California Contagion , One Bad Symptom : Extreme Risk Protection Orders

By Jeff Knox : Opinion

Extreme Risk Protection Order
California Contagion , One Bad Symptom : Extreme Risk Protection Orders
Firearms Coalition
Firearms Coalition

Buckeye, AZ –-(Ammoland.com)-  You've seen it on bumper stickers: “Don't Californicate (insert state name here).”

The problem of “Californication” has been a serious concern for people in several states, but it's not just about kooky Californians moving in with their flaky social and political ideas. While migrants from California have made significant impacts on neighboring states over the past decade, the greater negative impact comes from the importation of California ideas. Sure, that can be assisted by the throngs of California expatriates, but these wrong-headed notions can take root in the mushy brains of local politicians without any input at all from California migrants.

Washington, Oregon, Colorado, and Nevada have been hard-hit by the Californication phenomenon, and one of the areas where it's most evident is gun control laws.

Oregon recently followed Washington's lead, and has embraced a new law that proponents call an Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO.

An ERPO is like a Restraining Order or Order of Protection, but rather than ordering a potentially dangerous person to stay away from a named potential victim, an ERPO is supposed to remove the means for violence from the potentially dangerous person. While specifics vary from state to state, in general an ERPO allows a housemate, family member, intimate, physician, co-worker, or police officer to petition a judge to order “temporary confiscation” of a person's firearms and other weapons. The idea is to disarm a person who is exhibiting mental instability that suggests that they might be a danger to themselves or others.

Of course, like most prior-restraint laws, it all sounds reasonable on the surface. But as usual, the devil's in the details.

Typically ERPOs are issued by a judge, based solely on the testimony of one or more of the above-mentioned persons. There is no formal hearing, no opportunity for the subject of the ERPO to hear the accusations, face his accusers, or argue against the action until after police have barged into his home and seized his firearms. They could also seize other things that they consider potentially dangerous weapons, like knives, razor blades, medications, etc.

This begs the question as to how far police can and might go in their efforts to “suicide-proof” a person's home? Will they take, ropes, belts, shoelaces, and car keys? Can they compel the person to stay away from tall buildings, railroad tracks, busy roads and bathtubs?

We at The Firearms Coalition have long held that any person who cannot be trusted to possess a firearm, should not be free to circulate with the general public without direct supervision. In other words, whether we're talking about convicted felons or people with mental issues, if they are too dangerous to themselves or others to have access to firearms, they are too dangerous to be outside of an institution. That might sound harsh at first blush, but it's actually much more moderate than the current standard. The current rule assumes that anyone who has ever been convicted of a serious crime – even tax evasion or writing bad checks – and anyone who has ever been forced to undergo psychiatric treatment, can be released into society, but without their full constitutional rights. This sort of blanket policy means that people who are too dangerous to be roaming free are living among us, and people who are no danger at all are second-class citizens. Like school policies which dictate that anyone involved in a fight, whether attacker or victim, receives the same automatic punishment, policies that allow dangerous people to roam freely, and which punish people who are not dangerous, are unfair to individuals, and harmful to society.

To my knowledge, every state has laws allowing a person to be involuntarily committed for 72 hours for psychiatric evaluation. These laws generally require no more justification than is required for an ERPO: testimony from a family member or close associate. Those laws are problematic too, but they currently exist, and they make the concept of an ERPO redundant, and comparatively anemic. If your family really believes you are a danger to yourself or others, why would they not petition to have you held in a safe place where you cannot hurt yourself or anyone else, and where you can receive treatment for your condition?

These ERPO laws are not about saving lives or preventing tragedies. They are about demonizing guns and gun owners, and feeding the anti-gun paranoia machine.

Indiana grandmother suffers violent SWAT raid Seizing confiscating guns
Someone bent on suicide is unlikely to be deterred by a meddling relative having armed police come and take their guns.

Someone bent on suicide is unlikely to be deterred by a meddling relative having armed police come and take their guns. As a matter of fact, such an event could easily precipitate a tragedy that would not have happened otherwise. A person struggling with Hamlet's daunting question, might find that it's easier to simply point a gun at arriving officers than to pull the trigger on themselves [suicide by cop]. Worse, if they are really determined, they could take an officer or two with them. Or the person could simply seek one of the hundreds of alternative methods that are readily available beneath the kitchen sink, in the medicine chest, or on the highway.

If it's others that the person wants to harm, again, throwing police into the middle of that situation could precipitate the tragedy, and not having firearms readily available isn't likely to make them see the folly of their plan. Firearms are a favorite weapon of murderers, but they are not nearly the only means of accomplishing the deed. In almost half of all murders, firearms aren't involved.

ERPO's are probably occasionally helpful, occasionally harmful, and occasionally abused, but the vast majority of the time, they serve only as a way for people to feel like they're helping, when they're really not. They are a panacea for people unwilling to do the difficult work of loving someone through a crisis. Of course this is just the sort of nanny-state scheme that makes Mike Bloomberg's leg tingle, so it's being pushed and well-funded by Bloomberg's gun control conglomerate in states around the country.

The Constitution guarantees the right to arms, and it also guarantees “due process” before property can be seized, but Bloomberg and his Californicators seem to think the Constitution only applies to other people's ideas, never theirs.

