I happened to come across this website that examines and rejects I-1491 from the perspective of a mental health advocate. You should still vote NO.
Category Archives: Constitution
Washington State readers, if you take your constitutional rights seriously; if you believe that no one should be deprived of their rights without due process; if you consider yourself to be an advocate for civil liberties, please vote NO on Initiative 1491.
Under I-1491, a judge can, at the request of “family and household members” (ironically, household members need not actually live with you…more about this later), issue an order depriving you of your constitutional right to bear arms. Indeed, the individual to be deprived of their right to bear arms need not even be notified in advance that any action is being taken.
Consider this from Washington Arms Collectors:
“A woman, stalked by a violent ex-husband, attends a handgun class, obtains a Concealed Pistol License, and purchases a handgun – all to defend her and their children. The stalker realizes that he is now in danger if he follows, confronts, assaults her or invades her home. He sends a petition to the court, stating that his ex-wife has threatened him, that during a recent argument she brandished a firearm, and that she owns a gun and has taken training in its use. The stalker provides proof to the court of the acquisition of a firearm. He also knows of his wife’s visits to a psychologist during their divorce proceedings and in his petition discloses the medications she is on and alleges that she is mentally unstable and a danger to her, their children and him. The allegations are serious enough that the court, without a hearing, issues an ‘ex parte* extreme risk protection order’ that orders the woman to surrender her firearms. The first time that the stalking victim knows of the process that is being used to disarm her is when is when the local police show up at her door to deliver notice, search her home and seize her firearms.
With the help of the courts, this victim has been made helpless.”
Forget due process. Forget your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Forget any quaint notions you may have about being innocent until proven guilty. Forget the old saying about having nothing to fear from the courts if you’ve done nothing wrong.
The progressive group, Alliance for Gun Responsibility is, predictably, supporting this initiative by distributing questionable “facts” and statistics. For example, they cite a study by the equally progressive Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, that claims dozens of lives have been saved by “similar” legislation in Connecticut. That’s super, but unless you live in a Minority Report world, where it can be known in advance that a particular act is certain to happen (and we know how that turned out in the movie), any claims of lives saved has to be pure speculation.
Furthermore, while some may say that the Connecticut legislation is similar to I-1491, it differs in at least one significant way. The Connecticut law requires an independent investigation on the part of local law enforcement before a person can be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights; I-1491 requires only the say-so of the aforementioned family or household member.
Just exactly who are these family and household members? Aside from the people you would normally expect, I-1491 also includes a “person who resides or has resided with the respondent within the past year.”
Say, for example, you need a roommate, so a friend of a friend moves into your spare room. Your new roommate quickly falls behind on his share of the rent and utilities and, eventually, you ask him to move out. Several months later, the deadbeat roommate still owes you money. Angry over your efforts to collect, the ex-roommate files a petition with the court for an extreme risk protection order, stating that you own at least two handguns, drink heavily on the weekends, that you’ve been harassing him over a bogus claim for money and recently threatened him. The judge agrees that you’re a threat and issues an ex parte order to deprive your of your firearms. And just like the helpless woman in the hypothetical situation above, you’re none the wiser until the police show up to confiscate your firearms.
When this legislation was introduced to the State Legislature in 2015, it never passed out of committee. Why, you ask? Because even the liberal gun grabbers in Olympia could see that it was deeply flawed. First, as already mentioned (yes, I’m beating a drum, here), an extreme risk protection order can be issued before the respondent is even aware that any complaint has been filed.
Second, there is very little downside for a person who maliciously files a petition. There’s no filing fee and the penalty clause is weak; in the event of a malicious petition, the respondent bears the cost and burden of seeking redress.
Next, the legislation requires only a preponderance of evidence in order for an ERPA to be issued, meaning that the judge need be only 51% sure that the facts alleged in the petition true. This is a laughably low standard to use in order to strip a person of his constitutional rights.
To be clear, I can understand the motivation behind this piece of legislation. Take the story about the woman above, and turn it around to have her seeking protection from her violent, gun toting ex-husband. It seems like the legislation proposed in I-1491 would be tailor made to protect her. Not so, according to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
If a person is truly dangerous, existing law already provides a variety of mechanisms to deal with the individual, all of which can lead to firearm prohibitions in appropriate cases. Depending on the circumstances, these can include arrest, followed by pretrial detention or release on bond with conditions and monitoring; restraining or no-contact orders; or emergency mental health evaluations and commitments.
The issuance of an ERPO does not do anything to deal with the underlying cause of dangerousness, nor does it subject the person to any actual physical restraint, ongoing reporting or monitoring requirements, or treatment for any underlying mental health condition. Initiative 1491 will be ineffective as it targets the tools but not the problem.
If a dangerous person is committed, he gets treatment. If he is arrested, he might be detained pretrial or at least monitored and subject to reporting requirements while on pretrial release. Nothing happens, however, to a person with an ERPO except the seizure of the person’s firearms (if he is known to have any) and listing in a prohibited person database. Under I-1491, the person is left free to carry out any harmful designs by any means at his or her disposal, including the illegal acquisition of additional firearms.
I have not provided an exhaustive list of reasons here why I-1491 deserves to be voted down in November. I strongly encourage you to read both linked articles and ask yourself why progressives are pushing such a deeply flawed and anti-civil rights piece of legislation. While I’m sure they do want to save lives, it seems ironic that many of the same people who support this shameful assault on the 2nd and 5th Amendments also support abortion on demand and assisted suicide. This leaves me to draw the conclusion that they may be just as interested in depriving as many citizens as possible of their firearms as they are in improving gun safety.
As a side note, what is it with liberals anyway? They accuse conservatives of waging a war on women; they mock us by saying we want women to be barefoot and pregnant, but the truth is that liberals want women to be helpless and they want that helplessness codified into law.
*An ex parte judicial proceedings are conducted for the benefit of only one party; the other party is specifically excluded from the proceedings.
I pray I never find myself in the midst of a terrorist attack, but if I did, I’d prefer the attack to be with guns, where I had a chance to hide, flee or fight, than to have my life snuffed out in an instant by a bomb. Maybe it’s just me.
These Sheriffs understand the threat. Does yours?
Run, Hide, Fight (video)
On Scene with Sheriff Wayne Ivey (video, Brevard County Sheriff)
Surviving an Active Shooter (video, LA County Sheriff)
Imagine, by John Lennon, is among my top picks as one of the worst songs ever, but that’s not because I don’t have a good imagination.
I like to imagine lots of things, but one of my favorites is to imagine how many fewer rapes would be attempted if every potential rapist had to spend time wondering whether or not his intended victim was armed with a handgun.
Or how many would-be muggers would become actual muggers if they knew there was even a 50-50 chance their intended victims were armed. Or how many potential mass shooters would target schools, theaters or shopping malls if they knew their intended victims could respond with deadly force.
Now imagine what would happen if they knew for a certainty that none of their intended victims would be armed. Ever.
Yet another student has landed in trouble for having something that represents a gun, but isn’t actually anything like a real gun.
This time the student is 12-year-old Joseph Lyssikatos, a student in advanced math who had perfect attendance last year. The seventh-grader made the mistake of bringing a ridiculously small, silver keychain shaped like a gun to Alan Shawn Feinstein Middle School in Coventry, R.I, reports local NBC affiliate WJAR.
The two-inch keychain fell out of Lyssikatos’s backpack while he was at school.
After another kid picked it up and displayed it to other students, a teacher intervened and impounded the keychain.
And it’s even worse than that.
The Feinstein Middle School handbook entitled “Serious Disciplinary Infractions” declares: “Possession/carrying/use of/threat of use of a firearm or replica shall result in a recommendation for expulsion for a period of time up to one full calendar year.”
I wonder. Do the school officials who handed down the suspension believe that the keychain is an actual firearm or a replica of a firearm? It’s hard to tell which it is from the photo.
Not only are these school officials too stupid to differentiate between a real threat and, shall we say, no cause for concern whatsoever, they can’t even correctly interpret the language used in their own policies. In my dictionary, and I’m guessing in every other dictionary in America, “replica” is defined as “any close or exact copy or reproduction.”
I admit to not keeping current with all the latest trends in firearms, but I’m fairly certain no one is making any that are barely larger than a quarter. I wonder what kind of ammo that would use, anyway. Seed beads?
Do I believe middle school students should be allowed to bring weapons to school? Of course not. Do I believe they should be allowed to bring toys that no rational person with an IQ over 17 would mistake for a firearm? Why, yes. Yes, I do. So shoot me with a keychain.
Read more here.
No one is more committed to logic and reason than the American Liberal. Take the debate about guns, for example. Who could possibly refute these extremely logical points?
- Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.
- Washington DC’s low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
- Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are “just statistics.”
- The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
- We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
- The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
- An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
- A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
- When confronted by violent criminals, you should “put up no defense – give them what they want, or run” (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don’t Die – People Do, 1981, p. 125).
- The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
- One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seat belts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
- The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
- The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
- These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.
- “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
- Rifles and handguns aren’t necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
- Private citizens shouldn’t have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn’t have “assault rifles”, because they are military weapons.
- In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940′s, 1950′s and 1960′s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
- The NRA’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
- Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
- A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
- Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen” and gun makers’ advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
- Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
- Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
- A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
- Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a “weapon of mass destruction” or an “assault weapon.”
- Most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
- The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self-defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
- Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.
- The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
- Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA was a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
- Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do “civilians” who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
- We should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
- Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
- Private citizens don’t need a gun for self- protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
- Citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
- “Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
- When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that’s bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that’s good.
- Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
- Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to “keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.
I’d love to credit the author of this list but it’s been kicking around the internet, I’ve been told, for at least a decade, it’s hard to say who that may have been. Likewise, I haven’t checked the current accuracy of any of the factual statements.