(07-31-2018, 08:58 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: It's a Draconian law.  Check section 6 which is supposed to detail how the order shall end, but mostly provides ways to extend it.  Section 13 excepts all the government helpers from all criminal and civil penalties and liabilities if they screw up.  And of course the key part is about the hearing (after you request a hearing; you do not get one automatically).  When they finally let you speak, weeks or months after your home was invaded and property taken, it is exactly as I said:

The respondent shall have the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. The court may consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the considerations listed in paragraph (3)©.

Here's where you get to present evidence proving you didn't do what somebody feared you might do.  Good luck.

You may want to re-read the law. Subsection (6) is applicable after a risk protection order had been issued to determine termination or extension of the order. At that point, yes, the burden of proof is on the respondent. However, the respondent has already gone through the initial hearing which determined that the respondent was a risk and therefore a risk protection order was issued. Please read Subsection (3).  The initial hearing is automatic (not sure where you assumed you didn't automatically get a hearing), and the respondent and/or the respondent's attorney must be presented with all evidence against the respondent. This initial hearing must be within 14 days of the initial petition order. The respondent would be able to rebut the evidence at that time.

---