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<<<<<

Advertise With MGO

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

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

  1. #1
    Front Page News Moderator/Editor Smokepole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Billyburg USA

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

    With credit to "10x25mm" for the find!

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

    Michigan House Democrats
    Tuesday, June 6, 2017

    LANSING — State Rep. Robert Wittenberg (D-Oak Park) introduced new legislation to allow judges to issue protective orders for individuals that law enforcement or family members assert pose a threat. His proposal would target those individuals who pose a clear and present risk of harm to themselves or others, but who are not otherwise restricted from purchasing or possessing guns. Wittenberg was joined at a press conference today by representatives from Moms Demand Action, the Michigan Coalition Against Gun Violence and Kim Miles representing the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office.

    “This legislation is about public safety. If someone has made threats of violence or suicide, it only makes sense to take those threats seriously,” Wittenberg said. “By following a court process to only temporarily limit access to guns for these individuals, we can better protect our families and communities. This legislation would give us another tool to try and prevent more senseless tragedies.”

    The Extreme Risk Protection Order would allow a family member, a federal law enforcement officer or a local law enforcement officer to ask the courts to issue a protection order against a person who poses a significant risk of personal injury to him or herself or others by possessing a firearm. The court would have to consider testimony, documents and other evidence in support of the request, including whether the person had previously inflicted or threatened to inflict personal injury or harm to others and any other facts the court deems relevant. Under the order, law enforcement could possess the individual’s firearm, and the individual would be prohibited from purchasing new firearms while the order is in effect.

    The order could be in effect for no longer than a year from the date it was issued.

    "Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the ability to act effectively, in spite of fear."---Donald J.Trump

    ALL of my postings represent my personal opinions, unless otherwise stated, and do NOT reflect the policies, or opinions of any organization, including that of "MGO", or its officers.

  2. #2
    MGO Member Roundballer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    I/C "Gateway to the Thumb" Lapeer County
    The links to the Bills:

    Quote Originally Posted by 10x25mm View Post
    Representative Wittenberg has introduced HB 4706 and HB 4707 to create the same 'Extreme Risk Protection Orders' in Michigan:

    Wittenberg has been touting ERPO legislation since the beginning of the year.

    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.

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    West of Bravo
    Some clown you hardly know can get a judge to issue an 'Extreme Risk Protection Order' against you which allows the police to seize your firearms, CPL, knives, baseball bats, etc. should this legislation proposed by Representative Wittenberg become law.

    You only find out that an ERPO has been issued when the police break down your door to effect the seizure. You have no opportunity to contest the initial grant of an ERPO in front of the judge. Imagine how ERPO's can be used against you in a nasty divorce proceeding, or in the case of a contested will. Police can also apply for ERPO's, so it becomes a useful tool for retaliation and/or a backdoor route to end 'shall issue' CPLs.

    Representative Wittenberg's bills to create 'Extreme Risk Protection Orders' in Michigan are HB 4706 and HB 4707. Both bills have received their first reading (of three) and have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

    Wittenberg is carrying Michael Bloomberg's water with this ERPO legislation, which is both an affront to the Second Amendment and the due process rights recognized by Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    ERPO's are now law in five other states, so this is a genuine threat to gun owners.
    Last edited by 10x25mm; 07-10-2017 at 05:09 PM.

  4. #4
    Legal Forum Contributor / Super Moderator SteveS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Ingham County
    The anti gun groups are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. Most people don't want "crazy" people to have guns, so they have no problem with legislation that targets them. The problem is that the actual legislation tends to be overly broad and and includes people that aren't reall dangerous.
    Opinions and comments made by me on this forum should not be considered legal advice.

  5. #5
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    sw michigan
    It's written broad enough so that the Courts get to fill in the blanks or put another way make it up as they go. I see too many abuses with a law like this.

  6. #6
    MGO Member DEVIL DOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    No way !!!!! This one needs to die a quick death. Won't do me any good to contact my REPS. Total lib, party line voting idiots.



