WAGR's new initiative for 2016: Extreme Risk Protection orders

[Alpine]

alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote

3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.

tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!

Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?

then you state...isolated testimony...?

this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.

this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!

remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...

as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...

bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...

ipse

Ex parte is not due process. If you don't have a chance to respond BEFORE you lose life, liberty or property then you have no way to show the court that the evidence against you is false.

How would you like it if I told a court that you were a drug dealer so they, based solely on my uncorroborated testimony, seized your bank account and then two weeks later you had a hearing to prove you aren't a criminal?

This is "guilty until proven innocent." Show me the strict evidence thresholds that prevent these rulings from being based purely on one person's testimony, because I don't see it anywhere in the initiative.

 

[OC for ME]

alpine quote: Read this carefully: unquote

3. you verbally threaten or get physically rough to intimidate them back in line and then to finish the intimidation...you tell your partner you are going to get a gun!!!

i didn't state you already owned, about to purchase, borrow from ?? only that you are going to get one!! that in and of its self is grounds you are a threat to the instigator in a judicial proceeding to issue an emergency RO/PO.

tis not this amendment causing an individual problems but rather their mouth in a power and control situation over someone!!

Next, you make a broad, emotionally biased statement about 'according to this law'...blah blah blah...cite?

then you state...isolated testimony...?

this is done in front of a judicial proceeding there is due process ~ you do not like the level of judicial process...change that.

this is to protect those victim(s) of DV. if you are at this stage in your familial relationship(s) chances are you shouldn't have access to a firearm...period!!

remember, everyone, get convicted of DV (now you want to see a complete lack of judicial due process ~ whew!!) you have lost the the buying privilege from a federal perspective...

as stated, it appears they are quantifying the process to provide for due process for issuance of emergency RO/POs...

bottom line, if you are an DV perp you deserve to lose your firearm(s)...

ipse

The proposed initiative does not state that you are a perp it only demands that:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Ex parte extreme risk protection order—hearing—issuance—contents.

(1) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, without notice to the respondent, by including in the petition detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm.

(2) In considering whether to issue an ex parte extreme risk protection order under this section, the court shall consider all relevant evidence, including evidence described in subsection 4(3)(h)(m) of this act.

If the only "credible evidence" is the petitioner's allegation, which includes the respondent currently possessing a firearm, then the court has no alternative than to issue the ex parte order and let the court work it out later.

Anyway, to get further into the weeds, 4(3)(m) does not exempt this subsection consideration if the "recent acquisition of firearms" is not a first time firearm purchase.

Where individual liberty is concerned there can be no ambiguity and the law must be specific and if we can find these ambiguities and inconsistencies why not the numbskull writing the initiative.

Bad law this will be...worse than Terry v. Ohio.

 

[OC for ME]

Ex parte is not due process. If you don't have a chance to respond BEFORE you lose life, liberty or property then you have no way to show the court that the evidence against you is false.

How would you like it if I told a court that you were a drug dealer so they, based solely on my uncorroborated testimony, seized your bank account and then two weeks later you had a hearing to prove you aren't a criminal?

This is "guilty until proven innocent." Show me the strict evidence thresholds that prevent these rulings from being based purely on one person's testimony, because I don't see it anywhere in the initiative.

Really bad example...knowing that CIs are used all the time and are always credible and 100% correct...according to LE anyway.

Thank God for qualified immunity and not having any criminal penalties for not providing evidence of LE's culpability in railroading citizens.

 

[solus]

OC4ME, et al., i'm sorry this entire statute is the RO/PO directive to provide guidance. it is a DV generated statute which means the 'respondent' of the issue RO/PO is actively violent towards or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member otherwise know as a DV perpetrator!!

the emergency guidance was lacking from the original statute, it is being put in to provide due process. the provision states there is due process but due to the perp presenting an immediate threat, real or imaged, the RO/PO is judicially issued with discussion with the principles involved and the justification scheduled at the statute's mandatory 14 day hearing in front of the judge.

the same provisions apply for judicial consideration for issuance of a 'normal' RO/PO where after the statute's MANDATORY 14 day hearing and judgement is issued, the 'respondent' loses their right to have firearms!!

please folks, do not forget, the complainant must go before a judicial official to be granted this RO/PO and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

this statute has a mandatory hearing clause for both general and emergency RO/POs issuance

quit using emotional bs, alpine quote... you lose life, liberty or property unquote.

don't be a DV perp and you don't need to worry about 'false' accusations eh?

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

OC4ME, et al., i'm sorry this entire statute is the RO/PO directive to provide guidance. it is a DV generated statute which means the 'respondent' of the issue RO/PO is actively violent towards or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member otherwise know as a DV perpetrator!!

the emergency guidance was lacking from the original statute, it is being put in to provide due process. the provision states there is due process but due to the perp presenting an immediate threat, real or imaged, the RO/PO is judicially issued with discussion with the principles involved and the justification scheduled at the statute's mandatory 14 day hearing in front of the judge.

the same provisions apply for judicial consideration for issuance of a 'normal' RO/PO where after the statute's MANDATORY 14 day hearing and judgement is issued, the 'respondent' loses their right to have firearms!!

please folks, do not forget, the complainant must go before a judicial official to be granted this RO/PO and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

this statute has a mandatory hearing clause for both general and emergency RO/POs issuance

ipse

No arguments from me until the ex parte subsection. The items (protections?) you cite above are not required for ex parte orders. The language is clear and the issuance of the ex parte order is easy for a agreeable judge. I know of no judge these days who would not issue a ex parte order based only on the affirmation of the petitioner given the latitude (lack of specificity in proving the petitioner's case) in the law...just in case. Count me cynical until proven wrong, and I'm not cynical regarding the petitioner...the judge.

 

[Alpine]

OC4ME, et al., i'm sorry this entire statute is the RO/PO directive to provide guidance. it is a DV generated statute which means the 'respondent' of the issue RO/PO is actively violent towards or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member otherwise know as a DV perpetrator!!

the emergency guidance was lacking from the original statute, it is being put in to provide due process. the provision states there is due process but due to the perp presenting an immediate threat, real or imaged, the RO/PO is judicially issued with discussion with the principles involved and the justification scheduled at the statute's mandatory 14 day hearing in front of the judge.

the same provisions apply for judicial consideration for issuance of a 'normal' RO/PO where after the statute's MANDATORY 14 day hearing and judgement is issued, the 'respondent' loses their right to have firearms!!

please folks, do not forget, the complainant must go before a judicial official to be granted this RO/PO and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

this statute has a mandatory hearing clause for both general and emergency RO/POs issuance

quit using emotional bs, alpine quote... you lose life, liberty or property unquote.

don't be a DV perp and you don't need to worry about 'false' accusations eh?

ipse

or has threatened violence against a intimate familial member

According to who? The threatened person? In the age of cameras and microphones everywhere is this really an acceptable evidenciary threshold?

and NORMALLY the respondent has a history with the nice LEs who collaborate the complainant's claim.

Please show me the RCW where that history is required to corroborate this.

there is no liberty loss for anybody here...for example, if a singular, drug using, mentally ill confidential informant, who is declared competent by the court, stated to the court xyz member was going to kill such and such of importance , xyz member would hunted down, firearms confiscated, and placed in holding cell maybe until the courts got around to sort it out!

Please show proof of this.

Right now Solus you are light on facts and heavy on assumptions and unfounded assertions. You sound a lot like Don Pierce who kept defending 594 by saying "don't worry, I know the law sounds bad but trust us it will never be used in those ways!"

quit using emotional bs, alpine quote... you lose life, liberty or property unquote.

don't be a DV perp and you don't need to worry about 'false' accusations eh?

Solus, I propose police should search your house randomly on a weekly basis. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. And don't bring up the 4th Amendment either.


