Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,462 posts)
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 06:47 PM Mar 2018

States Consider Laws Allowing Courts to Take Guns From Dangerous People

Lawmakers in at least 24 states from Hawaii to Maryland are pushing bills that would allow courts to temporarily take guns from people deemed dangerous, a gun-control concept gaining ground as a politically feasible response to last month’s shooting in Florida.

The idea—known as red-flag laws—has gained momentum after the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school that left 17 people dead. A handful of states, such as California and Connecticut, already have such laws, but the concept is catching on, including in Florida, a state that has historically been resistant to gun control.

Though most of the bills are sponsored by Democratic lawmakers, these measures have drawn some Republican support, too. “Maybe because there is such an outcry from the people, legislators will be willing to at least hear these bills,” said Barbara Bollier, a Republican state senator who sponsors red-flag legislation in Kansas.

Legislative records show that bills have been introduced in at least 24 states—some after the Parkland shooting—and lawmakers in other states are planning bills. The American State Legislators for Gun Violence Prevention, a nonpartisan coalition that has been marshaling support for these laws around the U.S., has been leading a drive to get these bills passed.

Supporters say the measure—also known as a gun-violence or extreme-risk protection order—offers a way to address a legal conundrum: how to take action against people perceived as an imminent threat to themselves or others, but who haven’t done anything illegal.

(snip)

The red-flag laws have rankled some gun-rights supporters. The Gun Owners of America considers them unconstitutional, pointing to measures that allow concerned parties to seek temporary orders against gun owners without the owner having a chance to face their accusers in court and argue on their own behalf. Supporters say the bills intend to protect due-process rights by requiring court approval.

(snip)

In some states, such bills existed before the Feb. 14 shooting and now are seeing renewed momentum. In New York, a red-flag bill that has been in the works for three years is due for a vote within weeks. An Illinois bill filed in January passed the state Senate on Wednesday, and is expected to land on the governor’s desk within a week.

(snip)

Pushback against some measures isn’t limited to gun owners. The American Civil Liberties Union objected to a proposal in California that would have expanded that state’s law to allow employers, co-workers and mental-health workers to also petition judges directly; it was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2016.

(snip)

Experts say these laws are modeled after domestic-violence restraining orders that also authorize police to take away guns from people who pose threats to their partners, but with safeguards.

More..

https://www.wsj.com/articles/states-consider-laws-allowing-courts-to-take-guns-from-dangerous-people-1519986600

Red Flag States
Only five states currently have ‘red flag’ laws, which allow authorities to temporarily take firearms from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

Gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, 2016 The squares are States with ‘red flag’ laws




Map on the left - total, on the right - suicides

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
States Consider Laws Allowing Courts to Take Guns From Dangerous People (Original Post) question everything Mar 2018 OP
I have no problem with these, so long as a couple of hard and fast rules are followed: friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #1
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
1. I have no problem with these, so long as a couple of hard and fast rules are followed:
Sat Mar 3, 2018, 07:44 PM
Mar 2018

1) There are no ex parte* hearings, and

2) the subject has the right to legal counsel and to question witnesses

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte

Ex parte /ˌɛks ˈpɑːrtiː/ is a Latin legal term meaning "from (by or for) [the/a] party." An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be present. In Australian, Canadian, U.K., South African, Indian and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator, or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party.



Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»States Consider Laws Allo...