A Dating Partner Of The Respondent?

The proposed red flag for North Carolina, HB 454, includes in its definition of “family or household member” as someone you are dating. Thus, someone you go out with on a blind date would be eligible to seek an “Extreme Risk Protection Order” which would order the police to take all your firearms. They could do this electronically, with no court costs, and, if they possessed a valid “Address Confidentiality Program” authorization card, could keep their address secret.

Do we really need the modern day equivalent of the Star Chamber?

I say no and so does Grass Roots North Carolina which issued the following alert:


Like everyone else, Gun Owners have the Constitutional right to due
process and the presumption of innocence. House Bill 454 would change all of that, allowing anyone in an ever-expanding circle
of people, including a ‘dating partner,’ to decide you are ‘imminently dangerous’ and direct the authorities to confiscate
your guns.

H454 doesn’t
define ‘dating partner,’ ‘imminent’ or what makes someone a ‘danger to themselves or
’.  But keep in mind that those who would deny your Second Amendment rights often consider any gun
owner to be
‘dangerous,’ and they would be able to force the confiscation of your
guns without your foreknowledge (through an ex parte hearing).

So let’s say you go on a casual
outing with someone who knows you have guns, and they decide to
“report”  you, for revenge, out of spite or whatever (due to unrequited
interest, for example). They can honestly claim to be a
‘dating partner,’ a term entirely undefined by H454, and have your
property confiscated at the point of a gun.

On top of all of this, the authorities can charge you
a storage fee for keeping your guns and ammunition. They take your guns against your will and in violation of your rights, and you get to
pay for the privilege
! Nothing in the
proposed law would stop the authorities from test firing your guns for a
ballistics database to see if they were used in a crime, or doing
anything else with them for that matter. While you may have to undergo a
‘mental health’ or ‘chemical dependency’ evaluation to keep what you
already own, your accuser has the option of staying anonymous under the
Address  Confidentiality  Program’. How nice for the accuser who will never have to confront you in court, in blatant
violation of the 6th Amendment.

already exist for
Involuntary Civil Commitment, and these provide due process, but
apparently, these aren’t good enough for the gun grabbers. In addition
being unconstitutional, clearly this new form of government overreach
isn’t effective, as research shows that these new laws
do not work as advertised.

Please Contribute to GRNC-PVF

It’s going
to be a busy year in the world of freedom-fighting. At the same, time
multiple special elections approach, House and Senate bills, both good
and bad, are being filed in the General Assembly. Funds and volunteers
already stretched thin, and we’re still climbing toward peak activity.
Now more than ever, this all-volunteer organization needs your support.
Anything you could spare will help GRNC-PVF and would be greatly
appreciated, and let’s face it, with all that’s coming our
way, donations are nothing less than an investment in the future of gun freedom in our state. Please
to donate to GRNC-PVF

Support “Rights Watch International
AmazonSmile Learn more about Rights Watch

You shop. Amazon
(What is Amazon Smile?)


    Below, find the copy/paste contact
    information you need to tell the party leadership that this
    unconstitutional gun control bill must not receive a hearing. Use the
    copy/paste text
    provided under the ‘Deliver This Message’ section.

  • PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC-PVF: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles.
    Please CLICK
    to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best
    possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.

NC General Assembly
Leadership copy/paste email list
Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net; John.Bell@ncleg.net; Jon.Hardister@ncleg.net;
Darren.Jackson@ncleg.net; Cynthia.Ball@ncleg.net; Deb.Butler@ncleg.net;
Carla.Cunningham@ncleg.net; Garland.Pierce@ncleg.net;
Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Dan.Blue@ncleg.net;
Jay.Chaudhuri@ncleg.net; Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net;
Ted.Davis@ncleg.net; David.Lewis@ncleg.net


Suggested Subject: Stop H454,
the Gun Confiscation Bill
Dear Republican Leader:

am writing today because I am outraged
over H454’s attempted erosion of Constitutional liberties, in
particular, the right to due process.  With just the word of a ‘dating
partner’ (an undefined term), someone’s firearms can be forcibly
confiscated by law enforcement. This confiscation would be based on
‘dangerous behavior,’ another term that the bill doesn’t define.

who are hostile to the Second Amendment often (and
absurdly) consider gun owners dangerous by their mere existence.
Considering that, and the fact that anyone, out of spite or revenge,
would be
able to have a citizen’s guns forcibly taken from him or her, these
constitutionally abhorrent orders will, in essence, legally codify the
practice of
‘SWAT-ing’ anyone who owns or is believed to own a gun.

For these reasons, I’m insisting that you take whatever legislative steps necessary to halt this freedom denying measure.

the right thing:
use your position to take active steps to make sure this ominous gun
control bill will never have a hearing, and never receive a vote. I will
closely monitoring your actions regarding this gun control bill through
alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.


I think Black Rifle Coffee has captured the type of “dating partner” who might file for a ERPO if they knew you possessed a firearm in the video below. Yes, it is a spoof but the reality is that there are men and women like that out in society.

One thought on “A Dating Partner Of The Respondent?”

  1. The Socialist back-door (Constitution violating) Red Flag Law cancer just keeps spreading. When will someone challenge this crap on Constitutional basis?

Comments are closed.