  7. #7
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    May 2014
    More overreach. How about just controlling the criminals first then see what happens.

  8. #8
    Wow! I knew this thing was going to be bad going it, but as I am reading through it the first thing that comes to mind is the extreme broadness of who can file for this ERPO. The one that surprised me was anyone the defendant "has dated".....ever! Remember the girl you took to prom 30 years ago and never called again...Yup she can file for an ERPO against you if she remembered you exist and that you owned a gun.

  9. #9
    Oregon governor signs gun confiscation bill into law

    By Chris Eger

    Brown, a Democrat, signed the measure into law this week after it squeaked through the legislature. (Photo: Gov. Brown’s office)

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown on Wednesday approved Democrat-backed gun control legislation to establish Extreme Risk Protection Orders, forcing subjects to surrender their firearms.

    The law, SB 719A, allows police, or a member of a subject’s family or household, to file a petition with the court which could lead to an order prohibiting firearms possession if it is believed they pose an imminent risk to themselves or others. The bill passed the Senate 17-11 in May and the House 31-28 last month, picking up only one Republican supporter along the way.

    Brown, a Democrat, signed the bill without comment this week but in remarks to lawmakers during the legislative process she called Extreme Risk Protection Orders the “best way to ensure that a person who is at risk of harming themselves or others is identified, while still ensuring their rights are protected by a court review.”


    Second Amendment groups have blasted the ERPO process, arguing it provides no structure for those deemed at risk to receive help, or those dangerous to be taken into custody. Further, they point to due process concerns.

    “By allowing a law enforcement officer, family member, or household member to seek the ERPO, SB 719A would allow people who are not mental health professionals, who may be mistaken, and who may only have minimal contact with the respondent to file a petition with the court and testify on the respondent’s state of mind,” says a statement from the National Rifle Association’s legislative lobby arm.

    ... Full Story
    Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law - https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...-bill-into-law

    Kevin Starrett Uses Common Sense To Destroy Oregon Gun Confiscation Bill: https://youtu.be/aHC_QGa7vLY

    Oregon state Rep. Bill Post, R-Keizer, speaks against Senate Bill 719: https://youtu.be/KG5AxajhQ1U
    Oregon Sen. Dennis Linthicum: 'Suicide prevention' legislation threatens Oregonians' rights: https://youtu.be/FHhjYdEk6RQ
    Oregon state Rep. Ron Noble, Gun bill is wrong solution for Oregon's suicide epidemic: https://youtu.be/6rjocu2oScQ
    Oregon House Republican Leader Mike McLane, 'The Republic has the duty to preserve freedom': https://youtu.be/oAOcuY6FEKU
    Oregon House Republican Leader Mike McLane: 'Are we authorizing entering homes without warrants?': https://youtu.be/-k3K7S5I4MY
    Oregon state Rep. Bill Kennemer 'Judges not trained to evaluate mental health': https://youtu.be/lNpIhy9urYo
    Oregon state Rep. David Brock Smith. 'Taking away Oregonians' rights is not how to address mental illness': https://youtu.be/MgNPABQhsbw
    Oregon state Rep. Jeff Barker, 'No one doesn't want to stop suicide or domestic suicide': https://youtu.be/Q8w_PIUMSvU
    Oregon state Sen. Alan Olsen, speaks against SB 719: https://youtu.be/oUzjwy7NQY8

    This is potentially what we will be seeing here.
    "... government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one..." - Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

  10. #10
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Shiawassee County
    It would seem that an amendment could be filed against this bill, requiring Notification to the individual of the hearing at least two weeks BEFORE it happens, and the presence of a Lawyer of their own choosing to be present at the hearing. That would ensure that Due Process is not trampled completely.

    Then the ability to challenge the STANDING of people seeking the order, (or testifying against the person) should be present in the Bill, so that people who have had no personal contact (within the same room or by electronic communication) with the person the order is sought against, are prohibited from requesting (or testifying against) that person.

Page 1 of 3 123 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