Civil discourse on gun control

[Tsing Tao]

Seattle police first in state to seize gun under mental health law
http://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-police-first-in-state-to-seize-gun-under-mental-health-law

The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an “extreme risk protection order.”

The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating people for the past year - even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun holstered at his side.

Mental illness is suspected, but that new law allowed police to legally disarm him.

“He was roaming the hallways with a .25 caliber automatic,” said Tony Montana, who knows the man from his apartment complex. “And it created a lot of fear obviously because I didn't know if he was coming after me or gonna just start shooting the place up."

The man, who we are not naming, is also well known to the bars and restaurants below his unit along Second Ave. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek an extreme risk protection order - or “erpo” – which allows law enforcement to legally remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.

In this case, the man refused to comply. Because of the new law, police were then able to return with a warrant and force the man to surrender the firearm.

“I’m very supportive of this law,” Montana said. “This is a perfect case in point where it's had some efficacy. It was an immediate crisis and law enforcement was able to remove his firearms, so it very well could have saved lives."

A few dozen erpos have been served and executed around the state, but Seattle police said they are the only agency so far to seize a gun because the owner refused to hand it over.

Law enforcement professionals said these specialized protection orders could be a common sense strategy to try and prevent mass shootings - such as what happened in Parkland, Florida.

“There's certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people exhibiting violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms. The ‘erpos’ give us that tool now as an option,” said Sgt. Eric Pisconski, who leads the crisis response unit for the Seattle Police Department.

The confiscations only last a year, although they can be renewed.

The problem I have with the law is the people determining what justifies someone with mental illness. Who gets to make that decision, and how do we ensure it isn't weaponized to disarm someone?

I'm all for disarming someone if they are truly mentally ill (like the person in the article seemed to be).

 

[gwb-trading]

The problem I have with the law is the people determining what justifies someone with mental illness. Who gets to make that decision, and how do we ensure it isn't weaponized to disarm someone?

I'm all for disarming someone if they are truly mentally ill (like the person in the article seemed to be).

Just remember that traditionally across the globe, governments have a habit of declaring anyone who opposes their regime as being mentally ill.

Which demonstrates why there needs to be clear professional medical guidelines.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

This is a tough issue. Liberals consider a vast list of things to constitute "threatening behavior." This man may have been a time bomb or he might have been a guy who liked to open carry. With a .25 semi auto pistol, ie one step above a cap gun.

We should be very wary of giving liberal judges and police departments the ability to seize your guns because a few neighbors don't like you. These well-intentioned laws have a way of getting distorted beyond all comprehension. Remember when dumbass President Bush backed the Americans With Disabilities Act because it was wrong to discriminate against people in wheelchairs? Now we have judges forcing businesses to accommodate every nutcase weirdo you can imagine on the grounds they are handicapped.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Just remember that traditionally across the globe, governments have a habit of declaring anyone who opposes their regime as being mentally ill.

Which demonstrates why there needs to be clear professional medical guidelines.

That's precisely why I'm nervous about this type of rule.

 

[FF9]

Personally, I would think the guiding principle is we are all living in a democratic society which is basically designing and deciding a system that the minority voters would have to follow the majority voters.

All debates, opinions and lobbies would be helpful and useful in pushing the political wind of an issue where and how to move in the future. For the well-being of most people.

Perhaps one day the wind of the issue would change direction, perhaps never. Depending on the people's collective will.

Always having Conservative views vs Progressive views! lol

Wrong, we live in a Constitutional Republic & Governed by Constitutional Law & our system of Law is Based on Majority Rule...When you take the Pledge of Allegiance you Pledge to the Republic of The U.S.A. Not To A Democracy. Just think we have leaders in both Government & Private Industry-MSM & Professors in College`s & University`s who still insists we live in a Democracy but this Shows the Sorry State of Affairs in the U.S.A. & just think the Tax Payers have to Pay for Most of it.