Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

[Penelope]

Good I agree with law.

 

[task0778]

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.

I said maybe, when you got a gun-owning person who appears to be violent then it would seem prudent for society to remove those weapons and check the guy out before somebody get shot rather than afterwards. It's only temporary dude, and if we catch a criminal or two in the process then so much the better. You tell me, how many of our recent mass shooters have been law-abiding? Most of them, like that kid in Florida would pass a background check but maybe some would not and those people probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. And the ones where a judge rules there's no reason to keep their guns will get them back. I don't see the big deal here, 2 effing weeks?

 

[MindWars]

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.

I said maybe, when you got a gun-owning person who appears to be violent then it would seem prudent for society to remove those weapons and check the guy out before somebody get shot rather than afterwards. It's only temporary dude, and if we catch a criminal or two in the process then so much the better. You tell me, how many of our recent mass shooters have been law-abiding? Most of them, like that kid in Florida would pass a background check but maybe some would not and those people probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. And the ones where a judge rules there's no reason to keep their guns will get them back. I don't see the big deal here, 2 effing weeks?

Uhhh now I get yah. Thank you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

 

[task0778]

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.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

Existing law at the time did not allow for confiscation io his weapons, so I'm sure MindWars would have had a problem with that, as I would too. We cannot go around confiscating every gun in sight just because somebody calls the cops and says so-an-so is a bad dude. There gotta be some semblance of due process which IMHO Seattle has with this ERPO law. Certainly the FBI did screw up, and IMHO so did the local LEs by not going into that school immediately. Not sure if the FBI currently has the power to terminate somebody's 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[MindWars]

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.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

Lets see what you say when your neighbor says you are doing something weird and you are put into the county jail until they deem you as mentally fit to be in the public eye........... but wait you know your are normal.

 

[MindWars]

Why can't . most LEFTARDS realize the gun is NOT the problem PRESCRIBED MEDS are behind these shootings.

 

[MindWars]

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.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

Do you like to eat healthy?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They sent a SWAT team to confiscate a .25 caliber pistol? Gorsh!

It was probably a Raven,as likely to misfire as to go off.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They sent a SWAT team to confiscate a .25 caliber pistol? Gorsh!

They also sent a SWAT team with military back up to deal with these Radical Amish Extremists

Where those bastards selling raw milk again?
Those people are a menace to society!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.....

You are worried for yourself, MindWars, are you not?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They sent a SWAT team to confiscate a .25 caliber pistol? Gorsh!

No, that is a stock photo chosen to throw the gun nuts into a tizzy.

I know, but in Democrat regions such a reaction would not be unusual.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.

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!

Frank sounds like a real jackass!

 

[Hossfly]

Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.

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!

Frank sounds like a real jackass!

Why? He didn't make the guy look like an ass in front of his family. Besides, the guy didn't know open carry is legal in NC.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.

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!

Frank sounds like a real jackass!

Why? He didn't make the guy look like an ass in front of his family. Besides, the guy didn't know open carry is legal in NC.

Because he is in a position of leadership and could have handled it better.

 

[skews13]

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.....

Outstanding.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.

So, legitimately exercising a right that the Constitution explicitly affirms, and which the laws in his jurisdiction uphold, is evidence that he is mentally unstable, and needs to be denied that right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tony Montana, seemed to lend credence to the idea that the man’s constant open carrying was a large part of the problem.

So, legitimately exercising a right that the Constitution explicitly affirms, and which the laws in his jurisdiction uphold, is evidence that he is mentally unstable, and needs to be denied that right?

No, it was more his threatening behavior.

 

[whitehall]

The state of Washington didn't have time to enact new mental health laws regarding the possession of firearms after the Florida school shootings so apparently they decided that Seattle Police Officers could rewrite the 4th Amendment and bypass the pesky judges search warrants that might tax their limited use of the English language and call out the media for the cool SWAT assault.. There must be something in the water on the left coast.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

So the Fla law enforcement and the FBI didn't screw up with Cruz then? It seems that you would have a problem if they had confiscated his weapons.

Existing law at the time did not allow for confiscation io his weapons, so I'm sure MindWars would have had a problem with that, as I would too. We cannot go around confiscating every gun in sight just because somebody calls the cops and says so-an-so is a bad dude. There gotta be some semblance of due process which IMHO Seattle has with this ERPO law. Certainly the FBI did screw up, and IMHO so did the local LEs by not going into that school immediately. Not sure if the FBI currently has the power to terminate somebody's 2nd Amendment rights.

So what's with all the recriminations against the FBI and Broward from the right?