You may want to see what Black's Law Dictionary has to say about due process:

“Due process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law.”
—Black’s Law Dictionary

Also, try reading this article and broadening your viewpoint:
http://restrainingorderabuse.com/20...-orders-do-its-what-they-were-designed-to-do/

 

[OC for ME]

Forget due process, evidence, rights — domestic-violence accusers are almost always believed. A startling report last week by the AP’s Jon Krawczynski sheds needed light on the harrowing story of Dante Cunningham, a victim of a false domestic-violence accusation and a baseless restraining order.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...c-violence-charge-ruined-nba-career-j-delgado

http://www.avoiceformen.com/help-for-the-falsely-accused/

http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/

I submit that a judge will do just as the judge in the NR article did, citing the ex parte portion of the law if this initiative is enacted. It matters not to a judge whether the petitioner is truthful or not, we just cannot take any chances and besides the wronged citizen can always seek a remedy in a civil court later...no? remember, its for the children/woman.

The default is not being a felon in possession of a firearm on the mere visible possession of a firearm, the default is not being a wife-beater just cuz your wife says you are.

 

[solus]

now i see where the misinformation if originating from...i'm afraid you need to pick better reference material, especially since paragraph six is flatly wrong...
quote: Since restraining orders (by legislative mandate) are issued ex parte, which means that the only parties judges hear from prior to entering rulings are restraining order applicants, every restraining order recipient is denied due process. Every one of them. Always. uinquote.

sorry, this statute you are discussing states there is a mandatory 14 hearing before a judicial official ~ for both the 'normal' and emergency consideration of RO/POs.

HUMMMM seems your cite is mis-representing the facts doesn't it, especially when it says every, reiterates the every, and emphases with ALWAYS ~ yet you have a statute in front of you which states...there is a mandatory hearing to consider the respondents side of the story. kinda like the rhetoric from a movie...



alpine, i am sorry you have apparently not been involved with the DV activities up close and personal so you could see the near and long range devastation these activities take on family, immediate family, friends, and worst of all the damage done to the children who learn this activity is the normal way to interact with their family and ultimately carry on the 'family' DV tradition. the power and control within a DV familial unit would provide so much intimidation to preclude the use of a fone camera against the perp.

as for providing cites for loss of life, liberty, or property...sorry only reiterating your emotionalized statement made w/o a cite!!

alpine quote: Solus, I propose police should search your house randomly on a weekly basis. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. And don't bring up the 4th Amendment either. unquote.

if there is a court order alpine, i would have no choice would i?

be on probation...do weekly drug testing...lol ~ i'm sorry there was due process for this, oh wait 'terms of probation' period.

ok, against my better judgement:

• Every 9 seconds in the US, a woman is assaulted or beaten.
• On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men.
• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
• 1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.
• On a typical day, there are more than 20,000 phone calls placed to domestic violence hotlines nationwide.
• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
• Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.
• Women between the ages of 18-24 are most commonly abused by an intimate partner.
• 19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.
• Domestic victimization is correlated with a higher rate of depression and suicidal behavior.
• Only 34% of people who are injured by intimate partners receive medical care for their injuries.
• 72% of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner; 94% of the victims of these murder suicides are female

as mentioned, holde that thought when it is an immediate family member who is in an active DV relationship and needs protecting from the intimate partner.

ipse

 

[Alpine]

now i see where the misinformation if originating from...i'm afraid you need to pick better reference material, especially since paragraph six is flatly wrong...
quote: Since restraining orders (by legislative mandate) are issued ex parte, which means that the only parties judges hear from prior to entering rulings are restraining order applicants, every restraining order recipient is denied due process. Every one of them. Always. uinquote.

sorry, this statute you are discussing states there is a mandatory 14 hearing before a judicial official ~ for both the 'normal' and emergency consideration of RO/POs.

