I believe that California and New York are engaged in a political “hold my beer” challenge.

As soon as one state passes a radically-off-the-deep-end law, the other has to up the ante with a law that is even more egregiously unconstitutional.

California passed a Red Flag law that is one of the toughest in the nation.

New York looked at that law and thought it was downright libertarian.

New York’s governor, joined by Nancy Pelosi, signs ‘red flag’ gun protection law

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, joined by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, signed a “red flag” gun protection bill Monday morning in New York City.

The bill, also known as an extreme risk protection order bill, allows a court to temporarily prohibit someone from buying or possessing a gun if they’re deemed a threat to themselves or others.

It’s a good thing Schumer wasn’t there.  I imagine that if you got Cuomo, Pelosi, and Schumer in one place at the same time for a bill signing, it would have to be were everyone was frozen, contorted in a lake, and they would merge into a three faced monster that chewed on people.

“This gun violence issue is a national health epidemic in our country,” Pelosi said at the bill signing Monday. “Mr. President, if you want to talk about emergencies, this is an emergency.”

Really?

Under the new law, police officers, family or household members, or school personnel such as a teacher, principal or guidance counselor, are all able to petition a judge to issue a temporary order to stop someone from purchasing or possessing a gun “upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe [that person] is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others,” according to the text of the bill.

“We empower school teachers — not by giving them guns, which is the President’s idea. I mean, how ludicrous a concept?” Cuomo said Monday. “No. Arm and empower the teacher with the law.

Arming teachers with the law isn’t really arming them.  It’s not going to help when the shit actually hits the fan.

The law is expected to take effect in New York state in approximately six months. New York judges will consider various factors when evaluating whether someone’s behavior is a “red flag,” such as whether the person has substance abuse issues or has threatened violence against themselves or others.

If a temporary extreme risk protection order is granted by a judge, a hearing will occur within three to six days to determine whether a final extreme risk protection order is necessary, the law states.

What?  Am I reading this right.

Is CNN reporting that an extreme risk protection order might be permanent in New York?  Sort of (I’ll get to that).

The Buffalo News reports on the law this way:

Under the new law, school officials, family members and police can apply to the courts to get a “temporary extreme risk protection order” against an individual. If initially approved by a judge, the individual would be banned from buying, possessing or attempting to buy firearms for up to six days. During that time, a hearing would have to be held on extending the length of the order up to one year. It permits police to confiscate any weapons possessed by the individual.

How does the teacher thing work?  Can my son’s teacher talk to my son and then have an ERPO brought against me?

Looking at the text of the law, there is nothing in the law that says it won’t work like that.

But it gets worse

§ 6340. Definitions. For the purposes of this article:
1. “Extreme risk protection order” means a court-issued order of protection prohibiting a person from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun.

Nothing in the definition says that it is temporary.

§ 6341. Application for an extreme risk protection order. In accordance with this article, a petitioner may file an application, which hall be sworn, and accompanying supporting documentation, setting forth the facts and circumstances justifying the issuance of an extreme risk protection order. Such application and supporting documentation shall be filed in the supreme court in the county in which the respondent resides. The chief administrator of the courts shall adopt forms that may be used for purposes of such applications and the court’s consideration of such applications. Such application form shall include inquiry as to whether the petitioner knows, or has reason to believe, that the respondent owns, possesses or has access to a firearm, rifle or shotgun and if so, a request that the petitioner list or describe such firearms, rifles and shotguns, and the respective locations thereof, with as much specificity as possible. 

§ 6342. Issuance of a temporary extreme risk protection order. 1. Upon application of a petitioner pursuant to this article, the court may issue a temporary extreme risk protection order, ex parte or otherwise, to prohibit the respondent from purchasing, possessing or attempting to purchase or possess a firearm, rifle or shotgun, upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe the respondent is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself or others as defined in paragraph one or two of subdivision (a) of section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law. Such application for a temporary order shall be determined in writing on the same day the application is filed.

2. In determining whether grounds for a temporary extreme risk protection order exist, the court shall consider any relevant factors including, but not limited to, the following acts of the respondent:

(a) a threat or act of violence or use of physical force directed toward self, the petitioner, or another person;
(b) a violation or alleged violation of an order of protection;
(c) any pending charge or conviction for an offense involving the use of a weapon;
(d) the reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm, rifle or shotgun;
(e) any history of a violation of an extreme risk protection order;
(f) evidence of recent or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol; or
(g) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm, rifle, shotgun or other deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any ammunition therefor.

