NY Lawmakers Push ERPO Bill to Make Confiscation Easier

State Sen. Brian Kavanagh pushing for Extreme Risk Protection Orders. (Photo: NY Senate.gov)

In conjunction with every anti-gun group under the sun, New York state lawmakers are pushing a bill to make confiscation easier.

Known as S7133/A8976, the bill would establish a system where family members and law enforcement can petition a state court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Orders or ERPO against an individual. If the ERPO is approved by the court, the individual will be prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms. That individual will also be forced to surrender any firearms to authorities.

The ERPO lasts for a period of one year. During that timeframe, the individual will have exactly one opportunity to make a case as to why they should get their 2A rights restored. If they succeed, seized guns will be returned and the records will be sealed. If they fail to convince the court, they will remain unarmed for the remainder of the order.

The ERPO can be extended beyond a year. All it takes is another petition from law enforcement or a family member to renew the ERPO. If the ERPO is not re-upped after the first year, the individual’s rights will be restored and the records will be sealed.

“Five years ago, New York enacted the NY SAFE Act, making our gun violence prevention laws among the strongest in the nation. But even though we have the 48th lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, gun violence is still hurting New Yorkers — and we have a responsibility to act,” said Sen. Brain Kavanagh, a sponsor of the measure.

“New Yorkers consistently and broadly support stronger laws, and Extreme Risk Protection Orders are a commonsense reform that could make a real difference,” Kavanagh continued. “I look forward to working with my colleagues in government and this extraordinary coalition to pass ERPO legislation this year.”

The bill has the backing of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, the New York Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and Prosecutors Against Gun Violence.

In theory, ERPO make sense. In theory, so does communism. But in reality, these ERPO are a way for the government to disarm folks who haven’t done anything. Who have committed zero crimes. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Right? ERPO change the paradigm to guilty until one can prove his innocence.

SEE ALSO: I Got the New York Blues

ERPO are troubling for another reason. They only work on law-abiding and responsible people — you know, the exact people who don’t need an ERPO to begin with! Homicidal gangsters and mental defectives aren’t going to obey an ERPO. Heck, both are already prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms. Slapping them with another gun ban isn’t going to stop them if they’re determined. Not at all.

Well, you might say, what about those family members with depression? I’d argue do you really want to get the state involved? Wouldn’t that be a breach of trust? Wouldn’t that fracture the relationship? If your dad is having suicidal ideations, are you really going to petition a court to disarm him? Wouldn’t you step in yourself and get him help? Wouldn’t you say, “Hey dad, we’re worried about you. I know you’re going through some hard times, do you mind if I hold onto these until you feel better?”

Getting him help is priority number one. Because at the end of the day, even if you or the state disarm him, if he doesn’t change his mind about killing himself, he’ll find a way. Treatment is the key. With or without guns a person that is truly a danger to themselves or others is still a danger to themselves or others. Things called pressure cooker bombs and rental trucks and rope can all be used to take lives.  An ERPO says nothing about removing those potentially deadly items from a person’s household.

Bottom line: the sole focus of ERPO is disarming folks. There is no roadmap for the only thing that will save lives: treatment. But that’s gun control advocates for you. Myopically fixated on the presence of the hardware. Couldn’t give a rip about improving and rehabilitating the software.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 20 comments… add one }
  • mtman2 January 27, 2018, 9:35 am

    May be useful as a precaution- only IF ligitimate multiple unrelated signed affidavit’s deposed by 3 or more unconnected people.
    NOT to be used as a vendetta or persons doing so will be proesecuted for the crimes of FalseTestimony, Purgery and filing a False Instrument.
    Most mass shooters later were said to be “unstable” or made threats etc by many after the fact and those folks “weren’t surprised”.

  • Mike January 26, 2018, 2:59 pm

    I feel sorry for gunowners trapped in these third world shithole states like New York,californication and others. They are stuck there either by job homeownership or family ties.

  • Click Bang January 26, 2018, 12:51 pm

    That is: Guilty, until proven innocent”…. They should have to pay restitution as if slandering the person for a year…..
    They should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt first and make it permanent if the person is really unstable or something….

  • shane m connor January 26, 2018, 12:11 pm

    Left Upstate NY for Texas in 1979, never looked back. Opportunities, Taxes, Cost of Living, Regulations, Gun Laws, every year I’m even more grateful I’d left and of where I’d gone. Vote with your feet people.

  • Bobo January 26, 2018, 10:10 am

    I grew up in NY and over the years the state was taken over by these Uber liberals. I decided seven years ago to move out and moved to the Southwest. The real estate taxes, life style became impossible. In addition Albany was the seat of corruption and still is. After I moved the town supervisor was convicted of securities fraud. It took the feds to prosecute him since the NY AG apparently has a hands off on fellow Democrats. NY is in competition with California for the eventual ban on all firearms. The gun owners in NY just roll over.

  • Dan Huss January 26, 2018, 9:50 am

    When it comes to politicians “Common Sense” is an uncommon thing. How do State legislators override the 2A clause. It is clearly spelled out as a Right in the Constitution.

