What Democrats are not telling you about Risk Protection Orders

In Michigan Democrats have introduced bill that would include "Extreme Risk Protection Orders".
(related thread: Gun bills coming in Michigan after 2nd school mass shooting )

This would allow judges to issue protective orders against individuals who are considered a "threat", prohibiting them from legally having firearms.

But something almost none of the official arguments in favor of this are willing to say openly and plainly is what such a law would actually do, how it would be put into practice.

That is that these "Risk Protection Orders" would PUNISH people if they do not comply with the order.

That is particularly interesting, given that one of the main arguments in favor of these risk protection orders are that they are meant to protect individuals from suicide.
So throwing a person into prison if they are found to have a gun when you told them not to is a good way to protect that person?
And if they are prone to suicidality, I think it's reasonable to assume the threat of prison probably isn't going to be much of a deterrent.

It not only allows police to just take the gun, but it requires the individual to be legally obligated to have to comply with the judge's order. And if they don't, it is punished as a crime.
They will be sent to prison if they do not do what the judge says.

The other big thing they are using to try to justify this is mass shootings.
Well, here is something to consider... let's please try to use common sense... If someone is planning to kill a large number of innocent people, do you really think threatening them with prison time for having a gun is going to be any deterrent to that individual??
I think this is kind of absurd.

I mean, I could (just for a moment for the sake of argument) perhaps see a reason why police should take their gun away, if they find it. But punishing the person?
That seems to serve no legitimate purpose.

I think we need to recognize that a lot of the "logic" being used to back this idea is faulty, and when you really stop to think about it, several of the big arguments in favor of it don't really make sense.

You can see an example of the arguments in favor of this bill here: Extreme Risk Protection Orders - Michigan Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence

There is a significant difference between sending in police with a warrant to take any guns they find (and yes, obviously the individual cannot resist or they will be punished), versus making it an automatic crime for an individual to have a gun, where they will be sent to prison if police even find a gun.
Do people understand that those are two different things? Yet people seem to just confuse the two together, as if they were only one concept, without thinking about things.

These "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" aren't only just going to take guns away; they are going to threaten to put individual people in prison and make gun ownership illegal!

 

Well if they have a protection order then it won't be legal. Problem solved!

The rest: tl;dr

 

The point was that there is no legitimate justifiable reason to make it "illegal".

Making it illegal goes BEYOND just taking the guns away (like supporters of these Risk Protection Orders talk usually talk about).

 

I guess Michigan is tired of kids being shot up at schools. If you are deemed to be on unfit to own a gun then if you are concealing a gun you should be punished.

The purpose of this type of law enforcement is called 'disincentive'.

 

I want you to try to use logic and think about what you are saying.
Are you saying that we can predict who is extremely likely to shoot up a school before they plan to do so?
(How exactly does that work?)

Because otherwise, like was already pointed out, threatening to put someone in jail if they get a gun even when you told them not to, that is not going to prevent them from carrying out their plan.
I think this should be OBVIOUS, if you stop to give it some thought. I don't know, maybe I could be wrong, tell me how I am wrong about that...

 

I think you're overthinking. The law says to do things and not to do things and not obeying those laws needs to carry penalties.

Some people have special laws applicable to them to protect themselves and society. These also need to carry penalties.

Using your analogy: sometimes people who are banned from driving cars still drive their cars. You're saying, analogously, because some, due to mental or personality issues, are still going to drive their cars (regardless) there's no point having penalties for people who drive their cars when they have their licences removed.

And I don't buy the line that they going to mass murder so they don't care about consequences. People plan murders. We obviously need to put murderers behind bars because they are dangerous. But should we do away with threat of incarceration for premeditated murder as a preventative. It won't stop them - because they don't care they're going to murder anyhow!

 

Said it once, said it a thousand times:
If these people are such a danger to themselves and others, they need to be taken into custody, as taking their guns only minimally reduces the threat they pose.

 

If you present so much risk to yourself and others that you should not have a gun, you should be taken in custody.

The purpose of this kind of law is to take guns from the law abiding and, to get them back, force them to prove to a judge they aren't a threat.
This violates the constitution in a multitude of ways.

 

Interesting opinion. Thanks.

That conjecture is yet to be proven.

