Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG….Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

NRA

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Rep. Wittenberg Introduces Extreme Risk Protection Order to Reduce Gun Violence, Protect Michigan Families

  1. #11
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    4,745
    Representative Wittenberg is attempting to revive HB 4706 and HB 4707, claiming that Extreme Risk Protection Orders could have stopped the Parkland, FL high school shooter. He is attempting to pressure Republicans in the Michigan House to move his ERPO bills::

    https://michiganradio.org/post/flori...ngerous-owners

    Florida shooting could revive bills to take guns from potentially dangerous owners
    By Tyler Scott • Feb 20, 2018


    State lawmakers might soon consider bills that would let courts temporarily take guns away from gun owners they considered to be dangerous to other people or themselves.

    The bills were introduced to the legislature last summer by Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Huntington Woods. Wittenberg’s bills (HBs 4706 and 4707) have languished in a legislative committee ever since. But after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, where 17 people were killed, Wittenberg is urging his colleagues to consider a legislative effort that he says would help prevent future tragedies if it becomes law.

    “If we had this in place in Florida, law enforcement would be able to take that person's weapon away,” Wittenberg said Tuesday on Michigan Radio’s Stateside program. “And we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now because we wouldn’t have lost 17 lives.”

    Wittenberg’s bills call for allowing family members or law enforcement to ask a judge to temporarily take away any guns owned by a person who poses a threat to other people, or themselves. The bills call such a request an “Extreme Risk Protection Order.” According to a press release from the introduction of the bills to the legislature last June, the courts could only take someone’s guns away for up to a year under such an order.

    Wittenberg says there would be penalties for anyone who filed frivolous requests. The process for an Extreme Risk Protection Order would be a court hearing, where evidence and testimony would be heard for the courts to consider what threat a gun owner owner posed.

    “We don’t take this lightly, but we know this is a way to prevent these tragedies from happening,” Wittenberg said.

    Rep. Jim Runestad, R-White Lake, chairs the House Judiciary Committee, where the bills would be considered. Wittenberg says he talked to Runestad Monday, and he’s “cautiously optimistic” the bills could get a hearing. Runestad’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

    “I had a conversation with Rep. Runestad yesterday, and he said he’s willing to read it and take a look,” Wittenberg said.

    Five states reportedly have similar laws, sometimes called “red flag” laws: California, Connecticut, Washington and Indiana. Some nationally prominent Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are now expressing support for similar legislation at the state government level in states.....
    Wittenberg ignores the Rancho Tehama Elementary School shooting case where the shooter had actually been subject to a firearms removal order:

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/ca...ngs/index.html

    California shooting gunman was 'paranoid,' DA says
    By Faith Karimi and Dakin Andone, CNN - Updated 3:36 PM ET, Thu November 16, 2017


    <skip to....>

    Shooter was ordered to surrender firearms
    As part of the protective order, Neal was ordered to surrender his firearms to authorities and was not allowed to purchase additional weapons, though Assistant Sheriff Phil Johnston said at a press conference Wednesday he didn't know whether Neal had surrendered the weapons.

    But authorities have said that Neal illegally manufactured the guns that he used during the Tuesday morning shooting. According to Johnston, handguns recovered by police were not registered to Neal.

    Johnston said Neal "was not law enforcement friendly." Authorities had responded to his house several times when neighbors complained of shots being fired from the property.

    Neal's sister, Sheridan Orr, told CNN's Sara Sidner that her brother had struggled with mental health issues for years. Her mother saw a noticeable decline in his mental health about a year ago, Orr said, and the family had tried to get him help.....
    While this shooter made his own rifle receivers, he also possessed handguns at the time of his rampage - after the ERPO - which were not home made.

    Wittenberg is flat out wrong about his ERPO bills possibly stopping the Florida shooter. The Broward County School District went to great lengths under their RJA to keep the shooter out of the criminal justice system and the family who sheltered him claimed to have not noticed his homicidal ideation.
    Last edited by 10x25mm; 02-22-2018 at 06:25 PM.

  2. #12
    I saw a CNN story saying that the Broward County sheriff's office had received 39 complaints about him over the last 3 years. Some of which were that's of violence against individuals. If that is true, Whittenburgs law might have worked. I still don't support EPPO's because I think they will be abused by the police.
    If they really want to stop school shootings: first harden up the schools. Metal detectors and or armed security/teachers. Second, and more long term, address the problem of children being raised in single parent homes with little or no discipline. I can't believe the crap these little barbarians get away with in public in front of their parents. I wouldn't have been able to sit for a week if I pulled some of the stunts kids try today.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  3. #13
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    527
    Can we get one against the left? They are an extreme risk to me.

