LETHAL ORDER OF PROTECTION

House Sponsors
Rep. Kathleen Willis – Peter Breen – Laura Fine – Steven Reick – Robyn Gabel, Justin Slaughter, Scott Drury, Sonya M. Harper, Litesa E. Wallace, Will Guzzardi, Theresa Mah, Jaime M. Andrade, Jr., Sara Feigenholtz, Daniel J. Burke, Deb Conroy, Ann M. Williams, Kelly M. Cassidy, Kelly M. Burke, William Davis, Anna Moeller, Christian L. Mitchell, Emanuel Chris Welch, Al Riley, Barbara Flynn Currie, Cynthia Soto, Gregory Harris, Elizabeth Hernandez, Michelle Mussman, Lou Lang, Camille Y. Lilly, John Connor, Juliana Stratton, Carol Ammons, Jonathan Carroll, Linda Chapa LaVia, Mr. Nicholas K Smith, David S. Olsen, Marcus C. Evans, Jr., Mark Batinick, Grant Wehrli, Steven A. Andersson, Stephanie A. Kifowit, David Harris, Natalie A. Manley, John C. D’Amico and Luis Arroyo

Senate Sponsors
(Sen. Julie A. Morrison – Melinda Bush – Jacqueline Y. Collins – Kwame Raoul – Elgie R. Sims, Jr., Heather A. Steans, Laura M. Murphy, Terry Link, Iris Y. Martinez, Kimberly A. Lightford and Chris Nybo)

Last Action

Statutes Amended In Order of Appearance

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Lethal Violence Order of Protection Act. Provides that a petitioner may request an emergency lethal violence order of protection by filing an affidavit or verified pleading alleging that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Provides that the petition shall also describe the type, and location of any firearms presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. Provides that the petitioner may be a family member of the respondent or a law enforcement officer, who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Establishes factors that the court must consider before issuing a lethal violence order of protection. Provides for the issuance of ex parte orders and one-year orders. Provides that if the court issues the order the respondent must: (1) refrain from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving additional firearms for the duration of the order; and (2) turn over to the local law enforcement agency any firearm, Firearm Owner’s Identification Card, or concealed carry license in his or her possession. Establishes factors for renewing and terminating lethal violence orders of protection. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and the Firearm Concealed Carry Act to make conforming changes.

House Floor Amendment No. 2

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Creates the Firearms Restraining Order Act. Provides that a petitioner may request an emergency firearms restraining order by filing an affidavit or verified pleading alleging that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Provides that the petition shall also describe the type and location of any firearms presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent. Provides that the petitioner may be a family member of the respondent or a law enforcement officer, who files a petition alleging that the respondent poses a danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. Establishes factors that the court must consider before issuing a firearms restraining order. Provides for the issuance of ex parte orders and 6-month orders. Provides that if the court issues the order, the respondent must: (1) refrain from having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving additional firearms for the duration of the order; and (2) turn over to the local law enforcement agency any firearm, Firearm Owner’s Identification Card, or concealed carry license in his or her possession. Provides that a respondent whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Card has been revoked may petition the court to transfer the respondent’s firearm to a person who is lawfully able to possess the firearm if the person does not reside at the same address as the respondent. Provides that notice of the petition shall be served upon the person protected by the firearms restraining order. Provides that if a person other than the respondent claims title to any firearms surrendered under this provision, he or she may petition the court, if the petitioner is present in court or has notice of the petition, to have the firearm returned to him or her. Provides that if the court determines that person to be the lawful owner of the firearm, the firearm shall be returned to him or her, provided that: (1) the firearm is removed from the respondent’s custody, control, or possession and the lawful owner agrees to store the firearm in a manner such that the respondent does not have access to or control of the firearm; and (2) the firearm is not otherwise unlawfully possessed by the owner. Provides that the person petitioning for the return of his or her firearm must swear or affirm by affidavit that he or she: (1) is the lawful owner of the firearm; (2) shall not transfer the firearm to the respondent; and (3) will store the firearm in a manner that the respondent does not have access to or control of the firearm. Establishes factors for renewing and terminating firearms restraining orders. Provides that if the court denies issuance of a firearms restraining order against the respondent, all records of the proceeding shall be immediately expunged from the court records. Provides that if the firearms restraining order is granted, all records of the proceeding shall, 3 years after the expiration of the order, be sealed. Provides that any act of omission or commission by any law enforcement officer acting in good faith in rendering emergency assistance or otherwise enforcing this Act shall not impose civil liability upon the law enforcement officer or his or her supervisor or employer, unless the act is a result of willful or wanton misconduct. Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act and the Firearm Concealed Carry Act to make conforming changes.

