News article.
PDF of bill.
This bill is designed to take the right to bear arms from those who pose an immediate danger to themselves and/or people in their household. It
I’ve got no problems with this bill myself. It isn’t perfect…but no law is, and to object to it on those grounds is to object to almost all lawmaking, if you are consistent in your beliefs.
To whom were you addressing this? Nobody here had even responded, let alone objected.
It’s a common enough argument made in threads about gun laws, so addressing it beforehand shouldn’t be that unusual.
Do you have an opinion on the bill?
Provided there is a means to have one’s property returned and have the order lifted with no lingering handicaps or stigma, I do not necessarily object to such a law.
And how would such a guarantee even be possible?
edited to add: All someone would have to do is say “I feel stigmatized by not having the same right to bear arms as everyone else!” to nullify the law, in your scenario -an impossible condition.
I’m not sure how you got that out of what I wrote.
Then please explain what you meant, and how it could be accomplished.
I meant that if such an order is imposed on a person, that person should have the ability to have the order lifted and expunged from hir record. How could it be accomplished? Similarly to how one fights a PFA, one supposes. I would also like to see that the criteria for imposition of such an order be stringent and clear in order to discourage misuse of the law.
From the bill itself:
and this court order only lasts for a year.
edited to add, I believe your questions will be answered by looking over the bill itself.
I’m as pro gun as you can be and I have no issue with this law as presented. It affords due process and is limited in scope.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
I object to the bill, but my objection isn’t upon a general ground that it isn’t perfect. I believe it’s flawed in specific ways.
The proceeding is an ex parte hearing, meaning Dale files such an order against Pat, and appears in front of the court, but Pat is not notified or given the right to appear and counter the accusations being made at that initial hearing.
Once the order is issued, Pat has 30 days to request a hearing, but even at that hearing, the judge is permitted to rely upon Dale’s sworn affidavit, which cannot be cross-examined, as opposed to Dale’s live witness testimony.
Moreover, Pat is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if Pat possesses a firearm while subject to the order, even if Pat was never served with the order.
Those are my objections.
I wouldn’t support this bill.
It allows police and a judge to be the arbiters of whether a person can exercise their 2nd amendment rights. Congress has stipulated what the criteria for being a prohibited person are and this goes well beyond it. In addition, an order can be requested and granted near simultaneously ex parte. That’s not due process. The subject of the order has 24 hours to surrender weapons or be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and a loss of firearm rights for 5 years. That seems unduly harsh.
The procedures specifically exclude mental health as a criteria that can be used to make a determination. That seems strange. However, it allows drug use, or previous DUI as a criteria for granting the order. The standard for granting the order is vague as well. It includes, among other things - clear and convincing evidence that sometime in the near future the subject presents a risk of causing injury to another person. That’s basically anything. Drive a car, that’s a risk that you would cause injury to another person so no guns. Wut?
If the state wanted to take guns from people they don’t like, they could at least include the use of a medical professional as a fig leaf.
This illustrates the value of having a lawyer handy when we commence to discussing the law. In light of these points, I could not support this law either.
I really wish this wasn’t the route liberals tried to take with gun control.
Whatever your view on Heller, this kind of bill has wider negative ramifications for due process and protection of all of our constitutional rights. Just like “no fly no buy,” it’s good politics but bad law and probably neutral policy.
This bill came from a Republican.
Yep. But he’s the only R who voted for it, with 16 Ds.
And a Democrat.
And it got exactly one Republican vote. All the Democrats in the chamber voted for it, save one.
So both sides voted along partisan lines, pretty much. Not surprised.
Just curious: What is the current procedure if you think a loved one who owns a gun is either suicidal or a danger to the immediate family, and how long does this procedure take?
In Pennsylvania, one might try for an involuntary commitment. The link is to a pdf, for those who care.