ERPO 'Red Flag' negative impact testimony requested

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Nanook

    F-notso-NG-anymore
    Reposted from FakeButt to support the overall 2A mission:

    Chris Cheng, a member of the OBS/PP Board of Directors, has this to ask:
    "My US Senate contact is looking for witnesses who have compelling ERPO stories, and in this case, probably how they have been negatively impacted by them."
    "Could you or any person in your network testify with a compelling story?"

    If you have a story to share, please email erin@blazingsword.org and I will ensure that Chris gets it.
    Thank you!

    I'd appreciate if the 'Negative Nancy' folks could keep comments about the requesting group to themselves. I don't see the NRA doing stuff like this right now.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    30,690
    She gave an impressive talk at an MSI meeting a couple years ago. I was moved to send the group a reasonable donation. Glad to see they're still active.
     

    spoon059

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 1, 2018
    5,337
    If anyone goes to this, discuss how Maryland already has an emergency evaluation petition (EEP) that allows someone to be involuntarily committed of they are a danger.

    If doctors feel someone is a danger, they can and should hospitalize that person in a facility. Then they wouldn't have access to any guns.

    There is NO NEED for ERPOs. If the person is a danger, they should be in a hospital. Taking the gun for a year doesn't make them less dangerous, it just removes one tool they could use.

    Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk
     

    DaemonAssassin

    Why should we Free BSD?
    Jun 14, 2012
    23,970
    Political refugee in WV
    If anyone goes to this, discuss how Maryland already has an emergency evaluation petition (EEP) that allows someone to be involuntarily committed of they are a danger.

    If doctors feel someone is a danger, they can and should hospitalize that person in a facility. Then they wouldn't have access to any guns.

    There is NO NEED for ERPOs. If the person is a danger, they should be in a hospital. Taking the gun for a year doesn't make them less dangerous, it just removes one tool they could use.

    Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk
    Given your career, I'm happy that at least one person in your field is publicly saying this. Maybe one day, you'll be able to give expert testimony that would stop a bs bill.
     

    KJackson

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Apr 3, 2017
    8,613
    Carroll County
    There is NO NEED for ERPOs. If the person is a danger, they should be in a hospital. Taking the gun for a year doesn't make them less dangerous, it just removes one tool they could use.

    And makes them even more pissed off at society and whoever. That is what I have been trying to get people to understand since the red flag law was announced.
     

    Name Taken

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 23, 2010
    11,891
    Central
    If anyone goes to this, discuss how Maryland already has an emergency evaluation petition (EEP) that allows someone to be involuntarily committed of they are a danger.

    If doctors feel someone is a danger, they can and should hospitalize that person in a facility. Then they wouldn't have access to any guns.

    There is NO NEED for ERPOs. If the person is a danger, they should be in a hospital. Taking the gun for a year doesn't make them less dangerous, it just removes one tool they could use.

    Sent from my SM-N970U1 using Tapatalk

    Playing devils advocate, simply because anyone who presents your thoughts should be ready to defend the following:

    A lawful EP requires a few things:
    1) Person must appear to be suffering from some sort of mental health issue
    2) Person must be a danger to themselves or others

    So where the ERPO fills in is if there is not the indication of mental health issues. You can not EP someone who is just a danger to some else...you need the second part.

    Someone dead set on shooting their ex-wife (or whoever) certainly might not have any mental health issues.

    Before the lashing of posts start....I'm not taking a stance on ERPOs. But if you plan on presenting that EP's are in place, it is best to understand where a ERPO could be used where an EP does not fit.
     

    spoon059

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 1, 2018
    5,337
    Playing devils advocate, simply because anyone who presents your thoughts should be ready to defend the following:

    A lawful EP requires a few things:
    1) Person must appear to be suffering from some sort of mental health issue
    2) Person must be a danger to themselves or others

    So where the ERPO fills in is if there is not the indication of mental health issues. You can not EP someone who is just a danger to some else...you need the second part.

    Someone dead set on shooting their ex-wife (or whoever) certainly might not have any mental health issues.

    Before the lashing of posts start....I'm not taking a stance on ERPOs. But if you plan on presenting that EP's are in place, it is best to understand where a ERPO could be used where an EP does not fit.
    No, you make a valid point that I overlooked.

    I would counter-argue that if someone is dead set on killing their spouse, not having a gun won't really be much of a deterrent though. Poisoning, stabbing, strangling, hiring a killer, etc are very common in those types of circumstances. Can't make it a perfect world and there is a need to balance the interest of the public with the rights of the individual.

    There is a reason that people can drive at 55, 60, 70 mph on the roadway, even though its more dangerous. You could lower the speed limit to 25 and greatly reduce the death rate on the road... but you need a balance. The argument for ERPOs and gun control doesn't really have anything to do with keeping people safe, its all about CONTROL.

    Attack their BS arguments head on. 38,800 people died in automobile wrecks in 2019. 15,292 gun deaths (excluding suicides) in 2019. There is no "justification" for motor vehicle deaths, but self defense is a justification for gun deaths. Then you take the fact that probably half to 2/3s of gun deaths are drug and gang violence (which will never be controlled by "gun control") and the rates of gun deaths are pretty low for the average American.

    As you can see, gun deaths aren't really the problem. Gun OWNERSHIP is the problem, as seen by a Democratic party seeking totalitarian control.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,203
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom