lawmakers push red flag after wawa shooting

[middlefinger]

.

Pa. lawmakers, activists urge passage of ‘red flag’ law following deadly Wawa shooting


Delaware County District Attorney Katayoun Copeland speaks on behalf of a new "red flag" bill speaks during a press conference Friday. (Laura Benshoff/WHYY)

Less than two weeks before he shot and killed his ex-wife, Brian Kennedy legally purchased the murder weapon — an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle.

Southeastern Pennsylvania lawmakers and gun control activists say that a proposed “red flag” law could have prevented Stephanie Miller’s death and limit future gun fatalities.

“It is literally a life-saving policy that can help protect our communities from mass-shootings, from firearm suicides and other acts of gun violence,” said Delaware County District Attorney Katayoun Copeland.

Two bills — one in the Pennsylvania House and one in the Pennsylvania Senate — call for creating Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO), similar to those on the books in 14 other states, including Delaware and New Jersey.

These orders allow law enforcement or concerned family members to ask a judge to temporarily take away someone’s guns, or to stop them from purchasing a gun, if there is evidence they are about to hurt themselves or others. That evidence may include suicide threats or attempts, threats of violence, instances of domestic abuse or cruelty to animals, among other qualifying behavior.

Within ten days, both sides can present their cases at a full hearing, at which point a judge would rule whether to extend the order for of a term of up to one year.

Supporters of the legislation, such as state Rep. Todd Stephens (R-Montgomery) and state Sen. Tom Killion (R-Delaware), say it differs from existing protections, such as a Protection from Abuse Order, which are filed by loved ones who fear for their own safety, and is less extreme than other options currently on the books.

“People who are in crisis, their family members really only have one option — and that’s an involuntary commitment,” said Stephens. “That’s pretty severe.”

The National Rifle Association has fought ERPO legislation in the past overdue process concerns. Last fall, the NRA Institute of Legislative Action urged Pennsylvania members to oppose the bill, saying “a law-abiding gun owner could lose their right to own or possess a firearm and then have the burden placed on them to prove the false nature of the petition in order to have their firearms returned.”

That earlier bill, H.B.2227, made it through the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee but failed to gain further momentum.

In trying again, lawmakers underscored that nearly two-thirds of last year’s 1636 firearm deaths were suicides, which disproportionately plagued rural counties.

“When I was 13 years old, I lost my father to gun suicide,” said state Rep. Jennifer O’Mara (D-Delaware), a co-sponsor of the new bill. “I knew something was wrong, but there is nothing I could do about it.” That, and a later case of stalking, galvanized her to support this legislation.

A rally is planned in Harrisburg Monday in support of the H.B. 1075 and S.B. 90.

https://whyy.org/articles/pa-lawmake...TEKZpQUVOKMWhc

[middlefinger]

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...gMDotmPQzBzIms

[Parrisk]

I know some of you will be stone cold set against any discussion... here is my take

These laws in other states are rife with abuse because they did not go into depth for protecting the firearms owner and their property.
Nor do they specify that false statements open the reporter to legal actions.

Ex's or enemies that make false statements and police swarm in to take firearms
Police not returning firearms or damaging the firearms through poor stewardship

I am not totally against these efforts, but there must be:
a preponderance of evidence
Judgement by a Judge
Strict inventory rules before removal
Time limits and mandatory return enforcement !
Clear rules on what the owner has to do for return of firearms
Allowances to take legal recourse against reporter when allegations are unfounded
Protect the abused and their rights to own firearms for protection

There are weak minded/soulless individuals who have severely hurt our cause to protect the 2nd Amendment by shooting up places and people.. some of these asshats kill because they want to kill.. others have killed because they know it will stir up the hornets nest of Anti-Gun cucks.

[GOYABEAN]

Don't forget to add vehicles https://wnep.com/2019/04/08/police-w...into-sub-shop/

[Wilderness 1864]

I know some of you will be stone cold set against any discussion... here is my take

These laws in other states are rife with abuse because they did not go into depth for protecting the firearms owner and their property.
Nor do they specify that false statements open the reporter to legal actions.