HUMMMM seems your cite is mis-representing the facts doesn't it, especially when it says every, reiterates the every, and emphases with ALWAYS ~ yet you have a statute in front of you which states...there is a mandatory hearing to consider the respondents side of the story. kinda like the rhetoric from a movie...



alpine, i am sorry you have apparently not been involved with the DV activities up close and personal so you could see the near and long range devastation these activities take on family, immediate family, friends, and worst of all the damage done to the children who learn this activity is the normal way to interact with their family and ultimately carry on the 'family' DV tradition. the power and control within a DV familial unit would provide so much intimidation to preclude the use of a fone camera against the perp.

as for providing cites for loss of life, liberty, or property...sorry only reiterating your emotionalized statement made w/o a cite!!

alpine quote: Solus, I propose police should search your house randomly on a weekly basis. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. And don't bring up the 4th Amendment either. unquote.

if there is a court order alpine, i would have no choice would i?

be on probation...do weekly drug testing...lol ~ i'm sorry there was due process for this, oh wait 'terms of probation' period.

ok, against my better judgement:

• Every 9 seconds in the US, a woman is assaulted or beaten.
• On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men.
• 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form of] physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime.
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 7 men have been victims of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
• 1 in 7 women and 1 in 18 men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime to the point in which they felt very fearful or believed that they or someone close to them would be harmed or killed.
• On a typical day, there are more than 20,000 phone calls placed to domestic violence hotlines nationwide.
• The presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 500%.
• Intimate partner violence accounts for 15% of all violent crime.
• Women between the ages of 18-24 are most commonly abused by an intimate partner.
• 19% of domestic violence involves a weapon.
• Domestic victimization is correlated with a higher rate of depression and suicidal behavior.
• Only 34% of people who are injured by intimate partners receive medical care for their injuries.
• 72% of all murder-suicides involve an intimate partner; 94% of the victims of these murder suicides are female

as mentioned, holde that thought when it is an immediate family member who is in an active DV relationship and needs protecting from the intimate partner.

ipse

The link was discussing EX PARTE orders.

In any case, you must admit that you can lose your due process rights to property PRIOR to the 14 day hearing, which is what violates the 14th Amendment.

I could care less about your DV stats. If you want to make the case to repeal the 14th Amendment then please do so, otherwise stop advocating laws that violate it. We'd all be safer if we were chained to our beds 24/7 but so what? A free society means inherent risk.

 

[solus]

The link was discussing EX PARTE orders.

In any case, you must admit that you can lose your due process rights to property PRIOR to the 14 day hearing, which is what violates the 14th Amendment.

I could care less about your DV stats. If you want to make the case to repeal the 14th Amendment then please do so, otherwise stop advocating laws that violate it. We'd all be safer if we were chained to our beds 24/7 but so what? A free society means inherent risk.

i verified i quoted your cite properly...every, every one, always: quote Since restraining orders (by legislative mandate) are issued ex parte, ....unquote

WA states are not. period.

the fact you wish to engage w/Benjamin Disraeli sentiments and discount the DV stats is of course within your purview.

the 14th did not provide any entitlements to white citizens of our country, but rather provided those recently 'freed slaves' who were considered in Dred Scott, where the Court referred to recently freed black slaves as: "the unfortunate race"; "the subject race" [as in "subjugated"]; "inferior class of beings"; "the unhappy race"; "the unhappy black race" and other minorities citizenship. so while you might believe differently, the 14th amendment was not drafted to provide any entitlements to white citizens of this country but rather, as mentioned, to provide a avenue to provide citizenship to the this class of people. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

you want to raise the specter of due process...how bout using the proper cite: constitution's main body and the 5th cuz the 14th isn't the proper reference.

ipse

 

[solus]

now, if you are worried about misrepresentation by the claimant...PUSH for credible accountability into the statute to preclude what occurred this morning in NYC

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...-accused-brooklyn-gang-rape-article-1.2543019

NYC DA isn't going to pursue criminal action against the female who ruined 4 young adults lives.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

Criminal liability for prosecutors not bringing charges when perjury is evident in the court record.

