it was firearms specific. All I asked for was a clean bill of medications and mental stability and got it. Both statements were addressed "To Whom It May Concern..."

.

My wife works for two different psychiatry practices. Right now it is difficult to get in to see an actual psychiatrist at all, the majority are not taking more patients. People are instead often getting referred to go see a social worker or psychologist or some other kind of counselor and then get any meds needed prescribed by their family doctor. When they do get a new patient, you're looking at a good one to two months before an initial intake appointment. Then after that they need however many follow up appointments to get to know the person before any would even consider making a call on firearms ownership. And that's if any will make one at all. Psychiatrists are not going to worry about their practice and their livelihood for a $120 appointment fee.

The general assembly knew this when they passed FSA 2013, and this is why anybody who's got a firearms disability from a past mental condition is pretty much screwed. The system they have that they claim was a mechanism for relief is in all practicality impossible for a person to meet the standard in. It requires two board-certified psychiatrists to sign off on a person specific to firearms ownership. I don't know how a person could ever manage to do that.

 

[ddeanjohnson]

it's worse than that

thanks for that. so, when order expires, 6 days wasn't it, respondent may then legally purchase firearms.

In many cases, you'd be talking about a lot more than 6 days. Under HB 1302, following service of an "interim" order, there is supposed to be a hearing by the end of the second business day the court is open, "unless the judge continues the hearing for good cause." At that hearing, which might be "ex parte or otherwise," the judge decides whether to issue a "temporary extreme risk prevention order," applying the lowest standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence). Such a "temporary" order, if issued, will remain in force until an adversarial hearing on whether to issue a "final extreme risk prevention order." This second hearing should occur within 7 days after issuance of the "temporary" order -- but "the judge may extend the temporary extreme risk prevention order as needed, but not to exceed 6 months . . . for other good cause."

 

[iH8DemLibz]

There are many MGA Critters who have spoken out against this nightmarish legislation.

Each year they stand up to the hate filled gun grabbers and their malicious behavior.

Please take the time to write to them, tell them how much they're appreciated, and thank them.

 

[j_h_smith]

There are many MGA Critters who have spoken out against this nightmarish legislation.

Each year they stand up to the hate filled gun grabbers and their malicious behavior.

Please take the time to write to them, tell them how much they're appreciated, and thank them.

This is what pisses me off more than anything. OUR FRIENDS in the MGA know the tricks of the Left. This is nothing new. But this year, many of OUR FRIENDS decided to vote yes on the same BS.

Why? Can someone tell me why?

Those who voted yes sure aren't helping their cause by staying silent. Why? Why are they afraid to stand up and take it like a man or woman. Hide evil creature, but we know what you look like. Be assured, we shall never forget.

 

[rseymorejr]

This is what pisses me off more than anything. OUR FRIENDS in the MGA know the tricks of the Left. This is nothing new. But this year, many of OUR FRIENDS decided to vote yes on the same BS.

Why? Can someone tell me why?

Those who voted yes sure aren't helping their cause by staying silent. Why? Why are they afraid to stand up and take it like a man or woman. Hide evil creature, but we know what you look like. Be assured, we shall never forget.

Why?
Because first and foremost they are politicians, not 2A advocates, not Conservatives, not Patriots and not Americans. They are politicians and all that really matters to them is getting re elected and the power that comes with it. Fair weather friends, at best.