Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T22:37:38.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Double-Filter Provision for Expanded Red Flag Laws: A Proposal for Balancing Rights and Risks in Preventing Gun Violence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2021

Gabriel A. Delaney  and
Jacob D. Charles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to the continued expansion of “red flag” laws allowing broader classes of people to petition a court for the removal of firearms from individuals who exhibit dangerous conduct, this paper argues that state laws should adopt a double-filter provision that balances individual rights and government public safety interests. The main component of such a provision is a special statutory category — “reporting party” — that enables a broader social network, such as co-workers or school administrators, to request that a law enforcement officer file a petition for an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO). A double-filter provision would not give reporting parties a right to file a court petition directly. Instead, parties would file a request for petition with law enforcement officers (first filter), who must seek an ERPO from the court if they find the reporting party's information credible. That information is then transmitted to the court (second filter) as a sworn affidavit of the reporting party. The goal is to facilitate a balanced policy model that (1) widens the reporting circle in order to feed more potentially life-saving information into the system, (2) mitigates the risk of erroneous deprivation of constitutionally protected due process and Second Amendment rights.

Type
Online Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 48 , Issue S4: Gun Violence in America: An Interdisciplinary Examination , Winter 2020 , pp. 126 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c (2013).Google Scholar
Cal. Penal Code §18100 et seq. (2014).Google Scholar
Giffords Law Center, ERPO Procedures By State, Giffords Law Center, available at <lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ERPO_Table_2-26-20.pdf.> (last visited July, 25, 2020); Campbell, S., Yablon, A., and Mascia, J., Red Flag Laws: Where the Bills Stand in Each State (February 25, 2020), The Trace, available at <https://www.thetrace.org/2018/03/red-flag-laws-pending-bills-tracker-nra/> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+July,+25,+2020);+Campbell,+S.,+Yablon,+A.,+and+Mascia,+J.,+Red+Flag+Laws:+Where+the+Bills+Stand+in+Each+State+(February+25,+2020),+The+Trace,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, It's Time to Retire the Term “Red Flag Laws” (March 26, 2019), Giffords Law Center, available at <https://giffords.org/blog/2019/03/retire-red-flag-laws/> (last visited September 16, 2020). (last visited September 16, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Coalition+to+Stop+Gun+Violence,+It's+Time+to+Retire+the+Term+“Red+Flag+Laws”+(March+26,+2019),+Giffords+Law+Center,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Booker, B. and Rose, J., Parkland Shooting Suspect: A Story of Red Flags, Ignored (March 1, 2018), NPR, available at <https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/589502906/a-clearer-picture-of-parkland-shooting-suspect-comes-into-focus> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Giffords Law Center, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332-35 (1976).Google Scholar
See Red Flag Laws — Examining Guidelines for State Action: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong., at 3, 6 (2019) (written testimony of David B. Kopel, Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute), available at <https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kopel%20Testimony1.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020); Sullum, J., New York's New ‘Red Flag’ Law Illustrates the Due Process Problems Posed by Gun Confiscation Orders (August 23, 2019), Reason, available at <https://reason.com/2019/08/23/new-yorks-new-red-flag-law-illustrates-the-due-process-problems-raised-by-gun-confiscation-orders/> (last visited Septebmer 16, 2020). (last visited Septebmer 16, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+Red+Flag+Laws+—+Examining+Guidelines+for+State+Action:+Hearing+Before+the+S.+Comm.+on+the+Judiciary,+116th+Cong.,+at+3,+6+(2019)+(written+testimony+of+David+B.+Kopel,+Adjunct+Scholar,+Cato+Institute),+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020);+Sullum,+J.,+New+York's+New+‘Red+Flag’+Law+Illustrates+the+Due+Process+Problems+Posed+by+Gun+Confiscation+Orders+(August+23,+2019),+Reason,+available+at++(last+visited+Septebmer+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
N.M. ST. § *-*-* (Official Classification Pending) [2020 N.M. S.B. 5].Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-38c (1999).Google Scholar
Giffords Law Center, Extreme Risk Protection Orders, available at <https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
American Bar Association, “Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders” (April 2016), Americanbar, available at <www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/domestic_violence1/Charts/migrated_charts/2016%20CPO%20Availability%20Chart.pdf.> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat., supra note 12.Google Scholar
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, The Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2019 (July 2019), CSGV, available at <https://3p2eii11tkyo44umh7qu2zpd-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/H.R.1236_S.506-materials-_July-2019.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; N.Y. CLS CLPR §6340 et seq.; HI ST §134-61 et seq.Google Scholar
Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; HI ST §134-61 et seq.Google Scholar
Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq.; D.C. ST § 7-2510.03 et seq.; MD Code, Public Safety, §5-601et seq.Google Scholar
See 2019 Cal. Assemb. B.No. 61, Cal. 2019-2020 Reg. Sess., Cal. Comm. Rep., Sept. 05, 2019; 2019 N.Y.S. Bill No. 2451, N.Y. 242nd Leg. Sess., N.Y. Comm. Rep., Jan. 26, 2019.Google Scholar
Maryland Courts, Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Statistics, MDCourts, available at <https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/import/district/statistics/2018/ERPO_Q42018.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Frattaroli, S., Hoops, K., and Irvin, N.A., “Assessment of Physician Self-Reported Knowledge and Use of Maryland's Extreme Risk Protection Order Law,” JAMA Network Open, December 20, 2019, available at <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2757878> (last visited September 16, 2020). (last visited September 16, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Frattaroli,+S.,+Hoops,+K.,+and+Irvin,+N.A.,+“Assessment+of+Physician+Self-Reported+Knowledge+and+Use+of+Maryland's+Extreme+Risk+Protection+Order+Law,”+JAMA+Network+Open,+December+20,+2019,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Pallin, R., Schleimer, J.P., Pear, V.A., and Wintemute, G.J., “Assessment of Extreme Risk Protection Order Use in California from 2016 to 2019,” JAMA Network Open, available at <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-networkopen/fullarticle/2767259?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_jamajno&utm_term=3432383837&utm_campaign=article_alert&linkId=91194329> (last visited September 16, 2020).CrossRef+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976).Google Scholar
Fallon, R.H. Jr., “Some Confusions about Due Process, Judicial Review, and Constitutional Remedies,” Columbia Law Review 93 (1993): 309-73, at 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Fed. Deposit. Ins. Corp. v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240 (1988).Google Scholar
Blocher, J. and Charles, J.D., “Firearms, Extreme Risk, and Legal Design: ‘Red Flag’ Laws and Due Process,” Virginia Law Review 106 (forthcoming 2020), available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3534630> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Mathews v. Eldridge, supra note 23, at 335.Google Scholar
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008).Google Scholar
U.S. Const. amend. II.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ewing v. Mytinger & Casselberry, Inc., 339 U.S. 594, 600 (1950).Google Scholar
Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600, 616 (1974).Google Scholar
See Giffords Law Center, supra note 2.Google Scholar
MD Code, Public Safety, §5-603.Google Scholar
See Giffords Law Center, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Booker and Rose, supra note 5.Google Scholar
2019 Cal. Assemb. B. No. 61, Cal. 2019-2020 Reg. Sess., Cal. Comm. Rep.: Gun violence restraining orders, 1-5, Sept. 05, 2019.Google Scholar
Id., at 3.Google Scholar
ACLU of Pennsylvania, Memorandum: OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL 2227 P.N. 3344 (STEPHENS) (June 19, 2018), ACLUPA, available at <https://www.aclupa.org/sites/default/files/ACLU-PA_Memo_HB_2227_House_Judiciary_2018-06-19.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020); ACLU of Rhode Island, An Analysis of 18-H 7688 and 18-S 2492, Relating to Extreme Risk Protection Orders (March 2018), RIACLU, available at <riaclu.org/images/uploads/180302_analysis_RedFlagsLegislation.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020);+ACLU+of+Rhode+Island,+An+Analysis+of+18-H+7688+and+18-S+2492,+Relating+to+Extreme+Risk+Protection+Orders+(March+2018),+RIACLU,+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
Initial Brief of Coral Gables Police Department, Coral Gables Police Dep't v. Tamayo, No. 18-2275, 2019 WL 2074557 at *5–9 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2019).Google Scholar
National Domestic Violence Hotline, Legal Information: California, WomensLaw, available at <https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ca/restraining-orders/domestic-violence-restraining-orders/who-can-get-dvro#node-28751> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See State v. Poole, 228 N.C. App. 248, 248–49 (2013); Hamilton ex rel. Lethem v. Lethem, 270 P.3d 1024, 1033 (Haw. 2012).Google Scholar
See Cal. Comm. Rep., supra note 37.Google Scholar
Department of Homeland Security, If You See Something, Say Something | Media FAQs, DHS, available at <https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0401_seesay-mediafaqs.pdf> (last visited September 16, 2020).+(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See Swanson, J.W., et al., “Implementation and Effectiveness of Connecticut's Risk-Based Gun Removal Law: Does it Prevent Suicides?” Law and Contemporary Problems 80 (2017): 179-208; Swanson, J.W., et al., “Criminal Justice and Suicide Outcomes with Indiana's Risk-Based Gun Seizure Law,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online (April 2019), available at <http://jaapl.org/content/early/2019/04/15/JAAPL.003835-19> (last visited September 16, 2020). (last visited September 16, 2020).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=See+Swanson,+J.W.,+et+al.,+“Implementation+and+Effectiveness+of+Connecticut's+Risk-Based+Gun+Removal+Law:+Does+it+Prevent+Suicides?”+Law+and+Contemporary+Problems+80+(2017):+179-208;+Swanson,+J.W.,+et+al.,+“Criminal+Justice+and+Suicide+Outcomes+with+Indiana's+Risk-Based+Gun+Seizure+Law,”+Journal+of+the+American+Academy+of+Psychiatry+and+the+Law+Online+(April+2019),+available+at++(last+visited+September+16,+2020).>Google Scholar
See N.M. S.B. 5, supra note 10.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Maryland Courts, supra note 20; see also Frattaroli, et al., supra note 21.Google Scholar