MA H.3081/H.3610 Extreme Risk Protective Orders (ERPO) - Linsky Bill

[amm5061]

The Bill is a blatant 6th Amendment violation, and rounds the bases for a home run of 5th, 4th, and 2nd violations too.

Also a 14th amendment grand slam violation.

 

[Waher]

The whole prove yourself innocent after they’ve already had you marked as guilty is a dangerous process likely not to end in the innocent gun owners favor.

Guilty until proven innocent is blatantly unconstitutional. The current trend of the state using continuances and appeals to drag things out at the defendant's expense is also an 8th Amendment violation. The ACLU is against this crap, even though they usually hate the 2A, because it sets precedent for UK style judicial tyranny with a big middle finger raised at all the reasons why the Bill of Rights was ratified in the first place.

Can't even get into all the ways this shit violates the MA constitution, because despite growing up and being 'educated' in the state I've never actual read or been taught the state constitution. Scarily, I seem par for the course with the denizens of the legislature in terms of that deficit of knowledge.

 

[Boston4567]

I agree it sounds like terrible path I didn’t get to read it so just posed the questions. The whole prove yourself innocent after they’ve already had you marked as guilty is a dangerous process likely not to end in the innocent gun owners favor. I was understanding it as it has to be current family or a current relationship and not some past one.

Also, the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", aka more likely than not. This makes it basically a toss-up, and unless the person filing the order is REALLY blatantly lying, the judge is going to find against you.

Seven other state legislatures have passed these bills, and none of them used this standard. They all use the harder to prove "clear and convincing evidence" standard. And we're not talking just conservative states - this is California, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, Florida, and Indiana.

Washington state does have an ERPO law on the books that uses the preponderance standard, but it was passed by ballot initiative, not by the legislature.

 

[Coyote33]

...Seven other state legislatures have passed these bills, and none of them used this standard. They all use the harder to prove "clear and convincing evidence" standard. And we're not talking just conservative states - this is California, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, Vermont, Florida, and Indiana.

Washington state does have an ERPO law on the books that uses the preponderance standard, but it was passed by ballot initiative, not by the legislature.

Aha! So Massachusetts is NOT the first, as someone here claimed.

 

[Boston4567]

Aha! So Massachusetts is NOT the first, as someone here claimed.

That was me, but I edited my post soon after. Mistake with Googling on my part, using "Washington" in the search pulled up an article about a federal bill that did contain "clear and convincing", and I didn't read closely enough.

But it is true that no state legislature has passed a "preponderance" bill, even in the most liberal of states. Ballot initiatives are not conducive to nuance, so it makes sense.