Ad Here

Massachusetts To Allow ‘Red Flag’ Gun Seizure

Republican Gov. Charlie Baker will now have to decide on signing a proposal allowing for temporary gun seizures from those thought to be a threat to themselves or others.

The emergency bill, H.4670, passed a final roll call in the state legislature last week with only one lawmaker, Fitchburg Republican Sen. Dean Tran, voting against the measure in the Senate, joined by 15 other GOP members in the House. Broad in scope, it would allow current and former romantic partners, family, roommates, and police to seek an extreme risk protection order, suspending someone’s gun rights and firearm license for up to a year.

“This is not anything that changes Second Amendment rights,” said Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem, D-Newton. “This is about licensing, when a license needs to be suspended because that person is a risk.”

The so-called “red flag law” establishes a mechanism to allow family members or law enforcement to ask the courts to remove access to guns, ammunition, firearm ID cards, or licenses to carry a firearm from an individual thought to be at risk. The order, once issued, would be transmitted to federal agencies to bar future gun sales or transfers through licensed dealers. The ERPO would last for up to one year with the option open to discontinue to renew.

The bill has been repeatedly slammed by Second Amendment groups as it allows for ex parte proceedings where the accused does not have to be present to lose their gun rights and that law enforcement is not required to return seized firearms after the order expires. Further, the Gun Owners’ Action League argue that the proposed ERPO system puts the burden of proof on the accused gun owner who, in order to get their firearms back, will have to pay upwards of $10,000 to an attorney to challenge the order in the courts.

The measure has enjoyed the strong support from state and national gun control organizations with sponsor Rep. Marjorie Decker giving a tip of the hat to Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Stop Handgun Violence, the Massachusetts Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High students on social media after the bill was green-lighted.

source: guns.com

15 Comments

  • jimkimmons

    It seems the loonies congregate near oceans, so stay away from the coasts, and hope that we can keep them there and not spread their sickness to the rest of the sane country.

    Reply

    • Dr. Mike Reeder

      That’s the problem, though, They’re just like jihadists. They will NOT be happy until ALL of our gun rights are gone. The right of self is a right given by god, not governments. Governments cannot just take them.

      Reply

    • Richard Gieser

      …and large lakes, i.e. Chitcago.

      Reply

    • kep

      I spend my winters in Alabama on the Gulf. Guess there’s some liberal communists around, but they do keep a very low profile. I think the Gulf coast is safe so far.

      Reply

  • tjmorgan

    Given that fake Indian Lyin’ Lizzie is from that area I’m not surprised. I’m guessing that will not stand a court test, especially if it makes it to the Supreme Court.

    Reply

  • Dr. Mike Reeder

    This is a complete bullsh*t measure and constitutes does an infringement on the second Amendment! If these “law makers don’t straighten and realize that THEY are a big part of the problems this country faces pretty soon they will be taking ALL of our guns! Second Amendment not withstanding!

    Reply

  • Mac Daddy

    When all the guns have been stolen & the 2nd Amendment is destroyed if I am still alive I don’t want to hear a liberal bitch about anything in their New Nazi utopia. When an outside faction, a criminal, or our own Government takes away our Constitutional Rights & my wonderful country becomes a dictatorship then all the Liberal Leftist will wonder what happened to their rights. Just remember the people of 1930’s Germany “be careful what you wish for because you may just get it”

    Reply

    • Mike

      So, you would just hand over your guns. Those of you who would give in deserve no rights. If that is the case, why don’t you sell them? Since you are never going to resist the government.

      Reply

  • Taz

    The whole crux of this is the phrase, “from an individual thought to be at risk”. Who makes that determination? Only a psychiatrist or psychologist is able to make that type of judgement. When did this country start its insane practice of considering people guilty until proven innocent?

    Then a person has to spend $10,000 to get their rights back in a “court of law” or lawlessness, depending on your geographic location. Even then the cops don’t have to return the firearms? That is blatant theft. God save us from liberals.

    Reply

  • cargosquid

    “This is about licensing, when a license needs to be suspended because that person is a risk.”

    First…. there should not be a license in the first place.
    2nd…. it is about due process and conviction when abridging an inalienable right.
    3rd, if they are that much of a danger, why are they not being involuntarily institutionalized?

    Reply

  • David

    As a piece of legistlation this “Law” stinks. It appears to be a deliberately construed “Bugger the Constitution” law which stomps on the individual citizens’ Constitutional RIGHTS and at the same time offers NO protection for the individual wrongly or even maliciously accused. It is badly written, but deliberately badly written in my opinion. There is no just reason why the individual citizen should have to fight at his / her own cost for the return of his / her own lawful property especially when it appears that even arbitrary accusations can result in siezeure and loss of Rights without the opportunity to defend .
    This is as bad and deceitful “Law” as it can be ! It needs rejecting until there are safety nets for the accused, and a requirement for the safe return of all siezed properties once the “temporary” order lapses or is lifted.
    Anything less is legalised THEFT as well as being UNConstitutional.. If the NRA or other organisations seem prepared to accept this nonsense then they ALL well-deserve rebellion and total loss of Memberships and Funds. This is the way Britain became an armed criminal State !

    Reply

  • Arnold Young

    And this would be just the beginning. After this we would all be considered dangerous and all guns would be removed to a safe place. Yep — that really worked well in England!!! Why should we follow stupid into the abyss?

    Reply

  • James Higginbotham

    were headed for the SHOOTING PART OF THE REVOLUTION WE THE PEOPLE FIND OURSELVES IN.
    and we DIDN’T START IT.
    and is the REASON ALL THOSE COMMUNIST DEMORATS AND SOME RINOS ARE TRYING SO HARD TO DISARM WE THE PEOPLE.
    NEVER GIVE UP YOUR ARMS OF FREEDOM.
    remember this, OUR GREAT FOREFATHERS WENT TO WAR OVER THIS AND OTHER ISSUES, SO KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY.

    Reply

  • jtitan24

    Just another step closer for the Hitler Youth George Soros and his Nazi Third Reich to gain control again, you IDIOTS in Mass. need to retake history lessons, this is what Hitler did before he took complete control. IDIOTS. Use any excuse to control the Masses. Idiots.

    Reply

  • Christikido

    Remember in November Democrats Hate Gun owners, Hate Americans especially white Christian Americans and Love Foreign Illegals that cross our borders and Islamic Refugees that refuse to assimilate to US Law! Also remember that Democrats are giving your Tax money to MS13 and other International Gang members, if they will but stop murdering each other and the public! Illegals and Muslims get Free housing, Free Medical, Free Vehicles, Free Cell phones and Free broadband Internet all at the American Treasuries expense! And as Trump said what do we get in return, No assimilation and No benefit to our economy, just a bunch of other countries Criminals, Socialists and Moochers!
    Remember in November!!!!

    Reply

Leave a Reply