H.B. 316: ERPO

[rickt]

H. B. No. 316 - Representatives Russo (D), Sweeney (D).
Cosponsors: Representatives Sykes (D), Crawley (D), Kelly (D), Leland (D), Miranda (D), Boggs (D), Weinstein (D), Upchurch (D), Miller, J. (D), Skindell (D), Lightbody (D), Sobecki (D), Crossman (D), Robinson (D), Clites (D), Liston (D), Denson (D), Brown (D), West (D), Lepore-Hagan (D), Galonski (D), Smith, K. (D), Miller, A (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 ... 133-HB-316

[WhyNot]

Why shouldn't they? The leader of their parjty (well at least this issue) (I hope)(I M doubtful) in Ohio is for it.

What a politikal web our governor has weaved...for hisself. The (D)s can come up with the most onerous of proposals, and, if he (DeW) doesn't support it, cries of ''you said you would'' will ring forth.

[djthomas]

I especially like the part about how if an ex parte order is granted the sheriff shall revoke a person's CHL and there's no automatic restoration no matter the outcome of the case. No need to wait until the respondent has had an opportunity for a hearing - just cancel their license. How about we cancel their voting registration and driver's license too? Let them reapply at their own time and expense.

Heck, even under Lautenberg the defendant has to have been given a hearing in which they had an opportunity to be heard. Stats from other states are instructive. I don't have any specific ones off hand but I recall numbers suggesting that once an actual hearing is heard judges are granting ERPOs about 50-60% of the time. That means 40-50% of the time there was no basis for depriving the person of their rights. Yet this bill will still saddle them with having to go appeal the revocation of their CHL to the sheriff within 14 days of the ex parte being granted, at which point the full hearing may not have actually happened yet.

You have to figure that ex parte orders will probably be handed out like candy upon request, much like TPOs. Judges would much rather err on the side of caution until a full hearing later.

Look, maybe I'm a bit pragmatic for many on this board but I think under the current climate the usual #Resist #IRefuse sentiment is not going to prevent some form of these laws from being enacted. If hearings are held being able to offer alternatives to specific points of egregiousness may result in a less bad outcome than a wholesale boycott of the proceedings. On the plus side I see that filing a false accusation is a felony which is far stronger than most ERPO bills I've read.

Thankfully both the OGA and Congress are on recess this month, so barring more copycats things might have a chance to settle down a bit before our elected representatives return to "the business of the people."

[Javelin Man]

What if something is inserted to the order that the courts, state, anybody and everybody has 14 days to PROVE that someone is dangerous and not a threat to anyone or their property and license and everything is given back and the event is completely wiped off their record, not even a Post-it note on an HR file?

Just putting the idea out there if something like this is forced down our throats, then the accusers and the state should be the ones on trial to prove the guilt, not the accused prove their innocence. And making it a very short window because the accuser's civil rights are being violated every minute.

And no, I am not acquiescing, just trying to insert something into a bill that still maintains one's innocence, something that these ERPO's seem to have forgotten.

And second no, I will still fight anything proposed, even with the minor language I proposed.

[Brian D.]

Javelin Man, believe me when I say pretty much all* the Ohio gun rights groups are working on this behind the scenes, specifically with Lt. Governor Hustead. Attorney General Yost has also been dealt in. Both those men are on our side, much more so than their boss.

* One group we sometimes overlook is the Ohio Gun Collectors Association. They have a bunch of skin in the game too. And, a bunch of members who vote in elections.

[Brian D.]

The most listened to talk radio person in SW Ohio is Bill Cunningham of 700 WLW. He was/is a criminal defense attorney, his wife a newly retired Domestic Relations judge.

Today he said he talked to a current judge who said the additional case loads these ERPO's will cause would strain the system beyond imagination. You can bet the house that required time limits could not be met.

Maybe their statewide spokesperson(s) should be approached for an official opinion about this matter before it's shoved down their throats?

[Ghost]

Few problems I see already.

(2) "Family or household member" means, with respect to
respondent, any of the following:
(a) A person related by blood, MARRIAGE, or adoption to
the respondent; or a
(b) A person in a DATING relationship with the respondent;
(c) A person who HAS A CHILD in common with the
respondent, regardless of whether the person has been married to
the respondent or has lived together with the respondent at any
time;

-Family is far too broad of a term in this law. Better not tick off your in-laws, girlfriends or babies mama!

(F) If the petition states that disclosure of the
petitioner's address would risk harm to the petitioner or any
member of the petitioner's family or household, the petitioner's
address may be omitted from all documents filed with the court.

-So does this mean the person making the accusation is anonymous?

Sec. 2923.27. (A) A petitioner may request that an ex parte extreme risk protection order be issued before a hearing for an extreme risk protection order, WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT, by filing an application for an ex parte extreme risk protection order in a court of common pleas, county court, or municipal court, that includes detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others in the near future by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm.

-If someone is going to accuse you of something, you need to be notified.

(2) The RESPONDENT shall have the BURDEN of PROVING by a
preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose
a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or
others by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability
to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm. The court may
consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the
considerations listed in division (N)(1) of section 2923.26

-What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

-I do like that there is a penalty for making a false claim but that penalty needs to be harshly enforced if a false claim is made.

-Also does this penalty apply to any law enforcement officials who make a false petition?

[Javelin Man]

2) The RESPONDENT shall have the BURDEN of PROVING by a
preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose
a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or
others by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability
to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm. The court may
consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the
considerations listed in division (N)(1) of section 2923.26

The heck with innocent until proven guilty, we're trying to prove a negative here which will be nearly impossible. How can we prove we're not going to do something!? Can't be done.

[Jim-in-Toledo]

2) The RESPONDENT shall have the BURDEN of PROVING by a
preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose
a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or
others by having custody or control of a firearm or the ability
to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm. The court may
consider any relevant evidence, including evidence of the
considerations listed in division (N)(1) of section 2923.26

The heck with innocent until proven guilty, we're trying to prove a negative here which will be nearly impossible. How can we prove we're not going to do something!? Can't be done.

Your family cat or dog has the ability to purchase, possess, or receive a firearm.

[bignflnut]

-Family is far too broad of a term in this law. Better not tick off your in-laws, girlfriends or babies mama!

On a political / societal note:
If the Governor is so concerned about people exhibiting anti-social behavior, why are we giving people tools to legally damage one another? It's like throwing a baseball bat into a heated argument.

We're not encouraging people to get along with one another. We're detonating relationships with SWAT teams. That's helpful.

Tell you what Governor, let's get an app out there: The Official OHIO Attny General SWAT APP...and put it right next to the UNfriend button on Facebook. What a legacy!
Git-R-Dun