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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 132-SB-278
Thanks,
Gary
SB 278 legal issue?
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
- OFCC Director
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:54 pm
- Location: Delaware County
SB 278 legal issue?
"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
- djthomas
- Posts: 5961
- Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Re: SB 278 legal issue?
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.
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.
- schmieg
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 5751
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
- Location: Madeira, Ohio
Re: SB 278 legal issue?
And don't forget the judicially created public safety argument.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.
-- Mike
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand