User Panel
Posted: 6/9/2018 3:17:05 PM EDT
So, now that we have this new "Red Flag" law, how are we supposed to fight it when an ex/nosy neighbor/anti-gun activist reports us as a danger to ourselves or others? Is there any recourse? Do you get evaluated by the cops before they actually take your guns? Will we ever get our guns back? Also, what if our spouse owns guns too, will my wife lose her guns too?
@LenS @NoloContendere As a side note, my ex has already tried to fuck me over twice, using DCF. I have no doubts she will use this. |
|
[#1]
It’s a messed up world we live in. From what I understand if you get hit with ERPO the police will show up and take everything in the house wether it’s yours or your wife’s. They would imagine they will suspend/revoke your license and then it’s up to the courts to decide. Unless I’m missing something I wouldn’t have high hopes of getting your rights or guns back.
I hope I’m wrong. |
|
[#2]
Quoted:
It's a messed up world we live in. From what I understand if you get hit with ERPO the police will show up and take everything in the house wether it's yours or your wife's. They would imagine they will suspend/revoke your license and then it's up to the courts to decide. Unless I'm missing something I wouldn't have high hopes of getting your rights or guns back. I hope I'm wrong. View Quote They show up with the order, take all guns/mags/ammo and licenses (it's an automatic suspension of LTC). The PD is free to ship everything off to a bonded warehouse instantly as well . . . in which case you'll never see your property again. Failure to turn everything over instantly is a felony under C. 269 S. 10. I tried reading the new law, but the references to add/remove a word in "line xyz" in C. 140 S. abc make it damn near impossible to stitch it together to understand what exactly they wrote. I understand that you can petition for a court review but that is after the fact and I wouldn't have high hopes with our marsupial judges. Yes one can expect vindictive exs to clobber their ex with this, with their lawyers cheering them on. Sad, very sad. My only solution is now in play . . . we are shopping for a new home in NH and will escape MA as soon as we see a house that we both really like. |
|
[#3]
So, if my ex decides to pull this crap on me, my wife would lose all her stuff too?
Would a trust make a difference? |
|
[#4]
Quoted:
So, if my ex decides to pull this crap on me, my wife would lose all her stuff too? Would a trust make a difference? View Quote No MA doesn't recognize trusts for gun ownership. Even gun clubs which own guns for CMP or juniors programs . . . every gun is FA-10'd to an individual person responsible for it. |
|
[#5]
Quoted:
So, if my ex decides to pull this crap on me, my wife would lose all her stuff too? Would a trust make a difference? View Quote My trust also has beneficiaries so I don’t know if they would be able to collect them providing they have the proper licenses and ATF paperwork. The more this stuff keeps happening the more inclined I am to do 80% stuff and never “Finnish” them, and keep in a different location. |
|
[#6]
Quoted:
Yes, they "clean house" and let the courts sort it out. I confirmed this with 3 or 4 PDs and having worked domestics I fully understand why the PDs do it this way. No MA doesn't recognize trusts for gun ownership. Even gun clubs which own guns for CMP or juniors programs . . . every gun is FA-10'd to an individual person responsible for it. View Quote |
|
[#8]
Lock yourself in a room and don’t talk to the outside world ever again.
In all seriousness I dont think you really can protect yourself from it. Even if you spend a boat load of money on lawyers, appeals, whatever else it is basically a he said/ she said game. Unfortunately it’s agame I don’t thing anyone wins. |
|
[#9]
|
|
[#10]
Quoted:
Lock yourself in a room and don't talk to the outside world ever again. In all seriousness I dont think you really can protect yourself from it. Even if you spend a boat load of money on lawyers, appeals, whatever else it is basically a he said/ she said game. Unfortunately it's agame I don't thing anyone wins. View Quote Only protection right now is keep all guns out of Mass and hope the PDs elsewhere won't confiscate on a phone call from a Mass PD. Quoted:
No. We're proper fucked with this one. View Quote See above for only partial solution that I can think of. |
|
[#12]
Quoted:
Are we, GOAL/Comm2a/NRA, going to fight this? View Quote |
|
[#13]
Quoted:
I think this is something that someone would need to have the ERPO used against them first in order to actually have a claim of violating peoples rights. The good news is that unlike Maura's AWB claim where no one will be charged, the ERPO is only a matter of time before someone is hit with it. View Quote |
|
[#14]
Quoted: Problem is, I don't want to be a test case. I absolutely see my ex pulling this sort of thing. View Quote |
|
[#15]
Quoted:
Is there any way to protect ourselves against any of this? View Quote The Police *already* had the right to confiscate your handguns, Modern sporting rifles, ammo, etc as of last year, the year before that, etc Although the ERPO is bullshit, it isn't appreciably worse than what we already had to deal with. |
|
[#16]
Quoted: What do you want? The Police *already* had the right to confiscate your handguns, Modern sporting rifles, ammo, etc as of last year, the year before that, etc Although the ERPO is bullshit, it isn't appreciably worse than what we already had to deal with. View Quote |
|
[#17]
|
|
[#18]
I of course wrote my Rep (Mahoney) and Senator (Chandler). Him I never received a response from him (I never do), but her response was telling: She opened it with The Massachusetts Senate is committed to pursuing smart, sensible gun control policy. Emphasis NOT added.
I also noted in the law that the “Petitioner” includes “the licensing authority of the municipality where the respondent resides”. So I suppose one would be well advised not to piss of his/her CLEO or anyone tight with them as well? As frustrating the attack on law-abiding gun owners is, it's at least as frustrating that there does not seem to be that there is ANY organization that is not impotent against the continuing onslaught against our Constitution. |
|
[#19]
Quoted:
Actually they always could by getting a 209A. All one needs to get one is a current OR former relationship and make up a story. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
[#20]
Quoted: So, this changes nothing? And we are ok with it? View Quote |
|
[#21]
|
|
[#22]
Sorry. I am just pissed that my ex has my life in her hands. Especially after the shit show she handed me with DCF a few years ago.
|
|
[#23]
Quoted: No. This is just another bite of the shit sandwich that is Massachusetts. Baker will sign it, or conveniently be out of state and the Lt gov will ink it. The test cases will accumulate (praying I’m not one of them). Courts will naturally side with the accuser. People will lose $ and property. The state will continue on as a liberal utopia of delusion and happy feelings. It’s pretty jacked that these ass clowns love the voice vote so they aren’t on record. View Quote |
|
[#24]
|
|
[#25]
From GOAL:
"GOAL Accused of Untruthful Rhetoric Concerning Gun Licensing Bill (ERPO) Since the House and Senate passed the latest gun licensing bill, also known as ERPO or Red Flag bills, we have been accused by the bill supporters of spreading untruthful rhetoric about what the bill does. We have also been accused of being unwilling to work with the legislature to craft a workable bill. These opinions are simply not based on the facts. GOAL always wants to make sure that our members are getting factual information regarding the issues at hand. It is very important that we only use factual information so that when our members are engaging legislators, or others, they have the ability to speak intelligently on the matters at hand. Despite the backlash from the bills supporters, GOAL’s concerns on due process, property rights, legal representation and lack of mental health assistance still stand. Here are some factual concerns that we have put together for our members to set the record straight. Also listed are a great number of changes to the bill that GOAL offered to address many of our concerns. FACT: This newly proposed system can only be used on gun owners. If someone believes that a person may be an extreme danger to our children or a potential suicide risk, but they do not possess a license or a gun, this system cannot be utilized. Its strict purpose is to take the gun, not provide help. FACT: If an “emergency” 10-day order is filed against an accused person, they have no right to appear before the judge with legal counsel until after the order is issued. This is because the accused won’t even be aware of what has transpired until law enforcement shows up at their door to confiscate their property. The defendant only gets a hearing under the emergency order after the order has been enforced. FACT: Even in the case of an “emergency” order being issued and then being lifted after a hearing, the accused will forever have to state on license applications that their license had been suspended. Then they will have to explain to the licensing authority why they were considered a potential “extreme” public safety risk. FACT: Citizens who are accused of being an extreme risk are not allowed a court appointed attorney if they cannot afford one. Because these hearings take place as a civil court proceeding, we are told that court appointed legal assistance is never available. The legislature could have changed that, but chose not to. FACT: Because the appeals process from the original bill was removed, a defendant can only use the existing appellate court process. Even if the accused can afford an attorney these costs can exceed $10,000. If the accused cannot afford an attorney, the appeals process can be virtually impossible. FACT: The version passed by the House actually mandated that the accused relinquish “ownership”, not just possession, of their property in order to seek an appeal. This was later fixed in the Senate version. FACT: If the accused cannot make the scheduled hearing for any reason, and if the judge believes the evidence being placed before them by the accuser, the order is “automatically” issued for up to a year. FACT: The people who can file an order against someone are very broad. This is caused by the lengthy definition of “family or household member”. It is further broadened by the use of “is or was” applied to that definition. FACT: It is not clear in the bill’s language whether a person is allowed to know or face their accuser. Nor is it clear that they are allowed access to the evidence used against them. We are told that this is already covered in normal court procedures, but when we tried to amend the bill to make that clear, it was rejected. FACT: It is more likely than not that there is nothing temporary about an ERPO order. With discretionary licensing alive and well in the Commonwealth, is there any belief that once a person has been issued one of these orders that they are ever going to get their rights restored? A senate amendment actually verified that the licensing authorities discretion still exists even if the court denies or lifts an order. FACT: Even if after an emergency 10-day order the judge decides that there is not enough evidence to place a further order, the accused may not be able to get their property returned. Because the bill only allows the property to be stored with a “licensed dealer”, the guns will have to be entered into their books. If the property consists of handguns that are not on the “approved” roster and meet the Attorney General’s regulations (940 CMR 16:00) they cannot be legally transferred back to the owner. Further, if any of the guns fall under the newly broadened Attorney General’s definition of “assault weapon”, they cannot be legally transferred back as well. We attempted to address this through an amendment, but it was rejected. FACT: Despite the claims of the bill’s supporters that the state budget has appropriated large amounts of funding for mental health matters, there is nothing in this bill that specifically deals with the people subject to an order. If part of the bill is to identify the next mass murderer, all this bill does is take their legal