Online users
???: Message???: Message  

Elephant? WHAT elephant?
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

03/02/2019, 12:42:53

Author Profile Mail author Edit
www.mlive.com

Family, police could petition to take away guns from person posing ‘extreme risk’ under Michigan bills

Updated Feb 28, 2019; Posted Feb 28, 2019
3-4 minutes

Michigan State Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Huntington Woods, speaks at a press conference in Lansing Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019 introducing legislation that would allow judges to issue extreme risk protection orders for people limiting their access to guns if law enforcement or immediate family could prove they were a risk to themselves or others.

By lgibbon2@mlive.com's Author Page" style="color: rgb(0, 149, 221); text-decoration-line: none;">Lauren Gibbons | lgibbon2@mlive.com

Michigan judges could issue an “extreme risk protection order” temporarily preventing a person from buying or possessing a gun if law enforcement or family members can prove they pose a serious risk under legislation introduced by House and Senate Democrats this week.

The legislation, packaged as House bills 4283-4285 and Senate Bills 156-158, would allow immediate family members, current and former spouses or partners, roommates and law enforcement to ask a judge for an order to temporarily take possession of a person’s firearms and prevent them from buying new ones while the order is in effect.

Before such an order could be issued, the court would have to consider testimony and other relevant evidence, including whether a person had previously threatened to harm themselves or others. Bills tie-barred to the package also call for penalties if a person is found guilty of filing false reports for an extreme risk protection order.

“We are not anti-gun - we are anti-gun violence,” said state Rep. Robert Wittenberg, D-Huntington Woods, a lead sponsor on the legislation. “These bills will empower law enforcement and family members to prevent gun tragedies by giving them the tools they need to keep themselves and their families safe by providing them with legal recourse to limit access.”

As of now, the bills don’t have Republican co-sponsors or public backing from the majority party. Wittenberg said he was hopeful that could change, noting some Republicans he’s talked to have told him it’s a concept they’d support if it was put up for a vote.

House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, said he hadn’t reviewed the legislation yet, “but I want to ensure the right to keep and bear arms is protected for all citizens of the state.”

Sen. Rosemary Bayer, D-Beverly Hills, is one of the Senate sponsors of the legislation. She said the bills could go a long way towards preventing suicide deaths by firearms, referencing her own experience as a teenager when a friend of hers died by suicide.

“I will never forget the devastation to my family, to his family, to the community, to the school,” she said. “If we could just slow things down a little bit just to reduce a suicidal person’s access to firearms in the moment, that will save lives.”

Extreme risk protection order bills have been enacted in 11 other states, Wittenberg said. New York Gov. Richard Cuomo signed similar legislation into law this week.


The problem with these so-called "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" is that they have been universally enacted in such fashion as to circumvent 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment due process commands. Ex parte hearings facially violate the command that BEFORE any person can be deprived of life, liberty or property, due process must be followed. Suspending the right but providing for a subsequent appeal doesn't surmount the burden, because it places the cart before the horse. If this were not the case, we wouldn't see so much opposition to the idea. 

Due process required for suspending or denying a right requires an adversarial hearing wherein the respondent can face his accusers, cross-examine witnesses, and present witnesses and rebuttal evidence in his own behalf. 

None, I repeat, NONE of the ERPOs enacted so far comply with this constitutional command, therefore they are facially unconstitutional.




LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page