Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

MindWars

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2016
42,227
10,743
2,040
Seattle police confiscate first gun under new 'mental health' law
In the wake of February’s school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the country has been enthralled in a debate over whether those who are classified as “mentally ill” should be allowed their right to firearms. In opposition to the Second Amendment, some states, including Washington, have even enacted laws that provide for “extreme risk protection orders,” which allow police, family members, and community members to petition the court to remove someone’s firearms — by force if necessary.



And so it begins just like i said , it would be used against people , people will be accused of mental health issues when it isn't so.
like i SAID MEDICAL TYRANNY IS HOW THEY WILL TAKE THE GUNS" leftist retards are a little to low on the IQ chart to fully comprehend what that means or how it will be done. As the same idiots would tell people put on your tin foil hat as they warned there would be gun grabbing even during Obama which they used and still . use the " medical" excuse as the power to do it.

MEAN WHILE IT'S THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY CAUSING THESE MASS SHOOTERS.....
 
Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.
:1peleas:
 
LOL Seattle is chock full of mentally unstable left loons....disarm them!!!! Oh wait, they wet themselves at the thought of firearms
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Maybe they will be the first to eat themselves alive the fastest idiots to go . Wait until other leftist assholes decided to play the same game across the country.
 
LOL Seattle is chock full of mentally unstable left loons....disarm them!!!! Oh wait, they wet themselves at the thought of firearms

If all the Leftist American States get disarmed, then that means only the Conservative American States will be armed....only Right-Wingers will be armed :badgrin:

Looks good:

Governors.png


Looks good:

State_Legislatures.png
 
LOL Seattle is chock full of mentally unstable left loons....disarm them!!!! Oh wait, they wet themselves at the thought of firearms

If all the Leftist American States get disarmed, then that means only the Conservative American States will be armed....only Right-Wingers will be armed :badgrin:

Looks good:

Governors.png


Looks good:

State_Legislatures.png

Blue shit holes like California deserve everything they get
 
Maybe they will be the first to eat themselves alive the fastest idiots to go . Wait until other leftist assholes decided to play the same game across the country.

You should want that though, as I commented if all the Leftist American States are disarmed that means only the Conservative American States will be armed, Conservative States with Conservative State Legislatures and the majority of them Veto Proof and in those States respect for your Second Amendment is very strong so I cannot see any Gun Grabbing measures happening in those States.

Disarmed Leftist States vs Mega Armed Conservative States = :abgg2q.jpg: :badgrin:
 
Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.
:1peleas:
A friend and I were shopping in a Walmart a couple years ago. He had a Glock 17 in an open carry holster. A man and wife with 2 small children came up to him and asked him why he was carrying a gun. Frank said, "Because I want to." The man then said the gun made his family nervous and he was going to have the manager call the police and have him removed. He went to the front and came back with the manager. The manager said hello to Frank and me and turned to go back up front. The guy said, "Aren't you going to call the police." The manager said, " You call them." The man asked "Why should I call them? It's your store." the manager said, "Because you're talking to the police chief." The man said "Oh." He was beet red when he apologized to Frank. Damn Liberal Puke!
 
Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.
:1peleas:
A friend and I were shopping in a Walmart a couple years ago. He had a Glock 17 in an open carry holster. A man and wife with 2 small children came up to him and asked him why he was carrying a gun. Frank said, "Because I want to." The man then said the gun made his family nervous and he was going to have the manager call the police and have him removed. He went to the front and came back with the manager. The manager said hello to Frank and me and turned to go back up front. The guy said, "Aren't you going to call the police." The manager said, " You call them." The man asked "Why should I call them? It's your store." the manager said, "Because you're talking to the police chief." The man said "Oh." He was beet red when he apologized to Frank. Damn Liberal Puke!

They are so fkn retarded it's beyond what words can be used any more.
 
1. A judge signs off on the ERPO order to remove your gun(s), based on a petition signed by a family member or law enforcement that indicates the individual may be a threat to themselves or others.

2. It's temporary only for 14 days. If the order expires or the judge rules it isn't necessary then the person gets their guns back. But the person has to pass a background check first.

3. If the judge rules the ERPO order is valid then it's go for 1 year and has to be extended or denied at that time.

4. It ain't like they're talking guns away by the thousands, my understanding is this is the 1st case they've done sine the law's inception. Which I think was last June.

5. So, all in all maybe it ain't the panacea we'd hoped for but maybe also it saves a few lives here and there. I'm not seeing it as that much of an infringement.
 
1. A judge signs off on the ERPO order to remove your gun(s), based on a petition signed by a family member or law enforcement that indicates the individual may be a threat to themselves or others.

2. It's temporary only for 14 days. If the order expires or the judge rules it isn't necessary then the person gets their guns back. But the person has to pass a background check first.

3. If the judge rules the ERPO order is valid then it's go for 1 year and has to be extended or denied at that time.

4. It ain't like they're talking guns away by the thousands, my understanding is this is the 1st case they've done sine the law's inception. Which I think was last June.

5. So, all in all maybe it ain't the panacea we'd hoped for but maybe also it saves a few lives here and there. I'm not seeing it as that much of an infringement.

Save a few lives are you kidding? Guns are being taken from law abiding citizens, since when do criminals wait for a mental check or background check.
 

Forum List

Back
Top