Besides, if it saves just one life, what does it matter how many rights are trampled and lives are destroyed in the process? Right?

Neal Knox - The Gun Rights War
Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.

The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

  • 6 thoughts on “California Contagion , One Bad Symptom : Extreme Risk Protection Orders

    1. ANyone else remember the case down in the Medford Oregon area, maybe about foyir years ago, where a nasty boss in some state highway office down that way took up a personal vendetta against one of his “underlings”, and the falsely accused had his place raided early in the morning.. his neighbours woke up to dozens of SWAT cops, MRAPs, full on assault, prowling the neighbourhood to “secure” the area.. all to seize this guy as he got out of the shower one morning. His “crime”? His boss had been pestering him, so he’d been doing much of his work from home, trying to get the abuse resolved so he could get on with life. By coincidence, he’d recently gotten a larger than usual tax refund, and had been planning how to spend it.. at his favourite local gun store… for months. He did that.. buying a number of weapons he’d wanted to own for years. Thus, when the snarky boss reported the guy, State Police turned up the record of recent gun acquisitions, put two and two together , came up with eight, and “moved”. They seized the guy on a “protective custody” warrant, then illegaly invaded his home, turned that inside out, took all his guns, some not yet fired, and sent him to the local pysch hospital for “evaluation”. He was so sane they only kept him for about for hours… he got back home, clean bill of health, mental and physical, discovered his ransacked house, all his guns gone, called the sheriff, and was told THEY had his guns. Since he had been cleared mentally, he demanded them be returned.. sheriff refused. It took some tiime to get them back..

      point being, there already WERE laws in place to seize a guy and his guns on the false report of an overzealous Somebody with an axe to grind, and NO due process to get his stuff back, or to prevent it being stolen.

      WHY not take the guy in for his eval, then IF he gets committed, then go and deal with his guns and stuff. If he is released as “fine”, he goes back home, unlocks his front door, and walks into his home exactly as he left it. Sure he’s a bit bent cause he “went for a ride” and had to put up with the shrinks for a few hours (generally NOT good company for most folks) but essentially no real lasting harm. Much of the population of Jackson County were rather upset at how state and local coppers handled this…. I don’t think that sheriff got reelected. The neighbours had gotten pretty freaked at all the “police presence”at first light…. also bent that their good friend and nieghbour was so badly treated. THEY knew he was fine…

    2. Clark, Jeff’s math is not fuzzy! I have seen other states passing rules and regulations, especially in the building industry, that trample peoples rights “a la californica”! Former Californians are not voting for these en masse, but their mentality and influence can have a real negative impact! “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” does not mean control thy neighbor as in Californica. “He who governs least, governs best.”; Teach that to our children!
      The Grandfather

    3. The ERPO here in WA only allows 1x per year to “prove innocence” to a judge and show that you are no longer, nor will you ever be, a harm to yourself before the ERPO is lifted. This is defacto suspension of 2nd Amendment rights without due process since the order can be placed without your prior knowledge or notification until they beat down your door to confiscate your firearms. The PO’s already in use allow for the removal of firearms. This ERPO just opened the door to political abuse by a judge looking to make points with voters.

      Judges here “err on the side of caution” in regards to regular protection orders, as their belief is that the order was placed for a reason and removal could endanger the person who originally sought it. They have even refused to vacate orders when both parties petitioned to have it removed!

      In an effort to “protect” they have created a law that enables an abuser to strip the defenses of the abused; person buys a gun to protect themselves against abuser, abuser petitions for an ERPO based on claims they historically threatened to kill themselves and are afraid they will do so now they have a firearm (automatically pushed through if there are children in the household), now the abuser can violate their protection order because they know the abused is unarmed. By letter of the law this can happen

    4. Yeah … yeah … its for the children and public good.

      “There have been more abuses of liberty by silent usurpation than by sudden violent overthrow.” – James Madison

      For those that will fight for it…FREEDOM …has a flavor the protected shall never know.”

      Semper Fi!

      — L/Cpl Edwin L. “Tim” Craft, B Co 3rd AT’s, Khe Sanh Combat Base, February, 1968

    5. Jeff, are you claiming a majority of voters in the states you mentioned are from California? If you are, your math is fuzzy.

      1. The majority of voters in the majority of states are asleep….. thus the ones making the noise are the ones noticed… and trusted.
        Witness the way BloomingIdiotBurg managed to sway Washington’s “voters” when he bought his background check bill and crammed it down our throats. HE spent the money to flood media with his lies, and did so quickly and throughly such that intelligent voters only saw HIS side of the story. NRA let us down as well, refusing to step uo and counter his Cubic Bux. Since most voters had only heard Bloomie’s lies, guess which way it went?

        Funny thing.. in the year and a half that bill has been “law” in this state, there has only been ONE case where the law was the basis for prosecution. Meanwhile, law abiding citizens ignore that stupid useless law anyway. NONE of us would ever have sold a gun to anyone not lawfully allowed to have one. We still won’t. It has been illegal for decades, Bloomie’s Law made no change in that, though it DID make a nuumber of other changes…. in clear violation of Wasington Law regarding citizen’s initiatives.

    Leave a Comment 6 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *