{"id":3080,"date":"2019-02-14T14:47:14","date_gmt":"2019-02-14T19:47:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.musingsbymichael.com\/blog\/?p=3080"},"modified":"2019-02-14T14:47:14","modified_gmt":"2019-02-14T19:47:14","slug":"extreme-risk-gun-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.musingsbymichael.com\/blog\/2019\/02\/14\/extreme-risk-gun-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Extreme Risk Gun Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Guns<\/a><\/p>\n

New Jersey’s extreme risk gun law will take effect on September 1st<\/sup>, will it really protect anyone?<\/span><\/p>\n

Per assemblyman Tim Eustace<\/a>, \u201cWe need to do more to keep guns away from those who pose a threat to themselves or their community. This idea carefully lays out a fair and just process while putting safety first.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

What it does<\/a> is that it, \u201ccreates a new “extreme risk” protective order, which allows family members, household members or police to petition a judge to have a person’s weapons seized and prohibit them from buying weapons if that person poses a danger to themselves or others.<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

The family or household member first petitions for a temporary “extreme risk” protective order, and the court will within 10 days consider whether to issue a final extreme risk protective order, which requires the person to surrender or sell their firearms and ammunition.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Assemblyman John McKeon said in a statement that \u201cWe\u2019ve seen too many \u2018what ifs\u2019 when it comes to these mass shootings, often centered around the question of why didn\u2019t somebody do something to take guns away from someone who poses a danger. This bill makes it easier to accomplish that goal and, ultimately, protect our communities and our children.<\/i>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

So this law is supposed to protect us and our children, but without the participation of a physiologist I see too many problematic situations where a judge will make a decision based on hearsay evidence without having a physiological examination having been done that would truly reveal if the person’s weapons should be taken away.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to what is written into the law<\/a>, a \u201cjudge would have to hold a hearing within 10 days and make a decision taking into account the person’s arrest and domestic violence record, and any history of alcohol and drug addiction, stalking, violent threats and abusing animals.<\/i>\u201d A judge should not be the only one making this decision, someone who is well qualified in the field of psychology (in my humble opinion), should work with a judge to make an important decision such as this one would be. It matters not that it would be a temporary order or not. For once the guns are seized you can count on them never ever getting back to the person who they belonged to after a reversal of judgment.<\/span><\/p>\n

This law needs to be revised to have a health professional involved before it goes into effect.<\/span><\/p>\n

That is my opinion- Jumpin Jersey Mike<\/span><\/p>\n