S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

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

Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators

User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by rickt »

The first gun related bill of the new session.
S. B. No. 19 - Senator Williams (D).
Cosponsors: Senators Antonio (D), Thomas (D), Maharath (D), Craig (D), Yuko (D), Fedor (D).
To amend sections 109.57, 2923.125, 2923.128, and 2923.13 and to enact sections 2923.26, 2923.27, 2923.28, 2923.29, 2923.30, and 2923.99 of the Revised Code to enact the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act to allow family members, household members, and law enforcement officers to obtain a court order that temporarily restricts a person's access to firearms if that person poses a danger to themselves or others.
https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legisl ... A133-SB-19
Brian D.
Posts: 16229
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: SW Ohio

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by Brian D. »

Sponsor and all cosponsors have (D) behind their names. This would be a great time for Speaker Householder to put a bill on fast track, hearings and all, then let it be crushed and destroyed in a full House vote. Let the Dems know that's how ALL their anti-gun garbage will be disposed of the rest of the session, and tell Ohio media the same thing.

But, it won't play out that way, because too many of the Republicans are squishies.
Quit worrying, hide your gun well, shut up, and CARRY that handgun!

********************************************************************************
1911 and Browning Hi Power Enthusianado.
zeko
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 7:55 pm
Location: Morrow County

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by zeko »

Some disturbing things I noticed while reading SB19:

Around lines 1525 and forward (evidence to be considered as to whether the ERPO is to be issued), two items of evidence are

2923.26(N)(1)(h) ownership of (or plan to own) a firearm

2923.26(N)(1)(m) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm

I can find nothing to indicate that any further evidence would be needed. This is not good.

Zeko
User avatar
JustaShooter
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:08 pm
Location: Akron/Canton Area

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by JustaShooter »

zeko wrote:Some disturbing things I noticed while reading SB19:

Around lines 1525 and forward (evidence to be considered as to whether the ERPO is to be issued), two items of evidence are

2923.26(N)(1)(h) ownership of (or plan to own) a firearm

2923.26(N)(1)(m) evidence of recent acquisition of a firearm

I can find nothing to indicate that any further evidence would be needed. This is not good.

Zeko
Though I think ERPOs like this are abhorrent, those do not bother me since those are only given as items for the court to consider, not specific examples of concrete reasons an order may be issued. The biggest issue I have with them is that they ignore due process and allow a persons rights to be stripped from them, in some cases before any hearing is held, but in all cases without a conviction by a jury of their peers.
Christian, Husband, Father
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

Want to become more active with OFCC and help fight for your rights? Click Here!
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by WhyNot »

Some disturbing things I noticed while reading SB19:...
starting at ''A BI L L
To amend sections
...'' re: page 1, line#1

and SPECIFICALLY ending at '' ...and Am. Sub. S.B. 43 of the 130th General
Assembly.
'' re: page 68, line #1973
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by WhyNot »

I was reading the article linked by rickt (thanks) in the last post of the ''Sub HB 228 problem correction'' thread, here...

https://www.ohioccwforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=92783" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I continued reading past that article to the next. Amazing! Here...

http://www.statenews.org/post/stand-you ... table-2019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our newly elected Gov and, Senate Prez (Republicans) seem to like the ERPO Erkle thingie.

It would appear Senate Leader Obhof simply thinks Kasichich's version was wrong, but his version will be ''right''
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by rickt »

If we can't stop the ERPO bill because of Republican support, then we need a back up strategy of pushing for amendments to maximize protections for the "respondent" (the bill's term for the person accused). For instance, reimbursement of legal fees if the accusation is proved to be unfounded. Another could be a requirement that the police keep the stored firearms undamaged.
User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 9435
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by AlanM »

rickt wrote:If we can't stop the ERPO bill because of Republican support, then we need a back up strategy of pushing for amendments to maximize protections for the "respondent" (the bill's term for the person accused). For instance, reimbursement of legal fees if the accusation is proved to be unfounded. Another could be a requirement that the police keep the stored firearms undamaged.
Add to that the government will pay the storage fees.
I just read in Quora that impounded firearms in, at least, one state are placed in civilian high security vault storage and even if the respondent is found to be no danger the storage fees are MORE than the value of the guns.
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 2680
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by WestonDon »

AlanM wrote:
rickt wrote:If we can't stop the ERPO bill because of Republican support, then we need a back up strategy of pushing for amendments to maximize protections for the "respondent" (the bill's term for the person accused). For instance, reimbursement of legal fees if the accusation is proved to be unfounded. Another could be a requirement that the police keep the stored firearms undamaged.
Add to that the government will pay the storage fees.
I just read in Quora that impounded firearms in, at least, one state are placed in civilian high security vault storage and even if the respondent is found to be no danger the storage fees are MORE than the value of the guns.
The bill as written specifically says that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any fee or post any bond. That needs to change. The petitioner needs to have some major skin in the game.