Ex's or enemies that make false statements and police swarm in to take firearms
Police not returning firearms or damaging the firearms through poor stewardship

I am not totally against these efforts, but there must be:
a preponderance of evidence
Judgement by a Judge
Strict inventory rules before removal
Time limits and mandatory return enforcement !
Clear rules on what the owner has to do for return of firearms
Allowances to take legal recourse against reporter when allegations are unfounded
Protect the abused and their rights to own firearms for protection

There are weak minded/soulless individuals who have severely hurt our cause to protect the 2nd Amendment by shooting up places and people.. some of these asshats kill because they want to kill.. others have killed because they know it will stir up the hornets nest of Anti-Gun cucks.

The current bill provides that the initial taking can be made on a "preponderance of the evidence, the weakest evidentiary standard. It means more probable than not, think 51 to 49. Since the application is considered with only the evidence of the applying party and without the opposing party present, 100% of the evidence is going in the applicant's favor and the the Judge has little choice but to order the confiscation. Permanent confiscation requires "clear and convincing", but by the time that standard is in play, the guns are gone and the target of the order has to spend a fortune to fight it, and, as a practical matter, the burden of proof shifts to him or her. Again, no crime has been committed or even have alleged to have been committed.

The current bill incorporates by reference existing provisions of law that make it unlawful to lie to a court with some new measures for cost recovery if successful. Basically, you have to find a DA who will file and prosecute charges for perjury where the applicant must be proven to have knowingly lied beyond a reasonable doubt. The liar has full protection of his or her constitutional rights but the victim does not. A very difficult standard. How many DAs are going actually investigate or prosecute such a claim? Very few, more likely none.
Hate hoaxers don't get prosecuted now, they get rewarded. Somehow, the judicial system is going to get worried over lies in this context? I doubt it. The courts and the DAs are not going waste resources on this. The law punishing fraudsters is virtually toothless when it comes any practical means of enforcement. How about specifically allowing a civil suit against the applicant where the standard of proof is not a daunting and you do not need a prosecutor to decide to take the case? That would be an improvement.

The fact that a policeman can apply for an order under these same evidentiary standards is dangerous to our liberties. He can't get a search warrant now without having probable cause to believe that an actual crime has been or is being committed. Now the officer can basically get the right to enter your home, search it, confiscate property without having to do more that assert that the target is a threat to himself or others. Once he is in that home, anything goes. Anything he finds, even unrelated to the basis for the confiscation order is going to be the basis for other charges.

By the way, the law specifically allows "brandishing" to be a legit basis to confiscate your firearms. Think of than next time you open carry in a grocery store and a Moms Demander happens to be behind you in line.

[Parrisk]

This is exactly what I mean.. the idea is ok with me... the laws are not. They need to protect to firearms owner.
If they are going to go after your firearms, why not allow you to appear before the judge who is ordering the seizure? Isn't that in our constitution ?

The way they are writing they are too loose and will allow abuse !

How do we protect people without destroying the rights of others?

As the law is written now IT MUST BE OPPOSED

[giant_g2]

Edit: people already replied. I guess this thread is too fast for me.

[ar15_shooter]

I know some of you will be stone cold set against any discussion... here is my take

These laws in other states are rife with abuse because they did not go into depth for protecting the firearms owner and their property.
Nor do they specify that false statements open the reporter to legal actions.

Ex's or enemies that make false statements and police swarm in to take firearms
Police not returning firearms or damaging the firearms through poor stewardship

I am not totally against these efforts, but there must be:
a preponderance of evidence
Judgement by a Judge
Strict inventory rules before removal
Time limits and mandatory return enforcement !
Clear rules on what the owner has to do for return of firearms
Allowances to take legal recourse against reporter when allegations are unfounded
Protect the abused and their rights to own firearms for protection

There are weak minded/soulless individuals who have severely hurt our cause to protect the 2nd Amendment by shooting up places and people.. some of these asshats kill because they want to kill.. others have killed because they know it will stir up the hornets nest of Anti-Gun cucks.

Yeah, they don't care at all about making sure the gun owner is treated fairly. Killion says that his bill has "plenty" of due process protection in it.
I get what you're saying, and would probably support something that was actually fair and protected the gun owner. Unfortunately what we will get will allow seizure w/o any evidence, no property protection, and no consequences for false reporters.

[ideaman]

Is there a clause that if a charge is false, the innocent can sue the accuser?

[ar15_shooter]

Is there a clause that if a charge is false, the innocent can sue the accuser?

LOL no. I think you'll have to find a DA willing to bring them up on charges for making a false police report. Wouldn't count on it happening.