By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A bill which would make it illegal for local governments in Montana to enact so-called “red flag” (Extreme Risk Prevention Orders) ordinances is now under consideration by the State Legislature, as proponents contend such restrictive regulations are unconstitutional.
House Bill 809 is sponsored by State Rep. Braxton Mitchell (R-Columbia Falls). The five page measure has several co-sponsors.
According to a report at KTVQ, the legislation is opposed by the Montana Domestic and Sexual Violence Coalition. Spokesperson Kelsen Young asserted red flag laws would be helpful.
Everytown for Gun Safety, the New York-based gun prohibition lobby, says ERPO laws “allow for quick intervention when a person is at serious risk of harming themselves or others with a firearm.”
“A multistate study found that one suicide was averted for every 17 ERPOs issued, which translates to 269 lives saved,” Everytown claims.
The study to which Everytown refers was reported by the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
One alleged success out of 17 cases where a red flag restriction was used translates to 16 other cases where the law didn’t work, suggesting that many people were disarmed, perhaps without cause.
HB 809 has some language which gives it teeth.
“(1) The legislature finds that extreme risk protection orders violate a person’s right to bear arms under the second amendment of the United States constitution and under Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution.
“(2) (a) A local government may not: enact, adopt, or implement a resolution, ordinance, rule, regulation, or policy that would have the effect of enforcing an extreme risk protection order against a resident of the state; or (b) accept a grant or other source of funding for the purpose of aiding in the adoption, implementation, or enforcement of an extreme risk protection order.
“(3) A local government that violates this section is subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000, payable to the state general fund. Each instance of enforcement or attempted enforcement constitutes a separate offense.”
Rep. Mitchell was quoted by KTVQ observing, “The bottom line, you cannot strip constitutional rights based on accusations alone. If someone is truly dangerous, they should be charged, tried and convicted, not disarmed through judicial tyranny.”
The Second Amendment Foundation launched a program two years ago to “challenge Red Flag Laws that deprive individuals of their Right to Keep and Bear Arms based on evidentiary standards that offend constitutional notions.” It is called “Capture the Flag,” and initially is seeking people who have been “subjected to an extreme risk protection order, risk protection order, or emergency gun violence restraining order in California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Washington” to contact SAF.
