[TomNJVA]

I was just reading about Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) and, although I do not like the name, there may be some merit in this approach to preventing violence, as well as some potential for abuse.

In general, law enforcement exercises its authority to arrest, confine, or restrict a person after a crime has been committed, and for good reason as removing a citizen’s rights is a serious matter. In some cases, however, there are clear signs that violent behavior is likely if not imminent, especially in domestic abuse situations. For this reason, domestic restraining orders and other protective orders are long established in law as a means of attempting to prevent violence. These orders are narrowly tailored to restrict a person’s movements and contacts with respect to a specific entity and are ordered by a judge based on evidence. Intended to be used in emergency situations, they are temporary in nature with due process following very shortly after the order in executed. In domestic disputes that involve or threaten violence, the restraining order may also order the removal of firearms from the household.

The question is, would such a law that allows temporary removal of firearms outside of a domestic abuse or specific threat situations be constitutional and effective in preventing violence? Five states, Californian Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, and Indiana already have “Red Flag” laws that allow the seizure of guns based on some level of evidence provided to a judge, and they claim that these laws have been effective, at least in reducing suicides and possibly other violent acts against others. Many other states are now working on such laws after the Parkland shooting.

I can see pros and cons with such laws. If Florida had a Red Flag law the Parkland Florida sheriff/police departments would have had the authority to remove the guns from an obviously dangerous person, even though he had not yet broken any laws. I can see the value of these laws in reducing suicides and violence with guns, which could take some pressure off other efforts to restrict gun ownership, provided the laws are properly written and enforced. And therein lies the rub.

The evidence requirements for a judge to issue a restraining order are well below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard needed for conviction. Since the subject of the order is not present at the hearing with the judge, this power to disarm citizens is subject to abuse by vengeful spouses, co-workers, and anti-gun sheriffs. In a sense the process is similar to the indictment process, and it has long been said that one can indict a ham sandwich.

So what are your opinions on the concept of expanding restraining orders to include gun seizures from people judged to pose a general danger to unspecified others? And if favorable, how should such laws be structured and enforced so as to surgically target clear-cut cases without being a burden to our 2nd amendment rights?

TomVA
(Not a lawyer)