PA Senate Republicans to move ERPO (Red Flag) bill

I just received VERY credible information that Republican Leadership is placing substantial pressure on Republicans in the PA Senate to move SB 90 - Republican Senator Killion’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Bill - out of the Judiciary and onto the floor for a vote to try to protect Senator Killon’s seat in 2020.

Everyone must IMMEDIATELY contact every member of the PA Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know in no uncertain terms that if they vote in favor of SB 90 you will do everything within your power to ensure that this will be their last term serving as a member of the General Assembly.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...=39&CteeBody=S

The cost of freedom is constant vigilance (even 10pm on a Saturday night...). Thanks Josh.

Thanks for the heads up! Will contact them and also spread the word to my like-minded associates to do the same!

They must be sweating about losing the Senate.

They should be sweating about losing their own jobs.

ETA: contacted my State Senator.

This is truth. And Brian Cutler has said he is open to the conversation on the house side. People need to wake up!

OP, if possible it may be helpful to add the words "red flag" to the thread title.
Thanks for posting the alert.
Bern-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Berncly

OP, if possible it may be helpful to add the words "red flag" to the thread title.
Thanks for posting the alert.
Bern-

---

Good Idea !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I just received VERY credible information that Republican Leadership is placing substantial pressure on Republicans in the PA Senate to move SB 90 - Republican Senator Killion’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Bill - out of the Judiciary and onto the floor for a vote to try to protect Senator Killon’s seat in 2020.

Everyone must IMMEDIATELY contact every member of the PA Senate Judiciary Committee and let them know in no uncertain terms that if they vote in favor of SB 90 you will do everything within your power to ensure that this will be their last term serving as a member of the General Assembly.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs...=39&CteeBody=S

---

I just notice that the chair of this Committee is none other than Lisa Baker, a supporter of the last confiscation bill that passed and became law in the last session. I will write her in opposition, but the answer I got back from her last time does not bode well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wilderness 1864

I just notice that the chair of this Committee is none other than Lisa Baker, a supporter of the last confiscation bill that passed and became law in the last session. I will write her in opposition, but the answer I got back from her last time does not bode well.

---

Lisa Baker traditionally has been very veteran friendly so that may be a way to connect with her. Her politics seem to have shifted more left over the years as her constituents have become more blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_Golf

Lisa Baker traditionally has been very veteran friendly so that may be a way to connect with her. Her politics seem to have shifted more left over the years as her constituents have become more blue.

---

I cannot claim that status so I guess I will have to base my opposition on Constitutional grounds, that she has shown great indifference to last go around.


Here is the text of the bill.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...r=0090&pn=0244

A lot of bad news packed into this one! For starters, the order can issue on a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. That is the weakest standard of evidence and guarantees the issuance of the order because the only evidence before the issuing judge is the evidence submitted by the applicant. Because the target of the order is not present, the judge has no evidence to the contrary. So based on an ex parte ruling on a weak evidentiary standard, constitutional rights are compromised and the target is put on the defensive having to prove his or her innocence thereafter. While the standard for a permanent order is "clear and convincing", the cards are stacked against the defendant by the time that the stage is reached. There are no reliable provisions for expunging the record even if someone prevails against the order, so a target is likely to spend the rest of their lives fighting this through the shared federal, state, and deep state databases.

Any policeman can apply for an order. Remember that next time you want to get snarky or even object at a traffic stop or any other encounter with law enforcement, or exercise your First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment rights in any law enforcement encounter.

The bill potentially puts open carry in doubt, or certainly at risk, because the bill specifically lists: "(6) Unlawful or reckless use, display or brandishing of a firearm". While open carry is lawful use, anyone can claim reckless use or "brandishing". Do you think for a minute that Peduto would hesitate to have his police file orders against citizens protesting his illegal law while open carrying at a protest? I do not. There goes the First Amendment.