Bipartisan Extreme Risk Protection Bill Headed for House of Representatives

Any time you get bipartisan support in Congress for, well, anything watch your wallet. And your gun rights. As Michigan Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell announced yesterday, she and Michigan Republican Fred Upton are fixin’ to introduce a federal level Extreme Risk Protection Order bill.

The two chair the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus group that’s looking at ways to do something about gun violence.

As she told Fox News yesterday,

…Fred Upton and I who is the co-chair of the Problem Solvers gun group are looking at introducing (an extreme risk protection bill) with Susan Brooks of Indiana at the national level.

A family who knows that someone in their family could be a danger to themselves or to others needs to have a tool that they can take that gun away. And law enforcement needs that as well.

Ah, but the devil, as always, lies in the details.

Due process needs to be built into it. It’s called red flag laws. Indiana…Vice President Mike Pence and Governor Mitch Daniels have supported it in the state of Indiana. It’s been used 800 times. If somebody’s a threat and you know they’re a threat, you need to have the tools to take that gun away.

Dingell’s basing her bill on Indiana’s confiscation law. A third party can claim that an individual is dangerous and a judge can order confiscation, all without the individual being present to defend himself.

While a law enforcement officer can get a warrant to confiscate a firearm from someone he deems dangerous, the law gives LEOS the right to confiscate weapons without benefit of a warrant.

 Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer’s belief that the individual is dangerous.

(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.

(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

The gun owner then would have 14 days to petition the court, trying to convince them that the officer was wrong and that his guns should be returned.

Again, there are certainly people who suffer from mental illness and shouldn’t have access to firearms. But no one should be denied due process in determining whether one of their fundamental civil rights will be denied. Any court that’s considering the confiscation of a law-abiding citizen’s firearms should be required to make that determination in the presence of that person. Period.

 

comments

  1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    On the surface, I could support such a law as long as rigorous due process protections were included and, a big and, massive penalties for anyone abusing the law for malice or revenge.

    But then this rather simple and logical thought strikes me: if a person is so dangerous they need their guns taken away to protect society, then why are they allowed to go free? The world, after all, is full of items that can turned into deadly weapons.

    Reform of involuntary commitment statutes is a much better way to go.

    1. avatar Helms Deep says:

      It is needed as a Soviet style stepping stone to disarm ” Un – Desirables ”

      A.K.A = anyone deemed a threat to utopian ‘ order ‘.
      —- Stalin and the N.K.V.D would sure be proud,

      Note ; Bi- partisan gun bans are being pushed
      because they all KNOW ….. they will be GONE in the Mid-Term Elections —– > can’t take that chance.

    2. avatar John in AK says:

      The obvious corollary to this sort of law, if one takes statistical probabilities into account, is a national law requiring law enforcement to seize the motor vehicles from any person who might get drunk and drive. It wouldn’t matter if the person had ever been apprehended and convicted of drunken driving, although that would help establish reasonable belief; It should only matter that the person has been or may become drunk, and is in possession of the means with which to drive in that condition. Simple possession of sufficient quantities of alcoholic beverages to induce intoxication beyond a state’s legal limit, along with access to any motor vehicle, should be enough to show intent.
      Naturally, that would require not only the seizure of any vehicles belonging to that person specifically, but also those maintained by the household in which he or she resides. In serious cases, confiscation of the motor vehicles in the possession of family members not dwelling with the respondent, close friends, business coworkers, acquaintances, and rental agencies within a 50-mile radius would be mandated.
      Of course, the respondent would be able to petition the courts for return of any and all vehicles thus seized, offering adequate due-process protection.
      Surely, if it saves just one life. . .

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “if a person is so dangerous they need their guns taken away to protect society, then why are they allowed to go free?”

      If a person is incompetent, they ought to have a guardian responsible for their reasonable safety. The individual’s rights are expressed through, and tempered by, the guardian. That guardian might be an attorney assigned to them while committed to a mental facility or, it might be a family member living with them while outside of a facility. When an individual is stripped of the exercise of their unalienable individual rights, they are immorally left vulnerable. They have mostly risk without the ability to exercise their rights. That is not a free society.

    4. avatar miforest says:

      david, your comments lead me to believe you may be a a danger to someone somewhere sometime. the second this passes somone could call and report you. Long expensive court battle you will probably lose anyway will be worth it for their peace om mind .

      sure that won’t happen . ex boyfriends and people going through divorce battles and so forth wouldn’t make trouble for someone like that

    5. avatar Howard A McClellan says:

      Since when do we arrest or deny a person of one of there civil rights before any crime is committed is this Venezuela or Cuba. This is just another attempt at power and gun grabbing.

  2. avatar Art out West says:

    Due process means convicted of a crime, beyond a reasonable doubt, by a jury of peers.

