The pandering from the anti-civil rights camp in America is getting out of control. So-called “non-partisan researchers" keep coming up with these so-called “studies” with groundbreaking – eye roll – findings. Cam touched on one aspect of a recently published study out of Colorado that supposedly “doesn't push policy”, but I want to talk about the non-non-partisan (yes it's a word and if it's not it should be) slant to their findings. No, they don’t demand every state in the country pass a "red flag" law. Instead, they say that people “should know that local political proclamations do not necessarily limit the legal tools available to reduce risk of violence” concerning ERPOs, which sure sounds like support to me. 

What’s this all about? The study in question is entitled “Petitions for Extreme Risk Protection Orders and Second Amendment Sanctuary Status in Colorado.” We shouldn't have to go any further than stating the obvious, ERPOs are unconstitutional. They’re civil orders that treat people like criminals. These orders lack due process and victims of ERPOs are not afforded any of their Constitutional rights because they’re “civil” in nature.

The “civil” nature of ERPOs in the United States is one of the most maniacal and planned-out vehicles to usurp the rights of gun owners.

Unfortunately, we have to combat this garbage because something being facially unconstitutional is not good enough anymore. The court of public opinion needs to be won, and that’s exactly what these “researchers” are trying to do, sway opinion. Quite maliciously I might add.

The question presented was, “What are the circumstances under which extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) have been used in counties that have made political proclamations against their use (Second Amendment [2A] sanctuaries)?” Here the academic hacks are going after Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions.

The end of the story is quite boring and it equates to the equivalent of saying “the other kids are doing it, so it’s okay.” Except in this case, the authors of the study have no issues placating to that line of thinking. There’s no adult to step in and say, “No.” 

Piggy has broken his glasses. The bias is obvious as this “academic” paper shows the authors are not only complicit with the use of ERPOs, they’re encouraging them. But, they’re “not policy people.”

In this cross-sectional analysis of all 338 ERPO petitions filed in Colorado from 2020 to 2022, 37.3% were filed in 2A sanctuaries, with 31.7% of these petitions were made by law enforcement: cases included respondents with serious mental health and/or substance use problems; histories of interaction with police; and threats of mass violence, violence against specific others against law enforcement, and suicide. When compared with ERPO petitions filed in non-2A sanctuary counties, those from sanctuaries were less likely to have been petitioned for by law enforcement and less likely to be granted.

Meaning  2A sanctuaries are seen as a barrier to ERPO use, but there exist several case characteristics that seem to overcome political reticence to use ERPOs; petitioners should be more assured in these cases that petitions will be considered, irrespective of the local political climate.

The authors of the study are making it seem like there’s some sort of a unified front based on geography, which you’d have to be totally obtuse to believe that’s the case in the modern U.S. Just like there are jagoffs in the “medical” and “academic” fields – hint hint – there too are jagoffs in every community. A showing that 37.3% of ERPOs were executed in so-called 2A sanctuaries is meaningless.

Would the authors of this study be shocked to learn that there have been reports of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Is that something that would seem earth-shattering?

I have a real nail-biter for the brain trust…the very brain trust that disclosed:

Dr Knoepke reported receiving grants from National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, Fund for a Safer Future, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Barnard reported receiving grants from Colorado Office of Gun Violence Prevention during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Would Dr. Knoepke et.al be shocked to learn that a ton of shootings occur in so-called gun-free zones or sensitive locations? Where’s their non-policy statement research paper on that?

The authors of this study were not very sly in masking their feelings though.

This cross-sectional analysis of ERPO use in Colorado highlights the utility of ERPOs, including in geographic areas that have made political proclamations against their use. People exhibiting an extreme risk of violence (directed toward themselves, family members, partners, or groups of people) are not bound by geography. No matter the political leaning of their community, our results suggest that people facing direct or ongoing threats of gun violence often elect to pursue civil protection orders in many of the types of cases for which they were designed. As other community members outside law enforcement become more involved in ERPO petitioning (including direct petitioning), they should know that local political proclamations do not necessarily limit the legal tools available to reduce risk of violence.

In a statement, author Dr. Knoepke made some observations. “We know from other studies both here and across the U.S. that petitions filed by law enforcement are more likely to be granted,” he says. “We need to investigate the cause and understand any barriers law enforcement may be encountering when using the tool.”

Somehow these statements are not supposed to have any bias to them nor support any given policy.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders are not okay. These are unconstitutional orders that deprive people of due process.

There’s big money involved in these anti-liberty think tanks, and calling them to the mattresses around every corner is a must. Academics glibly sit back and take in tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, only to turn around with “findings” that their benefactors find complementary. These findings are used to make policy. In this specific case, it took 10 authors to throw together this magnum opus, and who knows how much they were paid for it.

At best, the authors of these studies are saccharine. And, I’m sure we’re not dealing with an “at best” scenario here, and no quarter should be given.

The moral of this story about ERPOs being executed in areas “that have made political proclamations against their use” has to do with some elementary-aged lessons. If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would Dr. Knoepke jump too? All the study illustrates is that there are jagoffs everywhere, and even if there’s a legislative proclamation that an area will protect rights, those proclamations are only as good as the morality of those executing the law.