Criminal liability for judges not bringing charged for perjury evident in the court record.

The new victim needs only be a witness and then seek a civil remedy.

NC may be different but MO has some very severe criminal penalties for folks who perjure themselves to get state minions to do something that harms another citizen.

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500000401.html?&me=false

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500000801.html?&me=false

 

[solus]

Criminal liability for prosecutors not bringing charges when perjury is evident in the court record.

Criminal liability for judges not bringing charged for perjury evident in the court record.

The new victim needs only be a witness and then seek a civil remedy.

NC may be different but MO has some very severe criminal penalties for folks who perjure themselves to get state minions to do something that harms another citizen.

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500000401.html?&me=false

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57500000801.html?&me=false

now that would be beneficial to add to this statute's amendment. i shall draft a letter upon return from town using the MO references for verbiage. thanks OC4ME

ipse

 

[Alpine]

i verified i quoted your cite properly...every, every one, always: quote Since restraining orders (by legislative mandate) are issued ex parte, ....unquote

WA states are not. period.

the fact you wish to engage w/Benjamin Disraeli sentiments and discount the DV stats is of course within your purview.

the 14th did not provide any entitlements to white citizens of our country, but rather provided those recently 'freed slaves' who were considered in Dred Scott, where the Court referred to recently freed black slaves as: "the unfortunate race"; "the subject race" [as in "subjugated"]; "inferior class of beings"; "the unhappy race"; "the unhappy black race" and other minorities citizenship. so while you might believe differently, the 14th amendment was not drafted to provide any entitlements to white citizens of this country but rather, as mentioned, to provide a avenue to provide citizenship to the this class of people. http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

you want to raise the specter of due process...how bout using the proper cite: constitution's main body and the 5th cuz the 14th isn't the proper reference.

ipse

The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights where applicable to the states and also added due process protection for all citizens. The courts have fairly often upheld that.

14 days, 1 day or even an hour is too long to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. This law could actually be used BY a domestic abuser to disarm their victim so the abuser could kill them!

If someone is so dangerous, let the accuser hang out near the courthouse until the hearing when everyone involved can review all the facts and accusations.

 

[solus]

The 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights where applicable to the states and also added due process protection for all citizens. The courts have fairly often upheld that.

14 days, 1 day or even an hour is too long to be presumed guilty until proven innocent. This law could actually be used BY a domestic abuser to disarm their victim so the abuser could kill them!

If someone is so dangerous, let the accuser hang out near the courthouse until the hearing when everyone involved can review all the facts and accusations.

sorry, do your home work...as stated, the 14th did not provide any entitlements to white citizens of our country...

btw, you are aware, there are two types of RO/POs in the state?

quote:
One of the most confusing things about the legal system is the difference between civil cases and criminal cases. In domestic violence situations, there may be both civil and criminal cases occurring at the same time as a result of the same violent act.

In a civil domestic violence action, you (victim added for clarity) are asking the court to protect you from the person abusing you. (and based on a preponderance of evidence presented to a judge added by this member)

In a criminal case, the prosecutor (also called the district attorney) is the one who has control over whether the case against the abuser continues or not. It is the county/state who has brought the case against the abuser, not the victim. It is possible that if you do not want the case to continue (if you do not want to “press charges”), the prosecutor might decide to drop the criminal charges but this is not necessarily true. The prosecutor can also continue to prosecute the abuser against your wishes and could even issue a subpoena (a court order) to force you to testify at the trial. unquote http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=602&state_code=WA#content-4376

disappointed with your lack of understanding and mentality that the safety of someone threatened with possible immediate bodily harm, real or imagined, from a DV perpetrator intimate partner & based on a preponderance of evidence presented to a judge, can't sustain a 14 day window until a MANDATORY judicial hearing to validate their side of the story.

ipse

 

[Alpine]

sorry, do your home work...as stated, the 14th did not provide any entitlements to white citizens of our country...

btw, you are aware, there are two types of RO/POs in the state?

quote:
One of the most confusing things about the legal system is the difference between civil cases and criminal cases. In domestic violence situations, there may be both civil and criminal cases occurring at the same time as a result of the same violent act.

In a civil domestic violence action, you (victim added for clarity) are asking the court to protect you from the person abusing you. (and based on a preponderance of evidence presented to a judge added by this member)

In a criminal case, the prosecutor (also called the district attorney) is the one who has control over whether the case against the abuser continues or not. It is the county/state who has brought the case against the abuser, not the victim. It is possible that if you do not want the case to continue (if you do not want to “press charges”), the prosecutor might decide to drop the criminal charges but this is not necessarily true. The prosecutor can also continue to prosecute the abuser against your wishes and could even issue a subpoena (a court order) to force you to testify at the trial. unquote http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=602&state_code=WA#content-4376

disappointed with your lack of understanding and mentality that the safety of someone threatened with possible immediate bodily harm, real or imagined, from a DV perpetrator intimate partner & based on a preponderance of evidence presented to a judge, can't sustain a 14 day window until a MANDATORY judicial hearing to validate their side of the story.

ipse

disappointed with your lack of understanding and mentality that the safety of someone threatened with possible immediate bodily harm, real or imagined, from a DV perpetrator intimate partner & based on a preponderance of evidence presented to a judge, can't sustain a 14 day window until a MANDATORY judicial hearing to validate their side of the story.

I am disappointed in your inability to consistently form coherent sentences in English! I am also disappointed in your belief that our rights vanish when political elites determine we'd be "safer" without them.

sorry, do your home work...as stated, the 14th did not provide any entitlements to white citizens of our country...

I am not sure what you mean by "entitlements to white citizens." This phrase is truly bizarre. The 14th Amendment granted equal legal rights to all citizens regardless of race.

Some landmark 14th Amendment cases that involved WHITE litigants include:
-Gideon v Wainwright
-Griswold v Connecticut
-Loving v Virginia (involved a white man and black woman vs VA)
-Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (ironically, this case is about a white man suing for racial discrimination and he won based on the 14th Amendment, which totally shatters your false argument)

So now that we have dispatched with your absurd notion that the 14th Amendment provides no rights (entitlements) to whites, we can clearly see that one of the several purposes of the 14th Amendment is to ensure no state or lower government body infringes on the rights of citizens. One of those rights that actually happens to be spelled out in the 14th Amendment is the right to due process when you are deprived of life liberty or property. Ex parte protection orders to seize someone's guns that don't even give them a chance to respond before their property is seized violates that. 4th Amendment search warrants are not equivalent as those warrants are issued to police in order to search for evidence that a crime has been committed, not to seize property because they suspect someone might commit a crime in the future based on one-sided testimony.

The California version of this law is already in place as of January 1st this year, we will likely see a federal court case if and when it is used and the 9th circuit will likely strike it down, hopefully before it even comes up for a vote here in Washington. Interestingly enough, the 9th Circuit has made quite a few 14th Amendment due process rulings in the last few years that deal with the state of California taking actions before giving people their day in court...
Recently there was Vasquez v. Rackauckas, Dent vs Holder, among others.

 

[solus]

quote:
The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.


Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase "people of the United States", and its pre-Civil War synonym, "Citizen of the United States" (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.


In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).

That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.


Because the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court.

A constitutional amendment may change a mechanism or methodology of a constitution, but it can never change the meaning the framers had in mind when they wrote the document. Those who wish to dishonestly apply the 14th Amendment to people concerning whom it was never intended, will try to persuade you that even though the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed and permanent meaning for all time, the 14th Amendment somehow changed what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that phrase. That proposition is obviously absurd and can only be promoted by people who are either ill-informed or dishonest.

unquote

hummm, seems your perspective is at odds with the framer's intent...and whom the framer's meant when the Constitution was written and voted on, by the white populace of the 13 states.

contemplate and do your own research on Al's invention.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

A falsely issued ex parte order by definition respected your due process right, you just did not know it. The respondent should not seek the return of his property. The guns are now forever tainted.

