Seattle police confiscate first gun under new mental health law

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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.
 
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?

Answer my question.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"

Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

So when a gang of illegals are trying to rape your wife, or neighbors wife, how about that ten yr old girl they should just lay down and take it while not having a way to defend themselves.

Are you seriously that fkn stupid.

AND YOU THINK COPS DON'T SHOOT PPL FOR THE FK OF IT BECAUSE THEY ARE COVERED........ LMFAO
 
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?

Answer my question.

I don't jump to a LEFTARD who DEMANDS ........did you enjoy the wait

upload_2018-3-8_7-41-11.png
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"

Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?

I did answer the question. The goal is to protect others by removing the weapons from people who's mental stability is marginal.
The bulk of the population doesn't own a gun at all and has no issue with "defending themselves". Your fears are irrational.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

upload_2018-3-8_7-43-26.png
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

So when a gang of illegals are trying to rape your wife, or neighbors wife, how about that ten yr old girl they should just lay down and take it while not having a way to defend themselves.

Are you seriously that fkn stupid.

AND YOU THINK COPS DON'T SHOOT PPL FOR THE FK OF IT BECAUSE THEY ARE COVERED........ LMFAO
So when a gang of illegals are trying to rape your wife, or neighbors wife, how about that ten yr old girl they should just lay down and take it while not having a way to defend themselves.

Like I said in my previous post, irrational fears.

If you actually believe there are roving rape bands of illegals moving through the country, you are probably diagnosable and shouldn't be armed either.
 
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?

Answer my question.

I don't jump to a LEFTARD who DEMANDS ........did you enjoy the wait

View attachment 181206

I said nothing of arresting anyone, dope.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"

Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.

Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"

Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?

I did answer the question. The goal is to protect others by removing the weapons from people who's mental stability is marginal.
The bulk of the population doesn't own a gun at all and has no issue with "defending themselves". Your fears are irrational.

Again, this isn't a choice made by an individual, this is something imposed on someone without them being convicted or even indicted for a criminal act, nor have they been mentally adjudicated via a court.

It's amazing how fast prog twats like you go for government power without government responsibility.

Next step, Nacht und Nebel, of course for the safety of the community, and they can only disappear for a year.
 
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.

But wait, temporarily removing firearms is not the same as locking someone up. This case is a great example of where local law enforcement could and should have had the ability to flag such a person in the background system and prevented the purchase in the first place.

The same goes for notorious drug users, domestic abusers and anyone awaiting trial.

So are the cops now required to provide 24/7 protection to the person now that they are disarmed?

If they get robbed and hurt while disarmed is the County/City now liable?

If you feel you need a firearm to "protect yourself" 24/7, you're probably the kind of person that shouldn't have one at all.

Nice attempt to dodge the question.

The government took an action to remove a person's ability to defend themself, for "the public good"

Why is the government not therefore liable for the safety of said person while they are disarmed?
Fallacy of logic. The onus is on the citizen, who is a potential threat to society, not on government who must protect it.

Since you guys give equitable weight to all tools, the person can protect himself with a lawn mower.

Then arrest them for a crime. Or commit them for a mental defect.

It's amazing how pussy-ish you morons get when allowing government to fuck with people "just because" for up to a year.
 
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.
 
No, Marty, your concept of government that you call 'libertarianism' is not how we govern.

How is due process applied when the government can just sit on a ban for year, and renew it ad nauseum?

This is constitutionality.

Unless the government can prove the guy is a criminal or mentally unfit he should get his guns back.

Either that or charge him with something or commit him.

Why do idiots like you get on your knees and suck government dick anytime you get the chance?

And nice try going with not quoting and hoping i would miss it, fucktard.
 
No, Marty, your argumentation does not persuade the rational mind to do it your way.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top