Vermont uses extreme risk order to confiscate guns from a different person

[eris]

UPDATED: Police, school officials avert Middlebury middle school shooting | Addison County Independent

After confirming the whereabouts and establishing short-term plans for both young suspects, police turned their attention to securing their alleged source of guns.

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

Hanley on Tuesday morning wasn’t sure of the exact inventory of the more than 10 confiscated weapons, but said they largely consisted of hunting rifles and handguns. He doesn’t believe any semi-automatic assault rifles or shotguns were among the bunch.

Police are still piecing together details, but this much is clear, according to Hanley:

The police confiscated weapons that were allegedly about to be stolen from the rightful owner after they had the kids in custody.

The way I read the Vermont statute, the person prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms has to be the person declared as a danger to himself or the community.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/ACTS/ACT097/ACT097 As Enacted.pdf

(c)(1) A petition filed pursuant to this section shall allege that the respondent poses an extreme risk of causing harm to himself or herself or another person by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a dangerous weapon or
by having a dangerous weapon within the respondent’s custody or control.
(2)(A) An extreme risk of harm to others may be shown by establishing that:
(i) the respondent has inflicted or attempted to inflict bodily harm on another; or
(ii) by his or her threats or actions the respondent has placed others in reasonable fear of physical harm to themselves; or
(iii) by his or her actions or inactions the respondent has presented a danger to persons in his or her care.
(B) An extreme risk of harm to himself or herself may be shown by establishing that the respondent has threatened or attempted suicide or serious
bodily harm.

So unless the gun owner was specifically found to have been a threat, and was the person named in the order, there's no way this was legal.


Furthermore

(b) Except as provided in section 4054 of this title, the court shall grant relief only after notice to the respondent and a hearing. The petitioner shall have the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.

If I'd been the gun owner and I wasn't the person named or hadn't been notified, I'd have shut the door on the cops and called a lawyer immediately.

 

[Kwalsh]

He needs a good lawyer

 

[Jmac00]

So unless the gun owner was specifically found to have been a threat, and was the person named in the order, there's no way this was legal.

they don't care and my bet is, these firearms are gone forever. This is exactly what the ERO are for. Confiscate privately owned firea arms without due process

 

[Jsmegs77]

Precrime is real, kids. "Confiscated weapons that were about to be stolen"?! That means they were under the control of their owner, who was not a party to any charges. I wonder what the lawful and presumably law abiding owner's recourse is to recover his property.

In not so many words, theft under the guise of law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shadow2]

What a shock, A progressive Liberal gun law being misused by constitutional loving police officers ... say it isn't so. Hope it was a liberal gun owner who voted the assholes in who wrote the law and stupid enough to hand the guns over willingly.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Precrime is real, kids. "Confiscated weapons that were about to be stolen"?! That means they were under the control of their owner, who was not a party to any charges. I wonder what the lawful and presumably law abiding owner's recourse is to recover his property.

In not so many words, theft under the guise of law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My take as well.

 

[Jsmegs77]

We're seriously at the level of mafioso protection racket here. "We heard these guns were about to be stolen, so we are confiscating them, for everyone's safety. Say thank you and pay your protection money, I mean taxes".

Land of the free? Water that tree. It's got real particular tastes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GOPerfect]

If this was indeed a real threat, I commend all that were involved.

To enter into a home and steal private property; I do not commend those actions.

 

[eris]

If this was indeed a real threat, I commend all that were involved.

To enter into a home and steal private property; I do not commend those actions.

What I want to know is if the law was actually applied as written or not. Unfortunately the only news reports I find are light on details, so I have not been able to, for example, find a copy of the actual order on a court website.

 

[GOPerfect]

What I want to know is if the law was actually applied as written or not. Unfortunately the only news reports I find are light on details, so I have not been able to, for example, find a copy of the actual order on a court website.

??

Not sure, if any are interested, here is the bullshit law...


Bill Status S.221 (Act 97)

 

[eris]

??

Not sure, if any are interested, here is the bullshit law...


Bill Status S.221 (Act 97)

I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the actual court order. The thing is that the law doesn't say you can seize guns from third parties, and it doesn't describe the gun owner as having done anything that would meet the requirements to issue an order against him.

 

[GOPerfect]

Middlebury police chief defends weapons seizure over alleged shooting plot

 

[GOPerfect]

I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about the actual court order. The thing is that the law doesn't say you can seize guns from third parties, and it doesn't describe the gun owner as having done anything that would meet the requirements to issue an order against him.

It's the way these freaken people write the laws. Way to open-ended. The child has the ability to posses due to the parents owning guns. The next best thing is to take away from the parents.


It will be interesting to read more as the story unfolds.

 

[Acer-m14]

“We executed what is called an ‘extreme risk order’ (Monday) night at a relative’s house who had all these firearms,” Hanley said. “They were locked up (in the home), but one of these kids said he had access to them and could get them. So we took advantage of that extreme risk order statute that was passed. We needed to separate the person from their ability to do this.”

sir a relative of yours was planing to steal your guns for a school shooting .. we have him in custody and he is not getting out for a long time.
Can you lock your guns up or change the safe code for us ..

thank you ..

how it should have been done ..