    Probable cause, police opinions, and judges whims don’t cut it. Totally unconstitutional

    This is a radical and dangerous violation of basic human rights.

    Unbelievable government over reach.

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    So THAT’S how bad laws work…elect republitards. Funny story-I got an “official” looking mailing from the Democrat party. They think I’m a registered dumbocrat. Never registered ANYTHING. It had a very long questionnaire with barely anything about guns save “common sense” BS. Other than the usual anti-Trump claptrap one would be hardpressed to differentiate from Republicans…sigh.😟😧😏

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      And in their place you want to elect whom?

  4. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    This is the shit that will spark a civil war. This is how confiscations will start. The wrong person will be targeted and we will have Bundy 2.0 (regardless of anyone’s opinion on the matter of him being right or wrong, it was a show of force against the government), and it will then turn into Waco 2.0.

    No. No more. Not one more inch. If you are too dangerous to have a gun, you are too dangerous to be free of your own recognizance. This bill seeks to go after the 2nd, 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th all at once. NO MORE.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Aye. Tyranny must be stopped. Not one more inch.

  5. avatar Marty says:

    The last paragraph says it all. Without due process, this bill is all crap. Ex wives, husbands, boy or girlfriends have been known to lie about their ex’s. At the absolute least, the bill should include a criminal penalty for making false statements. But really the bill should be thrown out with the garbage.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      If passed just use the bill on the people who passed it and supported it.

      The best way to get a bad law repealed is to strictly enforce it.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        That is true. In the past, I’ve advocated rigorous enforcement to demonstrate the burden of a law.

  6. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    I don’t want people who are psychotic to have access to a gun, but the problem with all of these Extreme Risk Protection Bills is that they require someone to prove that they’re not “guilty.” That flies in the face of all the legal traditions of this Country which requires the government to prove your guilt before your rights are taken away from you.

    Liberals all think we’re criminally insane anyway because we’re gun owners. What’s to stop some butt hurt newspaper reader who is offended (threatened) by something you’ve posted in the comments section or a letter to the editor referring you to a court? Or a nasty ex looking for a way to make your life miserable?

    If you’re too dangerous to have a gun, you probably should be in custody.

  7. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Isn’t this exactly what the President called for?

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Yes. Trump asked for this.

      1. avatar Helms Deep says:

        Text in the Florida bill said the simple act of ” Recently Purchased a Gun ” …. can be grounds for confiscation order.

        Anyone who votes for these bills is , in fact , INSANE and should be committed !

  8. avatar Chris says:

    How do those of us behind enemy lines stop this?!

    1. avatar Craig in IA says:

      Ever heard of voting?

      Of course it’d help to try to organize with others who have similar concepts, but the lack of any desire or ability by a fair number of participants here to try to compromise at the time to gain something in your favor only keeps gun owners and Constitutionally adept Americans from gaining much traction against a faction (how’s that for poetry) that will take anything, no matter how small or against their own principles, to further their own agenda, which is the total disarmament of the American people. Death by a thousand cuts, and many of our “scholars” haven’t even heard of Band Aids.

      This propasal has not passed, get off this site and contact the appropriate people. Easier to bitch and moan, I guess.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “but the lack of any desire or ability by a fair number of participants here to try to compromise”

        That is idiotic. Your type will compromise liberty right into a grave. Giving up the exercise of unalienable individual rights for government privileges is the “compromise” of fools and government boot-sniffers.

        You either don’t understand the differences between privileges and rights or the truth just doesn’t fit your Tory agenda.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          i understand this a lot better than you do. For example, and Exhibit A-

          Had you and your bomb-thowers gotten your way in 1993 when the Semiauto “ban” went into effect, none of these firearms would exist today, at least not in the open. Anyone with half a brain at the time could’ve seen that with the Congress in session “at the time”, along with its leadership “at the time”, this bill was going to become law no matter what NRA did “at the time”. (Again, “at the time” is always the key.)

          You could’ve gotten your little no-compromise militia together and marched on the US Capital “at the time” with your guns and not only would you all have been soundly snuffed out, the general public would’ve been so sickened by it that every other privately held firearm would’ve soon been tossed on the trash heap.

          However, at the time, NRA worked to include a 10 year sunset to the bill that was destined to become law at the time, as well as amendments to clearly define just what it was that the lefties deemed created an “assault weapon” at the time- you remember, bayonet lugs, vertical rear grip, detachable magazines, caliber, semiauto action, etc. It wasn’t a month after the bill became law that DiFi, Schumer, Metzenblum, Boxer and their ilk were crying “foul” because AR, FALs, AKs and the like were all back on the shelves with cosmetic modifications. How could that be??? The pols were screwed because we gave them just what they asked for at the time. It also became a huge campaign/election issue at the time in the 94 cycle and a huge number of those who voted against the Constitution and the American people got tossed on their butts at the time and most never resurfaced. And of course, 10 years later, it all went away and we have more of what was “banned” at the time than ever. Neal Knox, Larry Pratt, Dudley Brown and the other big, chest thumping wannabees had nothing to do with any of it.

          Sure, you don’t like history lessons. This fight is damn tough, even tougher when we not only have to fight the gun banners but have to fight the ones we’re trying to save the rights for as well, against their own will. So, here’s a proposition for ya- gather your army and head for the Capital. Now’s the time, according to you. You guys show them how it’s really done at this time, you and all the other simple minded folks here that are hoping for some sort of armed revolution. Let’s see how that all works out for you “at this time”. Youtube might even put up videos of the smoking holes that are left of you. I’m sticking with what the Constitution provides, that and a bit of another commodity that seems to be in short supply these days- patience. The Constitution will still be around long after you and I aren’t.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Did not read. I already know what you are. You’re just negotiating price.

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Too bad, you’re missing the opportunity to learn something.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There’s nothing useful to learn from a Tory troll. ROTFLMFAO

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    What the blazes is the federal “compelling interest” in domestic violence orders? How does a municipal or state crime somehow become a federal case?

    Forget the whole anti-2A mindset. This is one more brick in the house of federal control over every bit of our lives, making states superfluous.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Compelling interest just means that the king really wants it. I agree with you.

  10. avatar Mad Max says:

    What keeps creeping into my mind is that you can be arrested and held for arraignment and then held on charges (if you are denied or can’t afford bail) until the jury rules.

    During this period, you are being denied your freedom without the completion of the due process.

    I think seizure of firearms should require an arraignment before confiscation.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Only take arms when someone is arrested

  11. avatar Byrd007 says:

    All these new “do something” laws are BS but about this specifically – is there a definition of “dangerous” in this legislation? Such as making threats on social media etc? Without a hard and fast definition of “dangerous” it could be interpreted as anything. Give someone a dirty look and lose your guns; get a little drunk at happy hour and lose your guns; yell at your dog for running into the street and lose your guns etc…

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      Making threats is a crime
      This involves no crime

      1. avatar Byrd007 says:

        That’s what I’m saying – do you (or anyone) know if there are very specific criteria in the legislation as to what could qualify someone as a “danger” to themselves or others?

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Someone doesn’t like you? Despicable Republican NRA member?

  12. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    “You have been all declared An Enemy of the State! All TTAG commenters, surrender your weapons immediately!!!”—- April Fools, or… Not… Anyone getting a bit scared yet…..

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Scared? No. Damned impatient? Definitely.

  13. avatar John Richard says:

    What bothers me is where will these seized weapons be stored. I see a leaky military metal conex with water on the floor. The weapons will be thrown in there and by the time the owner gets them back they’ll be rusted shut. Or the police dept will just say whoops we cut them up by mistake, sorry.

  14. avatar Raoul Duke says:

    Armed uprising is the only answer I don’t care what anyone thinks. They don’t represent us. All our writing and voting has fallen on deaf ears. The government is out of control and the only thing they understand is force.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Out of control or not, force is all that governments can understand. But, yeah, this one is certainly out of control. Time to hit it with the bad puppy stick.

  15. avatar sound awake says:

    ooh i know…

    how about we instead pass a law that actually requires the fbi to be at least not criminally negligent in their duties and at best not be matierally complicit in mass shootings

    its going to take at least a generation for the fbi to rehabilitate their reputation with a majority of the american people

    and thats based on them starting to attempt that this decade

    which at this pace may not happen

  16. avatar Cam says:

    This is wrong, having to outlay money and time to defend ones constitutional rights.
    If they do this they need to put some tax credit in it to pay for the legal fees and time that someone has to take to defend their rights.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      There are many so poor that a tax credit would do them no good.

  17. avatar Anon says:

    As a warning – I’ll tell my story. I was out in the garage one day, dry firing. Home all alone when I went out. Family member came home, with a friend. I came out of the garage, with pistol strapped to my side. Upon seeing the new people, showed them it was empty and had a laser stuffed into the barrel. Went on my way. Short version of this story – someone at first said they felt threatened (by my gun I guess) – sheriff shows up, I explain myself, we tell gun stories for about an hour (one recon marine, one army) to each other, they high five me and leave. Next day CPS gets involved – one supervisor obviously felt I didn’t kiss her supreme butt enough, fast enough – and I’ve been swimming in lawyers ever since. I live in King Co. Washington. Where dry firing is now a crime I guess, so is wearing a gun in your own home, even if unloaded. So will these ‘extreme risk’ laws be abused – damn right.

