Extreme risk protection orders can make a difference in preventing gun violence
It was a mundane and typical American activity. Families doing their back-toschool shopping in an El Paso Walmart. Suddenly a gunman opened fire. Scores were killed and injured. But they were not targeted indiscriminately. His target was Hispanics. He sprayed them with bullets.
Why Hispanics? In what is becoming all too common, the gunman posted an explanation online. He made his motives clear — there was, he complained, a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
In the wake of this, we again ask the questions: What is going on? And isn’t there anything we can do?
Yes. The Second Amendment is not without limits. The Supreme Court stated in 2008 that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The court actually gave examples of things the states can do to protect their citizens that do not violate the Second Amendment. One of the things states can do is to pass an “extreme risk protection order” law, also known as a “red flag” law.
Such laws provide for a special type of protection order that allows police to confiscate firearms temporarily from people who are deemed by a judge to be an imminent danger to themselves or others. The
request for an order can come from relatives or friends concerned about a loved one who owns one or more guns and has expressed suicidal thoughts or talked about shooting people. Law enforcement can also request an order.
Immediately after the guns are removed from the home, there is a hearing where the gun owner can contest the removal, have a lawyer and present evidence. The gun owner continues to have the right to contest removal, and the gun(s) can be removed from the owner for no longer than one year unless another hearing establishes imminent danger.
Seventeen states now have extreme risk protection order laws. In light of the
El Paso and Dayton shootings, the U.S. Senate is finally considering passing an extreme risk bill. Even conservative senators, such as Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have come out in support of such measures.
New Mexico needs this law. Right now, if a manifesto is published by a shooter like the one in El Paso, threatening to kill a particular group of people, there is little we can do. No law allows that person to be arrested or detained. The person, and their guns, remain in their house with weapons within easy access.
You don’t think such mass shootings could happen here? If not for the work of the Albuquerque Police Department’s Crisis Intervention Team and a local doctor, we might have had an incident in Albuquerque. Police were made aware of an individual who had weapons, maps and a plan to commit a mass shooting. They were able to get the individual committed temporarily, but upon release, the guns would still have been in the home. They could not legally remove them. The doctor involved was able to keep recommitting the individual until the police were able to persuade the person to relinquish the firearms voluntarily. With an extreme risk protection order in place, the guns could have been removed while the person received help.
As the legislative session begins in January, we are hopeful. The governor has made a public commitment to meaningful gun safety legislation, as demonstrated earlier this year, despite loud and disingenuous opposition. She has been crystal clear that in addition to gun rights, we have a constitutional right to be safe in our communities. Her unwavering priority bodes well for passage of a law that allows extreme risk protection orders.
State Rep. Daymon Ely, D-Corrales, represents District 23. State Rep. Joy Garratt, D-Albuquerque, represents District 29.
The Second Amendment is not without limits. The Supreme Court stated in 2008 that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”