I would add that the petitioner be required to post a bond of at least $1000 per firearm to be seized to be returned only after they prove that the ERPO was justified.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by WhyNot »

I remember reading on these forums ofcc.org at least two cases here in Ohio where the police simply assessed the situation and seized the guns. One was in Allen county at a school threat (village of Elida?), county sheriffs acting. I do not clearly recall the other case but I think it was a larger town.

Those are recent reporteds. Did those respective LEO staff act...ilegally? How many other examples are there? I'm sure (and glad!) it's not an every day event. But how many times, not IF any times. ( :?: )

Do we need a stop sign, and a flashing red light, AND a LEO at an intersection?
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
User avatar
AlanM
Posts: 9435
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by AlanM »

I found the Quora question and answer that had the information about EPRO removed firearms.
The state mentioned is Massachusetts.

I hope this link works.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-pro-gun-p ... gun-owners

Look for Christopher Siano's answer.

Add to that this article: https://fee.org/articles/red-flag-gun-l ... -its-head/
[quote][/quote]
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
rDigital
Posts: 1720
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:40 am

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by rDigital »

I think red flag laws are the single greatest threat to the individual RKBA that we have ever encountered in Ohio.

A preponderance of evidence (Judge Judy legal standard - “more likely than not”) is all that is required to effectively strip you of your 2nd amendment rights in what is essentially a self-renewing year long ban on your right to own a firearm.

I’m writing a long form article to address all of the concerns that I see with such laws, but specifically SB19. If you have any ideas to help me with it that would be great.

I see that SB19 has been referred to committee, what are the chances of this thing growing legs this session?
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by rickt »

Both Senate President Obhof and Governor DeWine have said they might support such a bill under certain conditions. However, there has yet to be any committee hearings on SB 19 so they aren't exactly fast tracking it. Typically at the beginning of the session, the General Assembly is focused on getting the budget bills passed. Once they get that done and we get past the summer recess, then we will see what they decide to do.
User avatar
rickt
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 3164
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:35 am
Location: Cuyahoga County

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by rickt »

Gov. Mike DeWine says he’s deeply concerned about attacks at houses of worship, including at a synagogue in California this weekend. And that has him looking into a specific type of gun legislation that’s failed to move in the Republican dominated legislature before
https://www.statenews.org/post/dewine-c ... orshippers
WhyNot
OFCC Member
OFCC Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:23 am
Location: NW Ohio

Re: S.B. 19: Extreme Risk Protection Order

Post by WhyNot »

From the linked article (BIG thnx to rickt)...
But he added that he’s asked his look at the idea of allowing law enforcement to seize guns from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others.

“They’ve been working on it – trying to get a red flag law that can pass. That’s my goal. We’ll see," DeWIne said.

A so-called red flag law was proposed by a Republican lawmaker last year with the backing of former Gov. John Kasich, following his public change of heart on gun laws after the shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. But the bill had no other sponsors and went nowhere after four hearings.
That's his goal, straight from the horses mouth. Or is that the mouth of the biggest elephant (R) in Ohio perhaps?

Kasichich's quote is in yellow. Changling, variable, whisps of wind...or...NEVER was a true change just returned to his original positions :?:

THIS IS THE DEAL MAKER, OR BREAKER....

But the bill had no other sponsors and went nowhere after four hearings.

Will the OAG stand firm on previous positions/convictions/evidences, or, do a Kasichich to pleeze the neu (R) leader?

p.s. ever so often to the benefit of new viewers, I restate that my spelln of Special K's name is, word play on Kucinich
Acquisitions thus far:

-Slingshot
-Butter knife
-Soda straw and peas
-Sharpened pencil
-Newspaper roll
--water balloon (*diversionary*)

Yeah, I'm that good
Post Reply