Actions

By Brandon Smith

This week government officials are set to come back from their summer recess, and I have heard from a couple different sources that the U.S. Senate in particular is seeking to fast track legislation on Red Flag gun laws as well as a possible ban on private party transfers of firearms and a possible ban on high capacity magazines. I can only hope that these are just rumors, but I suspect they are accurate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly vowed to pursue any new gun control legislation that the Trump Administration supports, and Donald Trump has openly called for Red Flag gun laws involving mental health guidelines. The mainstream media now claims that a majority of Americans on both sides of the political divide support red flag legislation, but we all know how rigged such polls can be. The real question is, does the average American even know what red flag laws would entail? I think they do not.

Red flag gun laws are a method of gun control by which a family member or law enforcement can petition the court to confiscate a person’s firearms on the suspicion that that person may present a danger to themselves or others. But it doesn’t necessarily stop there. Some reports indicate that Trump is seriously considering using big tech companies like Amazon and Apple to monitor people’s behavior and link this data to a social credit system similar to the system that already exists in China. Your gun rights could then be determined by algorithms that mark you as a potential risk simply by what you post online.

Prosecution using the public to spy on itself is also a hallmark of these kinds of laws. It is also nothing new. The Puritans in early America used intangible evidence, such as “spectral evidence” to punish people of various crimes including witchcraft. This encouraged extreme collectivism and conformity, for anyone stepping outside the lines of what the group saw as righteous behavior could find themselves secretly accused using rhetorical evidence and unable to defend themselves. Their only option was to admit to the crime whether they were guilty or not and then repent.

But in a social or political witch hunt, you are not repenting to get in God’s good graces, but to get in the good graces of the collective. You are supposed to sublimate yourself for the group and beg their forgiveness; not for the crime you are accused, but for the crime of acting as an individual. The message is clear — there is no way to fight back. Just give in and if you are lucky the collective will let you continue living, under their watchful eye, of course.

This might sound like something that could never happen in the U.S. today, but it already has. The existence of the No Fly List, which is generated in secret, is often politically motivated, and is based on evidence that the accused is never allowed to see, is a perfect example of a “law” that is similar to Red Flag legislation. While the No Fly List has been confronted in court numerous times, it still endures and is little changed since its inception. Once ingrained, these laws are rarely ever removed.

It is likely that Red Flag gun laws will operate in the same way. One day you may walk into the sporting goods store and be denied a gun purchase by the ATF. There will be no explanation, only the denial of your rights.

Accusations can come from anywhere, even complete strangers using anonymous apps (this is how the Chinese social credit system works). They could be based on legitimate behavior, such as suicide or murder threats, or they could be based on a political statement you wrote or said years ago. It doesn’t matter. The goal will be to take gun rights away from as many people as possible while the government still claims to support the 2nd Amendment. It’s about the back door destruction of gun rights, not public safety.

The bottom line is, if you allow pre-crime judgment based on hearsay evidence for one person, then you are allowing it for all people including yourself. And it might not stop with whether or not a person is allowed to buy or own a gun. These systems of control expand into every facet of life. Again, simply look at what is happening in China.

The method of using “mental health” or social disruption as an excuse to silence dissent was not actually mastered by China, however. In communist Russia during the reign of the Soviets, the mental health excuse was exploited on a regular basis in order to quietly sweep government critics and dissidents under the rug never to be seen again. The metal hospitals where these deplorables were kept were called “Psikhushka,” an ironic diminutive label. These hospitals worked hand in hand with the Cheka secret police and their vast networks of civilian informants.

‘See Something Say Something’ began under communists in the East.

For the Soviets, the methodology made sense. The message they were sending was that anyone who criticized socialism/communism must be crazy. And in a way, this is how Red Flag laws function. For if you are put on the list, or denied gun rights, then there must be something mentally wrong with you. And by extension, if you are placed on the list for political reasons, then your political beliefs or convictions must also be psychologically disturbed. You see how this works?

Red Flag laws and social credit systems take the Psikhushka and flip it around. They don’t need mental health prisons, they simply turn the whole country into a mental health prison. The wardens and guards of this prison will be the citizenry, and they will police each other.

Make no mistake, the mainstream media and the government have been conditioning the public for years to the idea that certain ideals and political activists are on the “fringe.” They are “conspiracy theorists.” They are exhibiting “defiance disorders.” They are not right in the head. Red Flag gun laws are meant for people like me, or perhaps people like you.

I can’t say that Trumps open support of Red Flag laws surprises me in the slightest. Trump’s long term business relationships and debts to the Rothschild banking elites as well as his many dubious cabinet choices including Bolton, Pompeo, Ross, Mnuchin, etc., indicate to me that Trump is not on the side of liberty activists. In my recent article ‘The Real Reasons Why The Media Is Suddenly Admitting To The Recession Threat‘, I noted that if an economic crisis strikes in the next year, then it’s highly unlikely that Trump is slated to be president after the 2020 elections. If he supports Red Flag laws, then it is almost assured that he will not be president for another term.

In our controlled political machine in which presidents from both parties are merely puppets for elitist interests, these kinds of liberty crushing laws are not generally designed for the current Administration’s use. Rather, they are supported by one president or party, and then exploited by the next president or party in power. In this way, conservatives could be tricked into backing unconstitutional laws in the name of “helping their side win,” only to discover that the laws they supported (or ignored) are being used against them by Democrats a few years later.

I think this would be especially true for Red Flag legislation. If conservatives do not raise hell in response to these laws just because they don’t want to derail the Trump train, then they will find themselves complicit in their own disarmament if markets tank and the Dems take over in 2020. The socialist front runners will say that we “asked for this” under Trump, and now we’re getting what we wanted. And once these laws are in the books, expect that a majority of police will comply with them and enforce them.

Of course, this leads to an inevitable outcome — war. There are millions of people in the U.S. that are not going to fold to the dismantling of gun rights or gun confiscation. No doubt, we would all be labeled terrorists, and our defiance would be held up as further proof of our mental instability. So be it.

Once the Pandora’s box of pre-crime and spectral evidence is opened, the sky is truly the limit for the violation of American constitutional rights.

For whatever it’s worth, now would be a good time for gun rights advocates to contact their representatives and warn them that Red Flag laws are unacceptable. Also keep in mind that the government may push a long list of new gun control restrictions on top of Red Flag laws as a means to frighten the public. They will then rescind many of the items on the list (except the red flag legislation) in order to make it appear as thought we “got lucky.” The real goal here is the mental health restrictions and the ability for government to deny your rights according to hearsay evidence.

Gun ownership is as integral to a free society as free speech and property rights. Without firearms ownership, the public is at the mercy of any criminal or criminal government that seeks to oppress them. Remember, if your AR-15 was not a threat to the elites, then they would not be constantly seeking to take it away. Never let it go.

 

Illinois -(Ammoland.com)- Illinois has become the latest state to pass a so-called “red flag law” which is also known as extreme protection orders. This bill is one of two new gun restrictions signed into law by the Republican, Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Red flag laws allow police to seize guns from people temporarily with very little [or NO] evidence. Gun rights groups like Gun Owners of America call these laws “gun confiscation orders.” All it takes is a family member, dating partner, or roommate to claim that someone is a danger to themselves or others to have his or her Second Amendment rights stripped away by a secret court hearing. A judge does have to approve the order, but according to the latest statistic, judges on average approve 95% of all order brought in front of them.

Illinois joins more than a dozen states with extreme protection order laws on the books. This number doubles the number of states with red flag laws since the tragedy in Parkland, FL. Gun rights advocates point to the fact that red flag laws have not prevented a single crime from taking place with a gun. The gun rights groups claim it is more likely to be abused than to prevent an act of violence.

Supporters of these laws claim that the gun confiscation would prevent suicides. This stance is countered by pro-gun groups who point to suicide rates in countries such as Japan where guns are all but banned. While suicide rates with guns in states with red flag laws did drop, the overall number of suicides in these states remained steady. The suicide victims just used a different method to kill themselves.

Gun groups also point out that criminals do not follow the laws and a piece of paper is not going to stop them from an act of violence. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and yet it is known by the nickname Chiraq due to the amount of gun violence in the streets. Gun groups question why criminals would pay attention to this new law if the criminals ignored the old laws that were already on the books within the city.

Anti-gun groups, such as Moms Demand Action and Every Town for Gun Safety, claim that an extreme protection could have prevented the Parkland shooter from having firearms. The Parkland shooter had multiple contacts with police and law enforcement was aware of the killer, but never pursued actions that they could have taken within the current laws against the shooter.

Gun rights advocates also point out that the targets of such orders are not present or notified of the court cases to take away their firearms. Because of the absence of a defense, they point out that the judge only gets a single side of the story before deciding to strip away someone’s rights. They argue that this is not due process.

The estimated legal cost in overturning an extreme protection order is around $10,000 with no guarantee that the person will get their rights restored or property returned.

Considering the length of time it takes to appeal the order in addition to the cost of fighting the order, many people will not or cannot challenge the stripping of their rights. This legal situation is especially evident in the more impoverished communities where someone might have to choose between eating and fighting for his or her rights.

The second bill signed by the Republican Governor would put in place a 72-hour waiting period to purchase any firearm within the state. Republicans in the state argue that the 72-hour waiting would not prevent any violent crime, and studies seem to back up their argument. Studies done by the Rand Corporation shows that gun waiting periods do not reduce violent crimes.

In fact, the gun waiting period has made victims of violent crimes more at risk. One case was the situation of Carol Bowne in New Jersey. Browne had a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, Michael Eitel. Browne did not believe a piece of paper was going to stop Eitel and decided to she needed to have the means to protect herself.

Browne applied for a gun permit due to the threats against her by Eitel. Unfortunately, her gun permit did not come in time to be of use against the unhinged ex-boyfriend. Eitel killed Browne in her driveway with a knife. Browne never had a chance to defend herself by using a firearm.