  4. #14
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Divegeek View Post
    I saw a CNN story saying that the Broward County sheriff's office had received 39 complaints about him over the last 3 years. Some of which were that's of violence against individuals. If that is true, Whittenburgs law might have worked. I still don't support EPPO's because I think they will be abused by the police.
    If they really want to stop school shootings: first harden up the schools. Metal detectors and or armed security/teachers. Second, and more long term, address the problem of children being raised in single parent homes with little or no discipline. I can't believe the crap these little barbarians get away with in public in front of their parents. I wouldn't have been able to sit for a week if I pulled some of the stunts kids try today.
    This CNN post?

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/sc...nvs/index.html

    The most serious problem with ERPO's is not getting the order, but rather enforcing them. A determined killer will secrete his weapons, as in the Rancho Tehama Elementary School incident. They can always rent a storage locker with cash. Even aggressive law enforcement which ignores the Fourth Amendment will come up empty handed in these situations.

  5. #15
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    Posts
    18,540
    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post
    The most serious problem with ERPO's is not getting the order, but rather enforcing them. A determined killer will secrete his weapons, as in the Rancho Tehama Elementary School incident. They can always rent a storage locker with cash. Even aggressive law enforcement which ignores the Fourth Amendment will come up empty handed in these situations.
    NO!

    The most serious problem with ERPO's is that they are a violation of due process!

    A "complaint" can be made without even notifying the one being charged. A judge or magistrate can strip the rights from someone without them knowing or being allowed to present a defense. And THEN law enforcement can go seize property that is protected by the bill of rights, leaving the REAL victim of this to file suit and have to prove the negative, that he is NOT what they say. Logically, you can not prove a negative. That is why you are innocent until proven guilty!

    If it can be unquestionably guaranteed that this would not be abused, it still violates civil rights.


    Life Member, NRA, Lapeer County Sportsmen's Club Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. Opinions expressed are not representative of any organization to which I may belong, and are solely mine. Any natural person or legal entity reading this post accepts all responsibility for any actions undertaken by that person or entity, based upon what they perceived was contained in this post, and shall hold harmless this poster, his antecedents, and descendants, in perpetuity.

  6. #16
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    2,331
    You'd think the ACLU would be all over this, but since it involves gun rights...crickets.

  7. #17
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of Bravo
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by Roundballer View Post
    NO!

    The most serious problem with ERPO's is that they are a violation of due process!

    A "complaint" can be made without even notifying the one being charged. A judge or magistrate can strip the rights from someone without them knowing or being allowed to present a defense. And THEN law enforcement can go seize property that is protected by the bill of rights, leaving the REAL victim of this to file suit and have to prove the negative, that he is NOT what they say. Logically, you can not prove a negative. That is why you are innocent until proven guilty!

    If it can be unquestionably guaranteed that this would not be abused, it still violates civil rights.
    You will get no argument from me on the Constitutional issue, but we seem to have entered a post Constitutional twilight zone. Think we have to also challenge the effectiveness of these unconstitutional proposals as well if we are going to defeat them.

  8. #18
    Who gets to decide when you are dangerously crazy and when you are not?

  9. #19
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Sault Ste. Marie
    Posts
    4,067
    Quote Originally Posted by madmathew View Post
    Who gets to decide when you are dangerously crazy and when you are not?
    The government.

  10. #20
    MGO Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Shooting distance from "8 mile"
    Posts
    8,918
    Quote Originally Posted by cmr19xx View Post
    You'd think the ACLU would be all over this, but since it involves gun rights...crickets.
    it's new. give it time. they might get involved.
    they did over obama's thing for putting people on the prohibited persons list. they backed trump on that one.
    "Sec. 2. All persons who are commonly known as “Greasers” or the issue of Spanish and Indian blood, ... who go armed and are not known to be peaceable and quiet persons, and who can give no good account of themselves, may be disarmed by any lawful officer, and punished..." - Disarming of "Greasers", An Act to punish Vagrants, Vagabonds, and Dangerous and Suspicious Persons” California, passed April 30, 1855.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter