HARRISBURG, PA –-(Ammoland.com)- Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced Red Flag laws in Harrisburg, which they consider “reasonable” to protect gun owners and others.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO) are better known to the public as Red Flag laws. These laws let police seize guns of those that they believe pose a threat to themselves or others. ERPOs have been a controversial tool of law enforcement since the accused do not get to defend themselves against the accusations in court before a judge issues an ERPO.
Many in and outside the gun world believe that ERPOs violate the Due Process Clause in the United States Constitution.
Red Flag laws vary from state to state, but most states allow a family member or roommate to report a gun owner to the police as a danger to themselves or others. Police will go in front of a judge to get an ERPO issued. It is very rare for a judge to deny a request from law enforcement for an ERPO since the burden of proof is very low.
Police will then serve the ERPO on the subject. In many cases, police treat the serving of an ERPO as the same as serving a high-risk warrant. The state will seize all the guns from the gun owner but will leave them free on the streets. The gun owner will have to go to court to battle to get their firearms back from the authorities. ERPOs have been abused in the past. In one case, an ERPO was taken out on a Colorado police officer by a slain suspect’s mother.
ERPOs have also led to tragedy in the past. In 2018, police killed a 61-year-old Maryland man while serving an ERPO at 5:30 in the morning. The man’s sister filed for an ERPO due to a family dispute. According to the rest of the man’s family, he wasn’t a danger to anyone.
Rep Todd Stevens introduced the Pennsylvania House Red Flag bill (HB 1903). Stevens has introduced similar bills in the past. He has a rocky relationship with the gun community. He actively campaigned under an anti-gun platform.
Under Rep Stevens’ bill, the gun owner would have to provide evidence that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Gun rights advocates point that it is almost impossible to prove a negative. Also, the gun owner must hire an attorney or rely on a public defender. It could cost the accused gun owner thousands of dollars to recover their firearms. Removing the guns does not stop a mentally disturbed person from using another tool to hurt themselves or others.
Gun Owners of America has been pushing back against these Red Flag laws in the Commonwealth. According to Pennsylvania State Director Dr. Val Finnell, GOA views ERPOs as “gun confiscation order.” The gun-rights organization believes that ERPOs violate several parts of the Constitution.
“Red Flag Gun Confiscation Orders violate 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights of gun owners,” Dr. Finnell told AmmoLand. “The hearing before a judge will be ‘ex parte,’ with the accused having no right to confront his accuser. There is no need for any evidence that a crime is actually being contemplated. All that has to be shown is that you are subjectively dangerous to someone at the incredibly low preponderance of the evidence standard.”
One of the biggest supporters of the Red Flag bill is Rep. Jennifer O’Mara. She claims not to be anti-gun, but she has ties to Bloomberg-funded anti-gun groups like Moms Demand Action. She also has the backing of CeaseFire PA, which is a rabid anti-gun group within the Commonwealth.
O’Mara claims that the Red Flag would prevent suicides. O’Mara doesn’t offer any solutions to suicide by overdosing, hangings, or other methods. Many think that the Pennsylvania legislature is concentrating too much on the tool and not enough on the problem of mental health.
In January, State Senator Wayne Fontana introduced Senate Bill (PA SB 134). That bill hasn’t moved since the end of January.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
The politicians that voted for this and any judge hearing such a case ALL HAVE HOMES AND FAMILIES.
”representatives” taking the oath to uphold and defend the constitution and then working to undermine it are the definition of traitors committing treason.
traitors should be expeditiously tried and quickly shot. Their homes should be burned to the ground, their wealth confiscated to pay for the trouble they have wrought and their families should start over.
if we do not get serious about treason our children will be slaves…….and they will owe their misery to US!
don’t be a PU$$Y!
Since the accused is not able to provide evidence or an argument against issuing the ERPO, preponderance of the evidence is not a low standard, it is no standard at all.
Forged conceptually as a snitch network in Nazi Germany WWll. Gestapo/STASI/ZERZEITSUNG template 100%. AbSOULutely a loss of protected freedoms & individual rights based on another’s perception or manipulation of a terrible Law. Huge sociocultural devolvement & mistake. Just creates more societal friction, tension loss of rights – due process. An inner city urban nightmare. People playing THE-RAPIST’s practicing home brewed psychology, Nosey Neighbors, Ex Girlfriend, Wife, boyfriend, co-worker @ a job, or even people of a different culture/religion/race/creed/country who are jealous/envious/retaliatory/politically charged polemics/emotionally triggered/vindictive/manipluative personalities-archetypes incapable of minding their own business or respecting other’s rights or beLIEf’s. With Agitprop/Propaganda/Gas Lighting… Read more »
Federal level law is coming soon. It will be even worse and yes, many republicans will vote for it. They’ll say it’s for the good of the community and roll out the old ‘if you haven’t done anything you don’t have to worry’ and lie about you having your day in court. Get used to it and BOHICA.
Like California laws of this type, and other State laws of this type (and now like federal provisions in the NDAA of this type), ultimately these must be challenged up to the U.S. Supreme Court in what is now the “post-Caniglia-v.Strom” legal environment.
Do nothing, we get nothing. Challenge the laws with plaintiffs that have standing to sue, we can succeed.
Cheers.
These articles typically don’t address the outcomes. Of all the red flag law enforcement actions in Florida: How many resulted in the subject being confined to a mental institution where he cannot hurt himself or others? If the person is still walking around, what good was the enforcement action? How many resulted in the subject being convicted of a crime? How many resulted in the complainant be charged with making a false report? What is the penalty for making a false accusation? Have any enforcers above the rank of sargeant been the subject of accusations? Did other enforcers bring the… Read more »