SB 278 legal issue?

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

SB 278 legal issue?

Postby MrMagoo » Sat May 12, 2018 12:40 pm

SB 278 provides for an Extreme Risk Protection Order(EPRO). An EPRO can be issued with a hearing to be held within 14 days AFTER the order is issued. The order is sent to LE immediately for input into LEADS. So information goes into LEADS BEFORE a hearing.

In 1970 the U.S. Supreme Court found, in Goldberg v. Kelly, that before a state terminates a welfare recipient’s benefits, the state must provide a full hearing before a hearing officer, finding that the Due Process Clause required such a hearing.

Although Goldberg v. Kelly is narrowly defined as dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requiring an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government welfare benefits can be deprived of such benefits, can this be applied to SB 278 with regards to depriving 2A rights before an evidentiary hearing is held?

I’d like to include that in testimony in opposition to SB 278 next Wed. if it’s appropriate. Comments are appreciated, especially from the legal eagles.

Here's a link to the bill: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... 132-SB-278

Thanks,
Gary
"The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor." Vince Lombardi
User avatar
MrMagoo
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: Delaware County

Re: SB 278 legal issue?

Postby djthomas » Sat May 12, 2018 4:55 pm

Good find. Adding to the argument is that there is no constitutional right to welfare benefits per se, whereas there is a constitutional right to bear arms. The language of the Ohio Constitution has to be considered as well.

I think that the distinction here might be that in the above case they are terminating benefits, whereas with the ERPO they are proposing a temporary suspension for a relatively short period of time.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: SB 278 legal issue?

Postby schmieg » Sat May 12, 2018 9:10 pm

djthomas wrote:Good find. Adding to the argument is that there is no constitutional right to welfare benefits per se, whereas there is a constitutional right to bear arms. The language of the Ohio Constitution has to be considered as well.

I think that the distinction here might be that in the above case they are terminating benefits, whereas with the ERPO they are proposing a temporary suspension for a relatively short period of time.

And don't forget the judicially created public safety argument.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio


Return to Tweed Ring's Ohio Politics and Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests