extreme risk protection orders
Posted: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 15:28:59
I'm thinking I'll send this to all my legislators. But they are all solidly in opposition to Gov. Northam's anti-gun proposals anyway.
……………………….………………………………………………………………..
The proposal for “extreme risk protection orders” is, in my opinion, one of the more repugnant of an extremely repugnant group of legislative proposals.
Extreme risk protection orders, as I understand from Secretary Moran’s roundtable in Abingdon, would allow a third party (Moran said this would be limited to a police officer or prosecutor) to petition a judge for a warrant to seize legally owned guns if someone is determined to be an immediate threat to themselves or others. The subject of the order would not be present when the warrant is sought and would have no opportunity for a hearing or representation. This, said Moran, was permissible because other states have done it, and because the order could only be sought by police or prosecutors.
I asked a legislator and practicing attorney if he knew of any other circumstance where an agent of the state could, absent a prior criminal act by the possessor of property, take that property without a hearing. He answered that he could think of none. Yes, they sometimes confiscate cars, but (1) It requires a prior criminal act (such as DUI, for example) by the operator, and (2) there is NO Constitutional right to own, possess, or operate a car. I had asked because I couldn’t think of one, either. And the property in the case of these proposed extreme risk protection orders is not just ANY old property; it is property to which there is a Constitutionally protected right to the un-infringed right to its possession and use.
In addition to that, it seems to me that restricting the people who can request an extreme risk protection orders to police and prosecutors is clearly not protective enough of Second Amendment rights. Police and prosecutors, after all, are people who are in the enforcement business and many of them may well have a bias toward erring on the side of caution when it comes to charging individuals. With all respect to those people, the concern must certainly be that at least some of them would be too “trigger happy” on extreme risk protection orders; and in the all-too-likely case of a prosecutor with a strong bias against Second Amendment freedoms, the opportunities for abuse would be rife. And they are likely to be not trained for, experienced at or in the habit being impartial finders of fact as a judge would be. Finally, limiting requests for extreme risk protection orders to police or prosecutors still won’t stop bad faith reports by people with grudges seeking to punish law abiding gun owners; it will only move the “swearing match” from one in front of an experienced, accredited finder of fact to one before a cop or prosecutor. It is, in short, so little protection as to be a mere fig leaf to mask naked contempt for gun rights.
……………………….………………………………………………………………..
The proposal for “extreme risk protection orders” is, in my opinion, one of the more repugnant of an extremely repugnant group of legislative proposals.
Extreme risk protection orders, as I understand from Secretary Moran’s roundtable in Abingdon, would allow a third party (Moran said this would be limited to a police officer or prosecutor) to petition a judge for a warrant to seize legally owned guns if someone is determined to be an immediate threat to themselves or others. The subject of the order would not be present when the warrant is sought and would have no opportunity for a hearing or representation. This, said Moran, was permissible because other states have done it, and because the order could only be sought by police or prosecutors.
I asked a legislator and practicing attorney if he knew of any other circumstance where an agent of the state could, absent a prior criminal act by the possessor of property, take that property without a hearing. He answered that he could think of none. Yes, they sometimes confiscate cars, but (1) It requires a prior criminal act (such as DUI, for example) by the operator, and (2) there is NO Constitutional right to own, possess, or operate a car. I had asked because I couldn’t think of one, either. And the property in the case of these proposed extreme risk protection orders is not just ANY old property; it is property to which there is a Constitutionally protected right to the un-infringed right to its possession and use.
In addition to that, it seems to me that restricting the people who can request an extreme risk protection orders to police and prosecutors is clearly not protective enough of Second Amendment rights. Police and prosecutors, after all, are people who are in the enforcement business and many of them may well have a bias toward erring on the side of caution when it comes to charging individuals. With all respect to those people, the concern must certainly be that at least some of them would be too “trigger happy” on extreme risk protection orders; and in the all-too-likely case of a prosecutor with a strong bias against Second Amendment freedoms, the opportunities for abuse would be rife. And they are likely to be not trained for, experienced at or in the habit being impartial finders of fact as a judge would be. Finally, limiting requests for extreme risk protection orders to police or prosecutors still won’t stop bad faith reports by people with grudges seeking to punish law abiding gun owners; it will only move the “swearing match” from one in front of an experienced, accredited finder of fact to one before a cop or prosecutor. It is, in short, so little protection as to be a mere fig leaf to mask naked contempt for gun rights.
