Keeping firearms out of hands of dangerous people
If there could be one area of agreement between gun control proponents and opponents, it ought to be this: When people prove through their actions that they are an imminent danger to themselves or others, they should not have access to weapons.
One example is a bill under consideration by Colorado lawmakers that would provide a mechanism to take away guns from people that a court determines pose significant risk to themselves or others. The Deputy Zackari Parrish III Violence Prevention Act is named after a 29-year-old Douglas County sheriff’s deputy killed last year in an altercation with a man having a mental health crisis.
The bill would allow a relative, household member or law enforcement officer to ask a judge to issue a temporary extreme risk protection order that would allow any firearms to be removed from the person’s possession.
Within seven days, a second hearing would determine whether there was enough evidence of risk to prohibit the person from having weapons for six months.
A judge could extend that order after six months.
A violation of the order would be a class 2 misdemeanor, while repeat violations would constitute a felony offense.
Lawmakers from both parties should work to pass this bill, which has broad support among prosecutors, law enforcement officers and mental health professionals. Colorado lawmakers tried and failed to pass similar legislation in 2013, and it’s taken more massacres to bring it back.
The risk with bills like this is that advocates on one side or another can hijack it to use as a wedge issue, especially in an election year.
Groups that support restrictions on firearms might be tempted to go too far in the wake of tragedy.
Gun control opponents reflexively oppose any restriction. They call this one a gun confiscation act, despite the many safeguards it would put in place. For them, sandpaper is slippery slope.
This bill shouldn’t become a litmus test. It would get guns away from people who may be an imminent danger to themselves or others.
It does so in a way that respects due process and has multiple safeguards to prevent the process from being abused to improperly strip gun owners of their constitutional rights.
It strikes a careful balance between society’s compelling interests in keeping people safe and protecting individual liberty.
There aren’t always warning signs before a gun tragedy occurs.
When there are, we should heed them. For instance, most analysts agree that law enforcement and others missed many red flags about the 19-year-old who shot up Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.
If they had recognized them and if a law like this were in place, they might have prevented him from legally purchasing an arsenal of weapons, including the AR-15 assault rifle he used in the attack, and holding onto those weapons even as his behavior deteriorated.
This bill should not be a controversial measure in Colorado, just as similar bills should not be controversial in other states.
It is a basic public safety issue. Passing the bill could prevent many acts of gun violence.
Lawmakers should rise above divisive and inaccurate rhetoric and get this sensible, necessary legislation passed.
The bill would allow a relative, household member or law enforcement officer to ask a judge to issue a temporary extreme risk protection order that would allow any firearms to be removed from the person’s possession.