    I had my own lawyer tell me ‘guns are scary’ – well, so are spiders, and they bite people all on their own, so go outlaw them . . . Bottom line, if there is a way liberals can take advantage of a law to their own liking, they will do so. Be warned.

    footnote – daughter is 27 years old. CPS is bent over me having a gun and a 17 year old son – at the same time.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I’ve dealt with law enforcement and CPS multiple times over the years. I have found that it is best just not to talk to them. Tell them to go pound sand. You were high-fiving the cops but it did you no good. If you told them to stuff it, they would’ve had nothing and there was a good chance that CPS never would have shown up. But, if CPS did, telling them to kiss your ass would’ve worked much better than cooperating. Roll around with venomous snakes and you’re going to get bitten.

      You have my empathy for your plight. Don’t take this post as blaming the victim (you).

      1. avatar Anon says:

        What I heard from an insider is that for each 911 call, involving a gun and children in the house, CPS (In King County, WA) goes out to ‘investigate’. Being a public entity they have to fail on the ‘safe’ side which for them is to take the children. Then sort it out in court. My insider says he has never seen a case where there was a 911 call involving a gun and CPS didn’t take the children away. This is the world we live in now.

        Do not EVER call 911 in King County.

        Forget taking your guns, they will take your children if you own guns and ever get into the system.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          These cases are head off at the pass on a regular basis. It just doesn’t get reported much; just like the deterrent value of being openly armed. I’ve defeated CPS multiple times. It wasn’t that difficult. I’ve personally witnessed others do the same. There are parental rights organizations out there that write about it regularly. The big problem is when guardians allow themselves to be sucked into the system in the beginning. Unfortunately, many are uninformed. When they show up, tell them you won’t speak without an attorney. Force their hand. Once you get on their cattle car, you are fighting an ever increasing up hill battle.

          I do agree that these other infringements on individual rights will murder by a thousand cuts. I also agree; do not call 911.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “I had my own lawyer tell me ‘guns are scary’”

      Dump that attorney. One like that is worse than useless; actually dangerous to your case.

  18. avatar 2nd Amendment Declaration says:

    If you believe in the 2nd Amendment the Government should be Hella Damn Terrified afraid of us pooping their pants!!

    The Founders wanted the Gov to fear the armed people for checks and balances!

    Anyone who supports this bill is a treasonous sack of crap needing quick justice from a rope!

    The 2nd amendment does not say u lose this right if some idiot thinks ur dangerous!

    IF that were true all Liberals and Govt/law enforcement could not own guns!

    If people understood the 2nd amendment they would be out with pitch forks and torches tar and feathering politicians and hanging them all.

  19. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    Yeah, no thanks. These laws at the state level are one thing, but IN NO WAY do I want something like this as FEDERAL law. That is too much. Everyone needs to make an effort to watch this and if it starts to get anywhere, call up not only your own Congressmen and Senators, but the House Majority Leader and the Senate Majority Leader. Let them know that you DO NOT want this to become law.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “That is too much.”

      Local tyranny or nationwide tyranny, it’s much of the same thing. Resist both.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    F MI,

    F all of the evil blue house of POS communist (D).

    F all of the (d) rinos.

    Your government cannot protect itself on an individual level.

    Your government cannot protect you on an individual level, no one can.

    Likely not even you, but especially if you turn over that job to your stupid ahole neighbors who needed a job.

    If your government wants to do this, it’s not to protect you, it’s for your stupid ahole neighbors who needed a job to protect themselves from you, so that they can do tyranny with impunity. Because they hate you.

  21. avatar John Thayer says:

    Fox News reported on the pizza parlor employee in Seattle who lost his guns because fellow employees thought that he was “acting strange and staring at customers.”

    Sorry, fellas. But that doesn’t make him an actual THREAT to anybody.

    I saw a man sporting pink hair, ear, nose and lip rings and heavy tattoos. That might have got him committed 50 years ago. Should he lose HIS rights too?

  22. avatar DonS says:

    Extreme Risk doesn’t mean the same thing to a brain washed liberal as it does to one of us. Owning a gun is an Extreme Risk for some people I know. You all know that we are in more danger because we have guns in the home. So if we have say, 6 of them wow, that’s a pretty extreme risk.

    If they ever saw a 3 gun match they would lose their sh–, probably need xanax and oxygen. Running with loaded guns – seems like an extreme risk. When they realize that children do it as well —– OMG – arrest them all right NOW.

  23. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Again, there are certainly people who suffer from mental illness and shouldn’t have access to firearms. But no one should be denied due process in determining whether one of their fundamental civil rights will be denied.”

    Bullshit. If they are that incompetent then they ought to have a guardian. Absent a legitimate guardian responsible for their reasonable safety, then they can fully exercise their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Their rights are expressed for them through a guardian. It’s unfortunate that you support gun control. You are already pulling a Nicholas Kristof.

  24. avatar Armed Partisan says:

    If this bill becomes law, I intend to anonymously report everyone who voted for it as being “a danger to themselves and others”, which is true; they are, and I would swear to that under oath.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email