Quote Originally Posted by foxtrot View Post
Fuck. Compromise.





Okay, so let me spell this out for any of you that have any doubts. A family member (even if not residing with you for years, say your in-laws, your ex-wife, estranged family) or household member (roommates, etc.) or a law enforcement officer (broadly defined) can file a document with the court - without your knowledge- alleging you are a threat. Anything in the document has to be presumed true by the court, because it is ex-parte. The petitioner risks "perjury" if they lie. It's presumed true as an ex-parte application, your firearms are immediately revoked without an investigation, your carry permit is immediately revoked, and we worry about due process later, in fact you have to FIGHT to obtain a hearing. The risk of perjury sounds like a safeguard right? But how many of you have any court experience?

I have NEVER EVER, FUCKING EVER, SEEN EVEN A CITATION FOR PERJURY even on the MOST FUCKING OUTLANDISH EX PARTE APPLICATION on this state. Attorneys and parties routinely forge documents outright in court, and there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. People make false affiants all the time, there are no ramifications even when caught red handed. I have dozens in my file that would blow. your. fucking. mind. This bill is the single biggest risk to your firearm rights within this state.

Bear in mind that this places your lifetime access to your firearm rights in the control of two people 1) Pretty much every vindictive person you've ever known in your life COUPLED with 2) A very biased judge appointed by one of the most liberal governors in the country. [becoming more and more true as we go forward].

This crap is an outright blank check to frivolously and without due process deprive people of the most important constitutional right; usually at a time when they need it the most. For every legitimate red flag, there will be a thousand that are abused. The magazine ban has NOTHING on this. The potential for future abuse is outstanding.

I am withholding my true thoughts on this bullshit movement. If any of you think "well there's some pros and cons to this" get the fuck off the site.
What does this mean? "The court must hold a temporary ERPO hearing in person or by telephone on the day the petition is filed or on the court day immediately following the day the petition is filed." Does this hearing have to include the respondent? What evidence support would a law enforcement officer have to present as a petitioner?