SB 278 legal issue?

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

Post Reply
MrMagoo
OFCC Director
OFCC Director
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:54 pm
Location: Delaware County

SB 278 legal issue?

Post by MrMagoo »

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
"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
djthomas
Posts: 5961
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am

Re: SB 278 legal issue?

Post by djthomas »

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.
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5751
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: SB 278 legal issue?

Post by schmieg »

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
Post Reply