Thanks to Second Amendment supporters around the Commonwealth ceaselessly voicing their opposition to a sweeping gun ban, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-5 to reject House Bill 961 on February 17th. Bloomberg’s House majority in the General Assembly is not going to deliver their most coveted agenda item to their billionaire master.
View Related Articles
House Bill 961 was a comprehensive ban on many commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, suppressors, and standard capacity magazines. The original bill sought to impose a licensing and registration scheme for citizens who wish to keep affected firearms they lawfully owned prior to the ban, with felony penalties for noncompliance. It also broadly banned any part that could be used to change a firearm into a banned configuration. While the House Public Safety Committee amended the bill to allow citizens to keep currently owned firearms and suppressors, there was no option for citizens to keep their lawfully acquired magazines with capacities greater than twelve rounds, forcing millions of Virginians to dispose of their property, become a criminal, or surrender them to the government.
In the United States, a red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1]Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[2][3] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[4][5][6]
Orders issued under "red flag" laws, also called risk-based gun removal laws,[7] are known by several names, including Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) (in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, and Vermont); Risk Protection Orders (in Florida); Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) (in California); risk warrants (in Connecticut); and Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm (in Indiana).[8] As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are utilized, vary from state to state.[9]
This Awful House Bill Would Promote Gun Confiscation Without Due Process
The bill would make the criteria for federal grants loose enough to accommodate even the worst "red flag"
https://youtu.be/NhgtqSPh06I
BILL
1. S.506 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019Sponsor: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] (Introduced 02/14/2019) Cosponsors: (28) Committees: Senate - Judiciary Latest Action: Senate - 02/14/2019 Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (All Actions) Tracker: INTRODUCED 51 Majority
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, introduced a bill, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act (S. 506), which would allow states to use grants to develop red flag laws. The legislation is supported by 25 Democratic senators and two Democratic-aligned independent senators.[63][64] Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, introduced a separate bipartisan bill that would use grants to encourage the passage of state red-flag laws.[63] Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in 2019 that he also planned to introduce legislation to encourage states to pass red flag laws.[47] Another proposed federal red flag law is Rep. John Katko's Protecting our Communities and Rights Act,[65] which places on the State or petitioner "the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses an imminent, particularized, and substantial risk of unlawfully using a firearm to cause death or serious physical injury to himself or herself or to another person."[66]
S. 506 and other proposed bills would add persons subject to extreme risk protection orders to the list of "prohibited persons" in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (those persons who are prohibited from possessing a firearm).[67] The legislation would thus make "it a federal crime for persons subject to the orders to possess firearms and for anyone else who has reasonable cause to know about the orders to sell or give firearms to them."[67] In September 2019, the House Judiciary Committeeapproved amendments to the federal red flag bill to create a national red flag process.[68]
Gun Safety Measures Signed into Law in 2019
Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Closing Loophole to Further Prevent Dangerously Mentally Ill People from Obtaining Firearms September 3, 2019
Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Banning Undetectable Guns and Expanding Firearm Safe Storage Laws to Protect Children July 30, 2019
Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Extending the Background Check Waiting Period and Banning Bump Stocks July 29, 2019
Governor Cuomo Signs Red Flag Gun Protection Bill February 25, 2019
This week the House Judiciary Committee approved the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act. The legislation would provide grants to encourage the passage and enforcement of "red flag" laws, which are supposed to prevent people from possessing firearms when they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. The bill's standards for grant eligibility vividly illustrate the due process issues raised by such laws. Far from encouraging states to include robust due process protections, the bill would encourage them to slap together the weakest elements of the existing statutes.
The original version of the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Salud Carbajal (D–Calif.) in February, included very loose criteria for red flag laws. An amendment by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D–N.Y.) made the bill even more permissive.
In Nadler's version, petitioners—who, depending on the state, may include a long list of relatives and acquaintances as well as police officers and prosecutors—could obtain an ex parte gun confiscation order if a judge decides there is "reasonable cause" to believe the respondent "poses a danger of causing harm" to himself or others. That determination would be made without any input from the respondent, who at this stage is not notified and has no opportunity to rebut the claims against him. Contrary to the bill's name, the danger the respondent allegedly poses would not need to be "extreme," substantial, or even significant. Furthermore, no time frame is specified, so the risk would not have to be imminent, which you might think would be a requirement for an ex parte That initial order could last up to a month, at which point the respondent would finally get a hearing, although he wouldn't have a right to legal representation if he can't afford it. The judge could issue a final order if, based on "a preponderance of the evidence," a respondent seems to pose "a danger" to himself or others.
Again, any level of risk would do, and the danger could be near or distant. The order could last "for a specified period of time" or until terminated by another order—i.e., indefinitely. Given the standard of proof (which is equivalent to any probability greater than 50 percent) and the level of danger required (anything greater than zero), respondents could lose their Second Amendment rights for a year—or longer, depending on what state legislators decide to allow—even if it was 99.9 percent certain that they never would have hurt themselves or anyone else.
Again, any level of risk would do, and the danger could be near or distant. The order could last "for a specified period of time" or until terminated by another order—i.e., indefinitely. Given the standard of proof (which is equivalent to any probability greater than 50 percent) and the level of danger required (anything greater than zero), respondents could lose their Second Amendment rights for a year—or longer, depending on what state legislators decide to allow—even if it was 99.9 percent certain that they never would have hurt themselves or anyone else.
The minimum standards prescribed by Nadler's bill seem to have been crafted so that all the jurisdictions that already have red flag laws—17 states and the District of Columbia—could qualify for grants. The bill thus would lower the bar to the level of the jurisdictions with the weakest due process protections.
In every jurisdiction but two, for example, an ex parte order is supposed to be based on a risk that is "imminent," "immediate," or "in the near future." Nadler's bill dispenses with that requirement, the better to accommodate D.C. and Massachusetts. The usual time limit on ex parte orders under the existing laws ranges from one to three weeks, with 14 days the most common choice (although ex parte orders can last up to 45 days in Delaware and up to six months in Maryland if they are extended). Nadler's limit is 30 days.
More than three-quarters of existing red flag laws require "clear and convincing evidence" for a final order. Nadler's bill says the weaker "preponderance of the evidence" standard is fine, so D.C., Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New Jersey needn't worry about missing out on federal money. Even among those looser jurisdictions, all but Massachusetts require a "significant" danger, which is hard to define but is at least more than any danger at all, the standard set by Nadler's bill.
Finally, Nadler's bill imposes no limit at all on the length of final orders, which under existing laws generally last a year (although they can be renewed in most of the states for another year). The two exceptions are Indiana and New Jersey, where gun confiscation orders last until the respondent files a petition and persuades a judge that he does not pose a danger to himself or others. Under Nadler's bill, that's fine too.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who plans to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, has dismissed critics of red flag laws as "libertarians." But he also has promised that his bill will include standards aimed at protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights. He will have to do a lot better than Nadler if he wants to be taken seriously.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) has already introduced the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act, which he brags about in today's New York Times. Rubio's bill is notably better than Nadler's in several ways but still does not set standards that provide adequate protection for people accused of posing a threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment