Utah Extreme Risk Protective Order

[rwsmith]

I had this shown to me in a debate on another forum. I told my 'adversary' that it was one of the most well thought out proposals that I've seen but I pointed out two flaws. My question to him concerned "taking guns out of the hands of criminals without impacting legal owners.

The first flaw is that a vindictive person that doesn't like somebody having a gun can tell the police that they 'were acting crazy and pointed a gun at me" which would give grounds for seizure. Then the gun owner would have to prove that he should get his gun back to the court system, who I'm sure would be prompt and cooperative in returning the gun(s). (That is sarcasm) This sounds to me like 'infringement'.

The second flaw is that, as is now, anybody who wants a gun can get one off the street. I could even have the make and model I want or even have it 'custom stolen'. (Don't ask me how I know).

I did tell the guy that this was one of the more well thought out plans that I've seen, but

Here is the link to the proposed bill. I'm not sure if any progress has been made or where it stands, but if anybody knows anything I'd like to hear it.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-con...-introduced-and-failed-in-general-session.pdf

If the link isn't satisfactory, I can post the text, but it's more than a few pages long.

 

[Alk8944]

This may sound somewhat simple-minded to many of you, but I strongly that before making comments on the Utah proposed legislation that they at least click the link in the OP and READ what this is about!

Generic smart a** cracks are not appropriate. This proposed Bill seems quite well thought out and gives many logical protections to the gun owner! If anything it strongly favors the gun owners rights!

And thanks to RWSmith for bringing this to my attention, I was not aware of it. I have no concerns whatsoever about this bill from what of it I have so far read.

 

[Watchdog]

Utah H.B. 483 died a quick and well deserved death in committee back in March of this year...over six months ago.

Rep. Stephen Handy, R-Layton, who introduced the bill, stated that he would not try to bring the bill back to the full House of Representatives to force a vote. Instead, he'd work on it over the next year and urged people to call their elected lawmakers.

 

[rwsmith]

Well, I just......

Well, I just heard about it. Which is why I asked people what they knew about it. I'm very glad to know that this didn't fly, but it's always out there, waiting for the right combination of officials and circumstances where a stinker bill like this could pass.

 

[deadin]

The one thing I don't see in the proposal is what is the punishment for someone who pays their $30 and files an unjustified complaint?? (i.e. The "vindictive" person mentioned by the OP.)

 

[jag312]

....The first flaw is that a vindictive person that doesn't like somebody having a gun can tell the police that they 'were acting crazy and pointed a gun at me" which would give grounds for seizure. Then the gun owner would have to prove that he should get his gun back to the court system, who I'm sure would be prompt and cooperative in returning the gun(s). (That is sarcasm) This sounds to me like 'infringement'....

A way to fix this flaw is to require the "vindictive person" to make the accusation under oath and penalty of perjury. Then if the accusation is shown to be false or without proof, then there is minimum required jail time and restitution for at least the victim's legal costs. Hopefully that would prevent some loony from misusing the law if it means spending some time behind bars and draining their bank account.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

A way to fix this flaw is to require the "vindictive person" to make the accusation under oath and penalty of perjury. Then if the accusation is shown to be false or without proof, then there is minimum required jail time and restitution for at least the victim's legal costs. Hopefully that would prevent some loony from misusing the law if it means spending some time behind bars and draining their bank account.

Taking such action against said "vindictive person" would involve a new criminal case, hearings, trials, appeals, etc, with legal representation (frequently at public expense). Thus I would expect very few actual prosecutions to take place in our already overcrowded courts.

Perhaps a better solution would be allowing violators to be dealt with under civil contempt procedures. A simple "show cause" hearing in which the accused must show reasonable cause why he should not be held in contempt, then summary judgement (such as jail time, costs, etc). Of course, this presupposes plenty of time for such proceedings in our overcrowded courts, and plenty of empty beds in our overcrowded jails.

Also, anyone who has ever attempted to collect a civil judgement (or even court-ordered restitution) knows that the time, effort, and expense involved is very unlikely to be recovered. A judgement is only a piece of paper, and a court order is only a piece of paper, until someone commits the necessary resources to enforce said orders.

Like so many other aspects of the law, no level of threatened sanctions is meaningful unless there is the will to enforce.

 

[CB3]

Like so many other aspects of the law, no level of threatened sanctions is meaningful unless there is the will to enforce.

Like so many other aspects of the law, it is proposed by reasonable people to solve problems from a reasonable person's point of view. Crazies are crazy. Criminals don't think or act like reasonable people. They don't care about the law. Such laws are not deterrents. The crazies and true criminals, acting on emotions, are not afraid of penalties, consequences or enforcement. Unfortunately, enforcement attempts are untimely, occurring minutes after the seconds it takes to perpetrate harm on an individual.

It is fine to have laws that ultimately may punish criminals, but when the rights of non-wrong doers are diminished in the name of "deterrence", laws sometimes increase the victim pool.

Restraining orders are meant as deterrents more than as the basis for eventual punishment of the violator. With the truly dangerous offenders they have little to no effect, enhanced or not.

 

[jag312]

Taking such action against said "vindictive person" would involve a new criminal case, hearings, trials, appeals, etc, with legal representation (frequently at public expense). Thus I would expect very few actual prosecutions to take place in our already overcrowded courts.

Perhaps a better solution would be allowing violators to be dealt with under civil contempt procedures. A simple "show cause" hearing in which the accused must show reasonable cause why he should not be held in contempt, then summary judgement (such as jail time, costs, etc). Of course, this presupposes plenty of time for such proceedings in our overcrowded courts, and plenty of empty beds in our overcrowded jails.

Also, anyone who has ever attempted to collect a civil judgement (or even court-ordered restitution) knows that the time, effort, and expense involved is very unlikely to be recovered. A judgement is only a piece of paper, and a court order is only a piece of paper, until someone commits the necessary resources to enforce said orders.

Like so many other aspects of the law, no level of threatened sanctions is meaningful unless there is the will to enforce.

I'll go along with this, just so there is some penalty for making false accusations.