  • Nikrnic January 26, 2018, 9:29 am

    N.Y. and California = The armpits of America!

  • Ricky Price January 26, 2018, 8:36 am

    Move.

  • ram6 January 26, 2018, 8:34 am

    Whoa, wait a minute ” the individual will have exactly one opportunity to make a case as to why they should get their 2A rights restored.” Last I looked the 2nd amendment to the constitution didn’t say it “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed unless a state decides it can be infringed”.

    This law will not pass constitutional muster but unfortunately there will have to be a case brought first. I guess the next law passed in NY will be “you get one opportunity to make a case as to why you should be able to criticize the government and have your 1st amendment right restored.” I guess you could see this beginning to be applied to all of the BILL OF RIGHTS. Hello New York legislators it’s called a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of PRIVILEGES.

    • BR549 January 26, 2018, 10:24 am

      The State of New York ratified the Constitution on July 26, 1788. It, along with Virginia, was pivotal in the success of the Constitution’s passage by the rest of the several states, however, it did make some changes to the language as shown below:

      “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.”

      While we all know the version of the 2nd Amendment as finally accepted for full ratification, it is blatantly obvious that New York had a perfect understanding of the intention of the Founding Fathers ………. even though it leaves out the “shall not be infringed” part.

      So, what the hell happened to New York that it went off the edge?

  • joefoam January 26, 2018, 7:49 am

    Make confiscation easier? They are just paving the way to total confiscation, masking it with protecting the innocent. Did they use the kids and puppies somewhere in the law to sell it to the weak minded idiots that elected these officials

  • Billy January 26, 2018, 7:17 am

    New York sucks anyways.look at what Chicago did as well.they made strict gun laws so crime would go down but in fact crime went up because they took guns out of law abiding citizens and put them in the hands of criminals who don’t follow the laws anyways.brilliant

  • Tyler Kent January 26, 2018, 7:02 am

    Author says, “In theory, ERPO make sense. In theory, so does communism.” No it doesn’t. Communism — the public “ownership” of the means of production — has never made sense in theory or practice.

  • G M B January 26, 2018, 5:54 am

    To any New Yorker who, previous to me, have commented in favor of this legislation, you should be ashamed of yourself. There are enough legal tools in place within NY to take someone’s guns and right to own them away. Once rights have been taken away its a lot harder to get them back rather than protect and preserve them as much as possible *first*. I know that you already know that… and that’s what makes it such a shame to actually see someone argue in favor of any piece of legislation furthering the Gun Control initiatives of our State politicians. GunsAmerica deserves a better subscriber than the likes of your kind, you know who you are.

  • Bobs yer uncle January 23, 2018, 3:29 pm

    Anyone wrongly or falsely accused can tell you that you might get your rights back after thousands of dollars and years go by. I had a non domestic TRO issued against me after it had been previously denied twice, one was issued after he forged his wife’s and her juvenile child’s name to the request knowing no judge would deny a woman and child.The judge said this would not effect me in any way, well, that was wrong, had I tried to buy a gun I would have been in violation of state and federal laws which already exist. To additionally confuse the issue the person tried to stall the service of the TRO and create a situation where I was in violation of an order I was not aware of.The person seeking the order had over 125 court cases in a 4 year period. Should someone want to jerk your chain they now have another tool, if you own firearms. Its all open for interpretation.

  • Mark N. January 20, 2018, 12:26 am

    They are called Gun Violence Restraining Orders in California (GVROs), and no, the sky has not fallen. The tros may be sought only by close family members who live in the same house, which pretty much eliminates the intentional misuse of such orders. Further, you get TOW bites at teh apple, even under the NY bill. A TRO, as its name infers, is temptoraty, and MUST, to comply with the dictates of due process of law, be followed by a contested hearing in short order (usually a few weeks) where the subject of the order is entitled to notice, the opportunity to cross-examine witness and produce evidence,and to be represented by counsel. The second bite is AFTER the “permanent” (1 year) order is issued, and the same rules apply. So if you have someone who is suicidal now, but receives treatment and is no longer a threat to him/herself or others, that person has the right to a hearing to regain possession of the firearms.

    • G M B January 26, 2018, 6:01 am

      Family Member defined by Social Services Law:
      An individual with any of the following relationships to the employee:
      Spouse, and parents thereof;
      Sons and daughters, and spouses thereof;
      Parents, and spouses thereof;
      Brothers and sisters, and spouses thereof;
      Grandparents and grandchildren, and spouses thereof;
      Domestic partner and parents thereof, including domestic partners of any individual in 2 through 5 of this definition; and
      Any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

      Mark, next time read the *NY* version of the law, look up the legal definition in both Federal and State court view(s)… and THEN try to make a useless point that, even if correct, does not help the ongoing legal battle to preserve our fundamental rights. Kay? Thanks.

      • G M B January 26, 2018, 6:06 am
      • alex January 26, 2018, 7:34 am

        i read the bill,boy oh boy,is this thing ripe for abuse!! an old girlfriend who harbors a grudge,a neighbor who doesn’t like you,the list goes on. your right,anybody who backs this bill should have their heads examined!!

    • G M B January 26, 2018, 6:03 am

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend