‘Gun Leaders’ Approve of Extreme Protection Orders Opposed by ACLU

What are we clapping and thankful for again? (NRA-ILA Facebook photo)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order,’” KOMO News reported. “The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year – even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side.”

“There is no statute that addresses whether you can or can’t openly carry,” the Washington State Office of the Attorney General’s website advises, clearly meaning to discourage the practice but not empowered by law to do anything about it.

Hey, maybe the guy is a danger, as a police media advisory suggests, although we should note that if he is, he didn’t go down guns a-blazing when they came for his. Maybe he’s crazy as a loon, which a .25 as his defensive sidearm of choice might suggest. Then again, perhaps it was all he could afford and I wouldn’t automatically dismiss the deterrent effect such a weapon can have as evidenced by the reaction of hysterical locals, nor its effectiveness in a pinch.

But that hasn’t been proven. He’s been disarmed without being convicted of anything. And that concerns, of all groups, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island:

“The heart of the legislation’s ERPO process requires speculation – on the part of both the petitioner and judges – about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But, the ACLU analysis notes: ‘Psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. The result will likely be a significant impact on the rights of many innocent individuals in the hope of preventing a tragedy.’”

But that hasn’t stopped so-called “conservative” pundits from jumping on the ERPO bandwagon.

Ditto for President Donald Trump.

And “A”-rated Lindsey Graham, who couldn’t team up fast enough with “F”- rated Richard Blumenthal…

Unsurprisingly for those of us who have been following such things (and subsequently enduring the scorn of Fairfax loyalists), the same goes for the National Rifle Association. (UPDATE: Hear for yourself starting at 3:15 in their video. Following that up by saying “they should have strong due process protections” does not change the fact that they really don’t and can’t by their very nature.)

With their sudden affinity for prior restraint gun owner control, they really offer no consistent reason why they wouldn’t also push for actress Troian Bellisario’s idiotic Everytown “boyfriend loophole.” Logically, there is no reason why they wouldn't support it.

So is NRA’s new position that “gun control” works? Or just the kind they endorse?

“[A]s they are currently implemented, these laws come with major pitfalls and potential for serious abuse,” Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership warns. “They violate the principles of liberty and establish a dangerous ‘guilty until proven innocent’ standard. GVROs and ERPOs passed to date violate multiple Constitutional protections beyond the Second Amendment. These include the rights to equal treatment and against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), the rights of the accused (6th), and the right to due process (5th and 14th).”

And, of course, there’s another indisputable reality that none of the proponents of restraining orders want to even acknowledge, let alone talk about:

“Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

If proven violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.

If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?

Concessions on these measures by the NRA, which in turn gives the green light to Republicans, is nothing short of preemptive surrender. It won’t stop the Democrats from coming back for even more, especially as they perceive they can now effortlessly establish positions from which to launch their next assault.  Meanwhile, they’ll still continue screaming how the “uncompromising and extremist” NRA is “a terrorist organization” (and talk about people who need to have ERVOs filed against them if allegations are all that are needed) and that Republicans are “fascists.”

We know where the “slippery slope” leads, and that the violence monopolists want it all. Giving them anything makes as much sense as tossing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and believing that will satisfy them and make them go away.

It’s impossible to believe our “gun rights leaders” don’t know that, which makes it fair to ask — all their defiant fundraising rhetoric about the Second Amendment aside (you know, the one that says “shall not be infringed”) — just how much are they prepared to surrender, and at what point will they become effectively indistinguishable from the “bad” gun-grabbers?

Is this really, as some would have us believe, an elaborate game of three-dimensional chess that we “shall not be infringed” zealots are just too unsophisticated to see and appreciate?  Or is the emperor really not wearing any clothes?


About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 33 thoughts on “‘Gun Leaders’ Approve of Extreme Protection Orders Opposed by ACLU

    1. The ‘Heartland’ and ‘Mid-West’ must push back with a unmovable force of will to retake the West and the East or ALL IS LOST…….. FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

    2. Having been a first responder for over 10 years, I cannot support these orders. When there is a real danger a restraining order (order of protection) or an arrest is a much better solution than an order that only removes firearms.

      Looking at the California experience, there is good and bad news. The good news is that in all of 2016 only 89 orders were issued. The bad news is that all but 10 were lifted once the subject got before a judge. This tells me that the biggest problem with these orders is that there is a high potential for abuse. It would have been worse, but Calguns and others were able to limit the kinds of people who can apply for such orders.

      So, what is the NRA thinking? Well, I can only guess, but I think the release of the California data and the sudden support of these orders is related. My guess is that the saw how few orders were granted, and the fact that nearly all were lifted, and decided that these orders were not a serious threat. Perhaps they see them as a concession we can make without losing much. Alternatively, they may believe that by limiting the number categories of people who can obtain these these orders to law enforcement (as they were able to do in Florida) abuse can be limited even further than it was in California.

      I absolutely think that the worst possible thing we can do is turn on the NRA. We can and should let them know what we think. We can tell them that we are livid over this. But we need to stand with them – because without them, we will lose much, much more.

      1. This is one of BEST recent vids on “Shall not be infringed”. Meaning as far as the NRA is concerned,’ it’s time to clean house’.
        PROOF the NRA Stands WITH Anti-Gunners AGAINST the 2nd!

    3. Some Conservatives, Libertarians and but establishment Republicans (including ‘The Donald’), JUST DON’T GET IT!!!
      Banning a gun accessories is a “NO GO 2A ZONE”. You can appease, pander and even cut the Socio-comunists taxes all you want, THEY WILL NEVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE! You can’t fix stupid, Stupid! The 2018 elections will be a soft prelude to 2020.
      Taking our 2A rights is not going to help any conservatives stay or get into office.
      Again, benefits of cuttting Socio-communists taxes and appease with 2A bans all you want… THEY WILL NEVER, EVER VOTE FOR A CONSERVATIVE! GOP!!! You can’t fix stupid, Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are tag-a-longs, dewberries on sheep.

      How in Satan’s hell do we increase our lot by ceding ground. This concept is basic and easy.,

      1. Man I must start using my readers… all the time!
        Now we must make (a) Lamb a real chop by getting him to crossover to OUR side. They’ll (the socio-communists) wooo this guy to his face and secretly despise him. A Conservative Democrat is a oxymoron. NoSuchThing!

        Get that GOP… run on their ticket than switch! Very deceitful but strategically effective.

        2 men enter! One man leave!

    4. One more rotten law shoved down the throats of the rest of the state by the Seattle nutjobs. Washington law, contrary to what our corrupt AtG states in his “opinion”. allows for open carry, and includes language to the effect that for any actionable cause for concern to exist upon someone’s firearm becoming visible there MUST be language or action clearly designed to draw attention to the presence of the firearm, and/or to CAUSE fear in the perception of those seeing it. If this man was simply standing there looking through the storefront windows at people, and doing nothing that specifically draws attention to his sidearm, he is NOT in violation of any laws. Ferg-rot-son knows this, but is lying. Seatle city coppers are too. I’ll lay some pretty big stakes at some fairly long odds that if anyone were to salk about Belltown (a pseudo-toney neighbourhood infested by an ugly mix of clueless tourists from all over, VERY wealthy yacht owners and dwellers, homeless street people, and old guard long time residents that have somehow managed to hang on in spite of extreme gentrification. I suspect our present Subject of this order falls into the latter group.

      I’m pretty certain this law would be overturned as clearly unconstitutional were it to ever be challenged in a neutral court of competent jurisdiction. The local court (Seattle City?) will throw this guy onto the concrete in the busiest Busway section and pat themselves on the back for “saving Seattle from harm”. It would be interesting to learn more about his man’s history. I seriously doubt he’s the nutjob he is now set up to be. Someone VERY competent in similar legal matters should take this one up and use it to destroy this insane law. There is good reason the Leg refused to pass it into law.

    5. Someone asked if there was proof the NRA was okay with this gun grabbing non-sense.
      I read all the posts and didn’t see a response or the requested proof.
      However, I am convinced the NRA has been infiltrated by communist/democrats. They are definitely changing their stance to the democrat removal of small rights until they have everything.
      Voting for leaders in the NRA IS NOT working! Need a different approach to stopping the Communist takeover of the NRA if it’s not too late.

      1. @ Tom andrews

        Negotiating Rights Away says many things,they also promote Stand and Fight,when in reality it’s stand and capitulate.

        Get involved,vote for a new board of directors and rite the NRA.

      2. The NRA also was behind manchin and toomey setting up universal registration after newtown. They then later claimed to be against it after writers like codrea and groups like the GOA led an uprising among the grass roots.

        Your money and donations need to go to the GOA, not the NRA.

    6. Negotiating Rights Away and it’s leadership is in the process of relegating it’s self into obscurity,the world is turned up side down when the ACLLU is in favor of protecting gun owners rights and the NRA is not.

    7. Maybe the ploy is to let this happen enough times that sheeple get the idea that NO rights are safe unless the 2A is there to protect them. Just a thought.

      1. if that is the ploy we ARE in serious trouble. that’s sort of like deliberately shoving someone off the roof to make sure the safety harness and lifeline are working.

        Nope, somehow we’ve got to push this garbage back up the black pipe and pour it all over the clowns trying to drown US in it.

    8. All the more reason to build your own personal legal unregistered ghost firearm. They can not take what they do not know you have. When they come to take mine without convicting me of any crime they will only find registered firearms. I will still be armed and prepared to defend my family.

      1. if that is the ploy we ARE in serious trouble. that’s sort of like deliberately shoving someone off the roof to make sure the safety harness and lifeline are working.

        Nope, somehow we’ve got to push this garbage back up the black pipe and pour it all over the clowns trying to drown US in it.

      2. Dogs, ultrasound, X ray, magnetic flux….. all are tools in their tolbox to detect whether and where a firearm might be found. They don’t come with a laundry list of guns they THINK you have. They come tear the place apart and find what is there.

