seattle

Extreme risk protection order:

Hmmm this is problematic on a LOT of levels, both constitutionally and not (if you ask me).

Here are the details:

What can an Extreme Risk Protection Order do?
An Extreme Risk Protection Order directs a person to surrender their firearms. It would be illegal to purchase or have control of firearms. It restrains the person from obtaining a concealed pistol license and orders them to surrender a license if they already have one.

Who is it filed against?
A person who poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having firearms. Factors that demonstrate such a risk can include violent behavior, threats of self-harm, dangerous mental health crisis, and abuse of drugs or alcohol. The person who is alleged to be dangerous is called the respondent.

Who can request the order?
A family or household member or a law enforcement officer or agency may ask the court to issue an order by filing a petition. The person requesting the order is referred to as the “petitioner.” The law defines a family or household member as:

– person related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the respondent;
– dating partner of the respondent;
– person who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether such person has been married to the respondent or has lived together with the respondent at any time;
– person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year;
– domestic partner of the respondent;
– person who has a biological or legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including stepparents and stepchildren and grandparents and grandchildren, or;
– a person who is acting or has acted as the respondent’s legal guardian.
– If you do not have the necessary relationship, or are not comfortable asking the court for an order, you can tell police about the situation and they can assist in the process.

(Source)

Holy… NOT ideal.  Looks like too much of a potential for grudge reports to be made.

This “Jon” guy in the video is hardly an ambassador of the 2nd Amendment, nor (seemingly) of sober living.  Is that a reason to disarm him though?  Did he do anything that put himself or anyone else at risk?  If he didn’t, I’m really not down with this “having the potential for crime” type garbage.

Thoughts?