 

[Apeman]

Hanley, who describes the confiscated guns as sport firearms and collectibles," said seizing the guns from the relative, who is not accused of being involved in the alleged plot, "allowed us to at least make things safe for the time, and then we'll resolve the issues later."

"Resolve the issues later" means that the gun owner has to shell out a shit load of money to possibly get back property that was stolen from him. You could also read that as they know they didn't have the right to take them but did it anyway and they don't care if they violate your rights

 

[Curmudgeon]

But, but, but....

My bill of rights says...

 

[CzechFan]

Cop: we're here to take your guns
Owner: huh ? why ??
Cop: to make sure someone else doesn't take your guns

Me: need to GTFO NY

 

[Saltwater60]

Now that the kids in custody why not just give them back??

 

[@thewheels]

Now that the kids in custody why not just give them back??

"Whether the relative's weapons are returned when the 14-day temporary order expires will be up to a judge. Hanley said a hearing is scheduled for next week. Prosecutors could seek a six-month extension under the law."

The owner is not getting these back anytime soon. I'd bet ammo the prosecutors are already planning to file for the 6 month extension at the hearing.

 

[Trauma47645]

but the cops keep saying they arent coming for our guns..

 

[Robin]

Dictionary

po·lit·bu·ro
/ˈpälitˌbyo͝orō/
noun

1. the principal policymaking committee of a Communist Party.
   • the principal policymaking committee in the former Soviet Union, founded in 1917.
     
     
     2. Politburo, the new judicial system
     Robin

 

[ProgSpear]

How long until this resembles "Seven Degrees from Kevin Bacon", and anyone peripherally related to the epicenter of the so called "risk" is automatically included in an ERO? After all, it's for the children...

 

[BDinPutnam]

"Whether the relative's weapons are returned when the 14-day temporary order expires will be up to a judge. Hanley said a hearing is scheduled for next week. Prosecutors could seek a six-month extension under the law."

The owner is not getting these back anytime soon. I'd bet ammo the prosecutors are already planning to file for the 6 month extension at the hearing.

In fairness the odds are they will file for the extension just because they're either too busy or too lazy to prepare for the hearing.

 

[Curmudgeon]

but the cops keep saying they arent coming for our guns..

Cops? It's the government. Pretty sure cops have a lot of sick time saved up. There will be some that do, and some that dont. Just like some believe in rightful liberty and others are "conservatives " or "republicans".

I get that it's easier to paint in broad strokes, but that doesnt make you Picasso.

 

[eris]

Cops? It's the government. Pretty sure cops have a lot of sick time saved up. There will be some that do, and some that dont. Just like some believe in rightful liberty and others are "conservatives " or "republicans".

I get that it's easier to paint in broad strokes, but that doesnt make you Picasso.

One thing to keep in mind about cops is that they've all signed up to enforce the law, and most of them are going to do so regardless of whether they personally agree with the law or not. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the exact circumstances.

 

[Curmudgeon]

One thing to keep in mind about cops is that they've all signed up to enforce the law, and most of them are going to do so regardless of whether they personally agree with the law or not. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on the exact circumstances.

Well, I'm pretty sure there are plenty who are on our side. Their numbers would be reduced if ordered to confiscate and the first instances of "resistance " would likely dissuade others from showing up.

There's a lot of "jack boot thug" talk here, but any LEO's on this forum would be stupid to suggest publicly that they wouldn't fall in line.

 

[GOPerfect]

but the cops keep saying they arent coming for our guns..

Again, and I am not sure you have what it takes to comprehend this, it is not the police....

It is the political class and the judges.

Time to seriously grow up.

 

[GOPerfect]

Well, I'm pretty sure there are plenty who are on our side. Their numbers would be reduced if ordered to confiscate and the first instances of "resistance " would likely dissuade others from showing up.

There's a lot of "jack boot thug" talk here, but any LEO's on this forum would be stupid to suggest publicly that they wouldn't fall in line.

I do not toe the line. Ever. I do not care what the color of the line is. There are others here that think, feel and act very similar to me.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't understand people here who say that cops won't confiscate weapons. Cops confiscate all the time. It isn't street to street and door to door. That'll never happen. It would be impossible to do that statewide or countrywide.

But if you read articles, they have no issues confiscating from veterans, parents, ect. at the whim of others without a trial. It happens everyday. So yes. They have no issues confiscating.

 

[IrishMick]

This case shows what bullshit these ERPO laws are. The suspect teen doesn't live with his uncle does he? Firearms are locked up in a safe in a locked up house. To obtain these guns this teen would be committing a robbery. To what extent will this ability to seize guns go? Would it be ok if it was a neighbor instead of his uncle? Who requested the issue of this order? It is blatantly unconstitutional.