        Until recently it was pretty easy to dispose of a firearm legally without any paperwork to show where it went. Thus a plausible argument would be that you had sold it some years ago in a legal provate party transfer. Tycially the ONLY thing they have is a record from an FFL Record of Sale book showing you to be a purchaser at such a time. There is no trail of title like there is now with cars, but that is their goal, no question. Trace data typically only works when you have bought that gun new and have not plausibly resold it. Your ghost gun would have no record, but would still be found if they were serious.

        The one REALLY disturbing thing about the Seattle PD report is that they are currently attempting to steal, er, confiscate, numbers OTHER arms this man supposedly owns that are in the custody of some family members. WHY do they need to steal these? If the guy is in custody he does not have access to them. Or, locate them and inform the custodian they are NOT to be released into this guy’s hands until he’s cleared. SPD simply want to get their mitts on any and all firearms they possibly can. Its all about the public good, you see……..

        1. When they come for your guns, that is not the time to be trying to hide them. They need to be out, locked and loaded. Our birthright of freedom is not to be surrendered just because some politicians say so. Our existence as a culture of liberty is not to be stamped out even when a majority of people think that our time should be up.

    9. The ERPO law was passed here by voter initiative because the state legislature refused to approve it. The law was destined for failure until King county (Seattle) votes were counted.

      This law is atrocious an a due process nightmare! The ERPO can be e!placed without knowledge of the person it is placed upon. An ex roommate, ex girlfriend, etc can petition to have one placed against you and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You do not have to exhibit prior violence, tendencies, threats, or even suggestion of violence against self or others. It is entirely up to the discretion of the judge hearing the order petition if it is emplaced or not. Your only recourse, after having on placed against you, is to prove to the court you are not a danger to self or others. This appeal process can only be performed once per year. WA is loathe to remove a normal protection order, even when both parties agree to the removal, as the judges cite they’d rather err on the side of caution.

      Not only are your rights removed without adequate due process or even the basic ability to defend yourself, but you are then required to prove your innocence to the same said politically motivated judge who enacted this unconstitutional re!oval of rights in the first place. If one can not see the glaring potential for citizen abuse in such a scheme has no idea what liberty truly means!

    10. Once again our no gun control and we are pro 2A all the way leaders have imposed another restriction on law abiding owners without giving us anything in return. How messed up is this world when the ACLU says these laws are a burden on normal people.

      1. You’re not being censored. There are no monitors. Ammoland’s comment system is notoriously buggy. Whole threads will disappear, only to reappear hours or days later.

    11. Trump was ready to capitalize on this either way the chips fell. He always is. In the process he managed to get the Dems to sabotage their own gun control bills on fears that they would actually pass which would kill their midterms hopes.

      Trump is NOT a 2A crusader, either way. It’s not on his radar. He will sell us out for a good enough deal, which it doesn’t look like he got this time around, or help us out to bolster his support. Like most Boomers and even older GenXers, he is in favor of “reasonable” gun control that normies think will stay “reasonable” and not turn into outright confiscation of semi-automatics in an administration or two. We know better.

      I say that in future we throw Trump’s own words on “compromise” from his State of the Union speech and respond to any and all demands that we “compromise” with demands to repeal one existing gun control law for one new one they want to pass. Example, they want to ban bump stocks? Okay, then we get a repeal of the Hughes Amendment and we can go through ATF Paperwork Hell to buy the machine gun that we really wanted anyway. They want to make rifles and handguns BOTH age 21 to buy federally? Okay, then we get Short Barreled Long Guns reclassified as non-NFA items.

      NOT. ONE. INCH. BACKWARD. But sideways just might be something we can agree to.

    12. If someone is unjustly (according to a reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances – same as self defense) disarmed, all involved should be liable for $100K(pick a big #) for denying a civil right, Including police, complainant(s), judge, DA. That should eliminate gun grabbing.

        1. @LB, “The state allows”! Are you a fascist? Do you think that “the state” covering all your costs” (even if it were all costs, and it is not all costs) would make up for denial of the liberty to walk around, breath fresh air and exercise one’s Constitutional Civil Rights.
          The state, the state, no one but the state! LB

    13. No more gun control laws! Pretty sad that the commies at the aclu are doing a better job than the nra at defending these nonsense gun control schemes. Email and call your senators, congressmen, nra customer service reps, and donate to the GOA. Also, share this article all over social media and send it to friends. This is the only way we can fight back against the latest gun banning tactics of the civilian disarmament industry.

      1. I belong to GOA. And will join Second Amendment Foundation as well. We also need more fighters like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul ,Mike Lee sweep out the establishment lifers.

        1. Thank you David for well constructed arguments opposing multiple Rights within our Bill of Rights. And thanks to the ACLU for their consistent support of our Bill of Rights. HooRah to both. The take away for me is a reminder that one should remain without prejudice in evaluating events and always always true to principles – the totality of our Bill of Rights. Thank you David

    Leave a Comment 33 Comments

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