Faith No More

Vermont teen busted planning to carry out a school lmassacre.

That’s the good news.

The bad news? Then, they went and confiscated the firearms belonging to a relative that had nothing to do with the case:

According to the news report and the law as written, the actions taken by law enforcement were illegal and should have been prevented by the presiding judge.
This case raises serious questions about judicial review in gun violence restraining order cases. Many who push for “red flag” laws claim that the courts will weigh the evidence at hand and the law equally without violating individual rights. The Vermont law clearly states that it is only applicable when “prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or having a dangerous weapon within the person’s custody or control.”
But in this case, the firearms in question were owned by a relative and kept in another home. Having potential access to them by criminal means like theft doesn’t qualify under the law.

Further proof that there is no such thing as a “good faith compromise” with gun control advcoates. Every single one is either:

  • Actively seeking gun oonfiscation by means covert or wanton, or
  • A useful idiot doing the work of those who are.

I’ve been involved in the issue a long time, and I have yet to meet an exception.

1 thought on “Faith No More

  1. I can imagine a situation where the law would work correctly. Kid makes threats, cops obtain seizure order against kid, cops take kid’s gun from his closet. Massacre averted. High fives all around.

    I can image a situation where the law would work incorrectly. Husband and wife fighting over custody, wife claims husband threatened to kill her, cops obtain seizure order against husband, cops take husband’s guns, judge rules the existence of the seizure order proves husband is too dangerous to see his own kids, wife wins sole custody and full child support.

    Neither of those are what happened here. Kid makes threat, kid claims he’ll carry out the threat with guns he can obtain from uncle who lives in a different house, cops get extreme risk seizure order against uncle, cops go to uncle’s house to seize uncle’s guns.

    The plain language of the statute says the cops can seize the kid’s guns, if he poses an imminent danger to himself or others. It doesn’t say they can take his uncle’s guns, or his neighbor’s guns, or the guns in the pawn shop down the block.

    It’s one thing to take the gun out of the hands of a madman, it’s another thing to take away all the guns in town so the madman can’t get one in his hands.

    Here’s a good question: does the Extreme Risk Protection Order work like a Protection Order for purposes of Form 4473? Can uncle ever buy another gun?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.