In considering the factors under this subdivision, the court shall consider the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of such act or acts and the age of the person at the time of the occurrence of such act or acts.  For the purposes of this subdivision, “recent” means within the six months prior to the date the petition was filed.

Again, if I am reading this correctly, technically buying a gun in the last six months is justification for an extreme risk protection order?

Since a petition for an extreme risk protection order can be brought by a family member, that means that an angry soon-to-be ex-wife can say “he bought a gun six months before I filed for a divorce, take his guns away” and the courts can do that.

(b) Upon receiving notice of the issuance of a temporary extreme risk protection order, the division of criminal justice services shall immediately report the existence of such order to the federal bureau of investigation to allow the bureau to identify persons prohibited from purchasing firearms, rifles or shotguns. The division shall also immediately report to the bureau the expiration of any such protection order, any court order amending or revoking such protection order or restoring the respondent’s ability to purchase a firearm, rifle or shot gun.

So you get an ERPO filed against you and they immediately put you in NICS.  If the ERPO is removed, they are supposed to tell NICS it’s been revoked.  Call me paranoid, but knowing how often NYC violates the FOPA on interstate travel, why do I suspect that if you have your ERPO revoked, New York won’t imitatively let NICS know.

8. A law enforcement officer serving a temporary extreme risk protection order shall request that the respondent immediately surrender to the officer all firearms, rifles and shotguns in the respondent’s possession and the officer shall conduct any search permitted by law for such firearms. The law enforcement officer shall take possession of all S. 2451 5 A. 2689 firearms, rifles and shotguns that are surrendered, that are in plain sight, or that are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. As part of the order, the court may also direct a police officer to search for firearms, rifles and shotguns in the respondent’s possession in a manner consistent with the procedures of article six hundred ninety of the criminal procedure law.

Here is where they take your guns.

(c) An extreme risk protection order issued in accordance with this section shall extend, as specified by the court, for a period of up to one year from the date of the issuance of such order; provided, however, that if such order was immediately preceded by the issuance of a temporary extreme risk protection order, then the duration of the extreme risk protection order shall be measured from the date of issuance of such temporary extreme risk protection order. 

So and ERPO takes your guns from you for a year.

You lose your gun rights for a year without a criminal conviction or adjudication of mental illness because a judge says so.

(b) If any other person demonstrates that he or she is the lawful owner of any firearm, rifle or shotgun surrendered or removed pursuant to a protection order issued in accordance with this article, and provided that the court has made a written finding that there is no legal impediment to the person’s possession of a surrendered or removed  firearm, rifle or shotgun, the court shall direct that such firearm, rifle or shotgun be returned to such lawful owner and inform such person of the obligation to safely store such firearm, rifle, or shotgun in accordance with section 265.45 of the penal law.

Call me paranoid (again) but why do I have the feeling that in that year’s time frame most of your guns would have walked away, especially into the homes of NYPD or NYSP officers?

§ 6345. Request for renewal of an extreme risk protection order. 1. if a petitioner believes a person subject to an extreme risk protection order continues to be likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to himself, herself, or others, as defined in paragraph one or two of subdivision (a) of section 9.39 of the mental hygiene law, such petitioner may, at any time within sixty days prior to the expiration of such existing extreme risk protection order, initiate a request for a renewal of such order, setting forth the facts and circumstances necessitating the request. The chief administrator of the courts shall adopt forms that may be used for purposes of such applications and the court’s consideration of such applications.

So you become a prohibited person for a year, or in perpetuity as long as the petitioner makes their yearly pilgrimage to the court to renew the ERPO.

All firearms, rifles and shotguns in the possession of a law enforcement official pursuant to this article shall be subject to the provisions of applicable law, including but not limited to subdivision six of section 400.05 of the penal law; provided, however, that any such firearm, rifle or shotgun shall be retained and not disposed of by the law enforcement agency for at least two years unless legally transferred by the respondent to an individual permitted by law to own and possess such firearm, rifle or shotgun.

Oh look, after one ERPO and one renewal and they get to dispose of your guns.

Remember, nothing in the law requires a conviction or adjudication of mental illness.  Simply a hearing before a judge.

Evidence can be as little as buying a gun in the last six months.

Knowing the politics of the people in power in places like NYC, why do I get the feeling that judges will rubber stamp ERPO’s?

Cuomo and the state legislature has figured out how to totally strip people of their gun rights and potentially destroy their guns without needing to convict anybody.

There is so much here that is rife for abuse against gun owners it is unbelievable.