The only recourse is to seek a civil remedy from the petitioner. Sucks if there are kids in the mix.

 

[Alpine]

To channel the demon Psaki and "circle back" the Seattle Slimes did a follow up puff piece to try and justify the "good" this law has supposedly done while violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the Federal constitution (not to mention myriad parts of the state constitution). In actuality they make a case for how horrible it is.

To start off with, they interview Seattle Police who openly admit to teaching people how to lie to get an ERPO and get away with it so the penalty for lying won't apply. Yes. Read this:

Washington voters led much of the nation in saying guns must sometimes be seized to prevent violence. How’s the law working?

Washington was the fourth state to enact an extreme risk protection law, creating a legal mechanism to remove guns from people threatening harm to themselves or others for one year. Since 2017, more than 500 petitions have been filed statewide.

www.seattletimes.com

For family members, seeking an ERPO can be a delicate situation, said Pisconski, the acting lieutenant of SPD’s Crisis Response Unit. He said the best way for someone with behavioral health issues to stabilize is by connecting with their support network. Police, he said, are happy to step in and petition for an ERPO so as not to jeopardize those relationships.

“We’ll be the heavies, we’ll be the bad guys in court, and we’ll let your support network, your family and friends, help you get better,” Pisconski said. “We’ve gotten that feedback from families, who say, ‘We think this is really important but I don’t want my name on the (court) paperwork.'”

here is the text from the initiative:

https://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/OPRGeneral/Documents/2016/Initiative1491Summary.pdf

Criminal Penalties. A person who files a petition for an extreme risk protection order knowing
the information in the petition is materially false or with the intent to harass the respondent is
guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

So the only, tiny, inadequate check against filing false reports is gone. After all, when someone who doesn't want to get the gross misdemeanor wants to file a false ERPO, they'll just make up a convincing story and tell SPD, who will take them at their word and then SPD goes and files the ERPO request. Undoubtedly SPD will testify under oath that they did not KNOWINGLY file false information, and that they believed the requester. And since the requester who did it to harass and/or based on false info doesn't have their name on the paperwork and/or didn't testify, there's no penalty EVEN if you can prove they lied or intended to harass, which was already an absurdly high standard.


And this isn't just theoretical. We know from the state that the overwhelming majority of ERPOs in WA have been incorrectly filed. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET RENEWED AFTER THE EVENTUAL COURT HEARING. Ooops!
Look at this, they casually bury this halfway down the article:

While the law allows for ERPOs to be renewed, in practice, most of the orders are allowed to expire.

If people were an actual threat the judges would not allow these orders to expire, people wouldn't just "get better" in 14 days (or even a year) or stop being a threat, not in WA state which is packed with tons of liberal anti-gun judges and prosecutors and with cops willing to file ERPOs based on hearsay so lying former roommates who disagree with you politically and who moved out 11 months ago can safely lie and not worry about getting the misdemeanor charge.

I wonder what the defenders of this outrage will say now. I won't hold my breath for them to eat crow.

 

[solus]

To channel the demon Psaki and "circle back" the Seattle Slimes did a follow up puff piece to try and justify the "good" this law has supposedly done while violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the Federal constitution (not to mention myriad parts of the state constitution). In actuality they make a case for how horrible it is.

To start off with, they interview Seattle Police who openly admit to teaching people how to lie to get an ERPO and get away with it so the penalty for lying won't apply. Yes. Read this:

Washington voters led much of the nation in saying guns must sometimes be seized to prevent violence. How’s the law working?

Washington was the fourth state to enact an extreme risk protection law, creating a legal mechanism to remove guns from people threatening harm to themselves or others for one year. Since 2017, more than 500 petitions have been filed statewide.

www.seattletimes.com

here is the text from the initiative:

https://leg.wa.gov/House/Committees/OPRGeneral/Documents/2016/Initiative1491Summary.pdf

So the only, tiny, inadequate check against filing false reports is gone. After all, when someone who doesn't want to get the gross misdemeanor wants to file a false ERPO, they'll just make up a convincing story and tell SPD, who will take them at their word and then SPD goes and files the ERPO request. Undoubtedly SPD will testify under oath that they did not KNOWINGLY file false information, and that they believed the requester. And since the requester who did it to harass and/or based on false info doesn't have their name on the paperwork and/or didn't testify, there's no penalty EVEN if you can prove they lied or intended to harass, which was already an absurdly high standard.


And this isn't just theoretical. We know from the state that the overwhelming majority of ERPOs in WA have been incorrectly filed. Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T GET RENEWED AFTER THE EVENTUAL COURT HEARING. Ooops!
Look at this, they casually bury this halfway down the article:

If people were an actual threat the judges would not allow these orders to expire, people wouldn't just "get better" in 14 days (or even a year) or stop being a threat, not in WA state which is packed with tons of liberal anti-gun judges and prosecutors and with cops willing to file ERPOs based on hearsay so lying former roommates who disagree with you politically and who moved out 11 months ago can safely lie and not worry about getting the misdemeanor charge.

I wonder what the defenders of this outrage will say now. I won't hold my breath for them to eat crow.

1. 'To start off with, they interview Seattle Police who openly admit to teaching people how to lie to get an ERPO and get away with it so the penalty for lying won't apply."

Sorry Alpine you are adding shock & awe rhetoric which is not stated in your cited newspeek media article not even a mildly a leap of faith to touch on that premise in the article!

2. 'We know from the state that the overwhelming majority of ERPOs in WA have been incorrectly filed"

The royal "We" know from the state -no cite provided - OVERWHELMING MAJORITY have been INCORRECTLY misfiled...
where on earth did you come up with that fantastic conclusion since it wasn't stated in your cited newspeek media article ?

3. '...here is the text from the initiative:"

who cares what the WA citizen's voted for six [6] years ago in the 1491 initiative push...
Here is the cite to the documented RCW 7.94 Extreme Risk statutes: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94
now feel discuss esisting statutory mandates, not 6yo history!

4. Not renewed...
7.94.080 2) The court must notify the petitioner of the impending expiration of an extreme risk protection order. Notice must be received by the petitioner one hundred five calendar days before the date the order expires.
(3) A family or household member of a respondent or a law enforcement officer or agency may by motion request a renewal of an extreme risk protection order at any time within one hundred five calendar days before the expiration of the order.

Chapter 7.94.080 RCW Dispositions: EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

app.leg.wa.gov

course not those folk's firearm(s) are gone, and for all intents and purposes gone forever being destroyed, given to LEs, er sorry sold at action, etc. what's to renew?

7.94.100( 3) Any firearm surrendered by a respondent pursuant to RCW 7.94.090 that remains unclaimed by the lawful owner shall be disposed of in accordance with the law enforcement agency's policies and procedures for the disposal of firearms in police custody. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.100


further, $$$$ for petitions to return the ER confiscated firearms is normally non-existent and finally the DV Perp is out of the family environment so there is absolutely no reason to renew ERs.

sorry Alpine but me thinks you missed the main thrust of your post newspeek media article...confiscation "prevents suicide" in a significant shift from the initiative's DV violence prevention mandates to the new and "approved" anti firearm rhetoric of preventing suicide!

A complete emotional shift to justify the continued ER mandate as the WA legislation can - but won't - push changes to the statutory text since the mandatory time limits on the 1491 initiative can now be changed by the elected overseers!.

that alpine was the real rationale for the newspeek media article and the timeframe just happens to meet Bidens warp'd thought processes on gun control as being the only way to stop gun violence- and the measures have worked so well in the forgotten and nar reported by newspeek media for the Windy City haven't they!

now a update tell us again how your past and recent efforts have stopped/repealed the WA initiative process from being effective and stopping big brother's self serving measures?