SB 90 (Red Flag Law) Talking Points

[Walleye Hunter]

I am going to attend a town hall meeting with State Senator Katie Muth on Thursday and need help with talking points on this red flag bill. I have perused it but I'm not very good at taking all of those things in so I need assistance. What are the big sticking points?

[gghbi]

Might find this useful: https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Article...bio-Et-Al.aspx

It is written for another red flag law that has been proposed, but much of the points may carry over.

Here is one part:

1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.

2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.

3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.

4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.

OR:

[LBaker]

https://foac-pac.org/uploads/talking...OAC-Review.pdf

[Walleye Hunter]

That is good info on the federal level but SB90 is state, I need to brush up if I'm going to call my State Senator out on her sponsoring this bill. I'll peruse it the best I can tomorrow but I find that stuff hard to digest.

[LBaker]

That is good info on the federal level but SB90 is state, I need to brush up if I'm going to call my State Senator out on her sponsoring this bill. I'll peruse it the best I can tomorrow but I find that stuff hard to digest.

That is the info from these same bills from last session, not federal. It's all basically the same. Same sponsors in each house. We are deep in collecting info on the upcoming elections so they haven't been updated yet...

[LBaker]

So now under the Stevens red flag bill just the mere purchase of a firearm as a qualification for a red flag!

[LBaker]

https://blog.princelaw.com/2019/04/1...96sUI7kwaCHf8Y

[Wilderness 1864]

I did not see the part about surrendering your licenses. Presumably, that would mean your validly out of state carry permits too. Bad stuff. Total disarmament based on someone's say so. No confronting your accuser. Bankrupt yourself to fight for your rights. Speaking out pr protesting against the bills could be a basis for taking your firearms. Pittsburgh is going to get real interesting.

This bill sets back the clock. If passed, in many respects it puts citizens in the same relationship to their own government as colonial citizens had to their government under King George.

[LBaker]

We need to be pre-emptive on this thing now! Start lighting up the phones to Senators offices that's the bill that's most likely to be pushed Killian bill. Call leadership Call Judiciary Committee members make the phone calls do your part

[Square Bag]

WTH is with the Republicans? According to Princes vlof it's them looking to push this monstrosity.