 

Interesting opinion. Thanks.

 

Interesting opinion. Thanks.

 

The only people getting antsy about these laws are those that wonder deep down if they are mentally stable enough to own a gun.

 

Unsupportable nonsense. Thanks.

 

Says the guy who wants to lock up people who lack the maturity/mental capacity to own a gun.

 

The fact your response does not support your nonsense in any way aside...

Because...
....if you present so much risk to yourself and others that you should not have a gun, you remain a risk to yourself and others after the gun has been taken away, and thus, you should be taken in custody.
How am I wrong?

 

Also, another difference is that with criminal charges & arrest, both a prosecuting attorney and a judge have to sign off on the warrant, there are more legal and civil liberties protections for the defendant (for example, right to trial within 60 days of arrest, although that usually turns out to be more theoretical). And on top of that, there is usually a higher burden of evidence expected.
It's still not that difficult for authorities to order a person to be arrested, it's far easier than most people would assume, but the point is some significant big differences still exist between what is required for criminal arrest versus what is required for these protection orders.

 

These standards should apply to the removal of firearms as well -- rights are rights.
Those who support Red Flag laws have no interest in any of that, however.

 

Concerning alleged domestic violence situations, if I was writing these laws, I would require that the person (usually woman) making the complaint have to be known to be living with the man. And that the order would immediately stop (under the law) being applicable to the man within 3 days after the two are no longer living together in the same residence. Though a restraining order would be in effect so the man would not be permitted to bring his gun if he decided to visit the woman.
This way the man would always have the last resort option of being able to immediately regain his rights if he broke up with the woman who is accusing him in that situation. It seems fair and reasonable. If he wants to stay with that woman, then he will be subject to her whims and the legal process. This would help prevent just anyone from making a complaint against the man and taking away his rights.

We could still allow the police to enter into the shared house and seize any guns they find, without making the possession of those guns actually illegal and subject to criminal penalty. Those are two different things.

Also, what I would like to see is protections built into the law so the man could be able to just ignore certain parts of a judge's order, if it does not accord with the law, and have it not automatically be made illegal for him to do so, rather than what is presently the usual situation where he has to get the judge to first change or rescind the order before it is legally permissible for him to do so, even if the judge's order did not originally conform to the guidelines of what the law said. We shouldn't make it legal for a judge to throw a man in jail for not following orders that were not what the law says. Under the current system, if someone does not follow a court order they can later be criminally convicted and suffer a longer term prison sentence (like 6 months to 2 years), even though the law may have directed the judge not to make an order like that.
So make the law clear that the person is not required to follow a court order in this situation so long as certain conditions, specified in the law, are met.

 

Stop projecting your emotions and judgmentalness on to others.

The only people not skeptical of laws like these are authoritarian sorts who will sit by meekly as their rights are eroded one by one

 

Otherwise we are turning it into a situation where individuals have to ask for permission before they can legally have their rights (rights that they are supposed to have under the law).

 

the anti gun movement is based on lies and it constantly conceals the true motivations of its leaders (I do believe the low wattage followers actually believe the anti gun schemes are designed to decrease crimes but I don't believe the leaders are anything other than disgusting nefarious control freaks who don't actually give a damn about punishing violent criminals). One of the most stupid arguments this dishonest movement makes is claiming that they can decrease malum per se offenses by creating Malum prohibitum offenses

 

the anti gun movement is all about creating more and more bullshit offenses that they can tag gun owners with and then say those people cannot own guns because they have been convicted of bullshit malum prohibitum offenses (like owning a 20 round magazine or a "pistol braced firearm")

 

WHAT gun banners really think is the crime is owning a gun and asserting your rights as a gun owner. that's what really bothers them

 

nonsense. we see that anti gunners only pretend to care about stopping violent crime when their real goal is harassing gun rights advocates as much as they can

 

One other idea to help protect the population's rights would be to have the law set a limit on how many individuals could be subject to these protection orders at the same time. For example maybe set a limit of 100 individuals in the state. Each individual would have to be assigned a number, between 1 to 100.
The law could clarify that an individual would not be legally obligated to follow the order in the event that more than 100 individuals were subject to such orders at the same time.
I suspect however that the gun control proponents who support these protection orders would never be willing to accept this.