guns away, hand them a pamphlet on mental health, and then release them on society. If part of the bill is to identify people who may be suicidal, all this bill does is take their legal guns away, hand them a pamphlet on mental health, and then send them home. In the Commonwealth, 93% of women and 72% of men who commit suicide don’t use a gun. REJECTED PROPOSALS from GOAL The following rejected proposals are from GOAL’s efforts to craft a bill that would actually create a comprehensive and compassionate bill that not only protected civil rights, it would also have addressed suicide prevention and sever mental health crisis management. Rejected – Establishing a Friends and Family Suicide Prevention Hotline – this would include a web resource and text capability to ensure that people are able to access much needed information. Rejected – The hotline would have been staffed by people who are trained in suicide prevention, intervention, and mental health crisis management. Additionally they would have been trained on the legal programs and systems available in MA. Rejected – Hotline staff would have offered advice on how to conduct a thorough home sweep for materials or items that could be a risk to people in temporary crisis. This would include narcotics, RX medications, alcohol, poisons, etc. Rejected – The hotline would have provided information on what means currently exist for friends and family to successfully intervene in a temporary mental health crisis. Rejected – Directing the Department of Public Health to develop mental health wellness follow up programs. Rejected – Provide Judges the ability to mandate secure treatment for people with severe mental health issues that have been determined to pose an “extreme” risk to others. This would prevent them from having access to our children and they may get the help they so desperately need. Rejected – Enables a judge to reduce the likelihood that a person who is extremely dangerous due to severe mentally illness cannot cause harm using by other means by taking action to revoke, or at least recommend, a wide range of State issued licenses or permits, i.e. a CDL license, license to practice medicine, firearms license, etc. Rejected – Establishing a commission to conduct a comprehensive study on suicide prevention and mental health crisis management needs in the Commonwealth now and in the future. Rejected – Examine and report on all current and proposed suicide prevention and mental health crisis management resources available in the Commonwealth. Rejected – Conduct a review of present and projected future needs for emergency outpatient, inpatient, and long-term care needs for those with mental health issues. Rejected – Report on the current statistics regarding suicide and the means of suicide as established by the Injury Surveillance Program under the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Rejected – Establish a fund suitable to accept donations from charitable organizations to assist the state in mental health services and suicide prevention. Rejected – The rightful return of property that would have protected those having their property stored to have it returned to them even if they were not on the “approved” lists. Rejected – Protecting owners from incurring fees from storage facilities when property was being held without the owner’s consent. They have the right to store their property at a facility of their choosing. Rejected – Providing mental health counseling once a protection order has been issued. Rejected – Raising the standard of evidence to “clear and convincing”. Rejected – Increasing the penalties for false accusation that would include placing a harassment order against the false accuser. Rejected – Preventing an order being placed on the accused automatically simply because they could not appear at the only hearing. Rejected – Raising the standard of evidence for an “emergency” 10-day order to “clear and convincing” and only if the evidence showed the accused to be an extreme danger to others. Rejected – Clarifying by specific section of law who could temporarily store property. Rejected – Preventing other means of harm by extremely dangerous people by restricting their ability to possess things like dangerous chemicals or rental trucks. Rejected – Allowing courts to commit extremely dangerous people for longer periods of time if they have a history of being committed due to severe mental illness. Rejected – Placing a restriction on dangerous individuals who have been committed against their will from entering onto school property. Rejected – Narrowly defining “Family or Household Members” to only those with a current relationship. Rejected – Providing legal counsel for financially poor that have been accused. Rejected – Mandating the court identify whether the accuser has a history of harassing the accused or has a history of mental illness themselves. Rejected – If the court issues an “emergency” order the accused must be notified within 24 hours and be allowed a hearing within 2 days. Rejected – Mandating the courts actually have to consult with a licensed psychiatrist who specializes in suicide intervention and severe mental illness crisis management. Rejected – Nothing in the new law shall be deemed to prevent the respondent from being notified as to the identity of the petitioner and the evidence being presented against them. Rejected – That an accuser could only file a petition if they have direct knowledge of danger, not second hand hearsay." |
|
[#26]
I read all that earlier on a Facebook post. It really gives you a true understanding of how screwed up our political scumbag leaders are. I vote we burn everything to the ground and start from scratch.
|
|
[#27]
Damn, y'all. I'm sorry to see this shit heaped on the good folks of Mass. Is there any realistic chance of getting it overturned / ruled unconstitutional / otherwise suppressed?
|
|
[#28]
Gov. Baker still needs to sign it, I highly doubt he will not sign it. I can’t see this being overturned anytime in the foreseeable future. I think this is going to be the new norm not just here but across the majority of the country. Look how many states are doing the same thing, how many passed it? How many more are still being proposed? These red flag laws are starting to spread like wildfire.
|
|
[#29]
|
|
[#30]
I'd be up for that. I'm pulling for the good folks of Mass. I'm less than 15 miles from the state line. That keeps it firmly in mind for me. Makes traveling a bitch, too.
|
|
[#33]
|
|
[#34]
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.