Extreme risk protection orders bill heard in committee  2/19/20
Articles,  Blog

Extreme risk protection orders bill heard in committee 2/19/20


THE WAYS MEANS COMMITTEE. REPRESENTATIVE ALSO MOVED TO THE REFINANCE AND CIVIL LAW DIVISION REPORT FOR HOUSE BILL 9 EMOTION INSIDE BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION SEE NONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE; I’M ALWAYS MOTION. NO NO. NOW. THEY CAN ADVISE RIGHT HARVARD NEXT YEAR THAT WE HAVE IS ABOUT THE SAME KIND OF OKAY REP SYMBOLS AND WITH THAT HOUSE FOUND 9 AS AMENDED BE RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED IN THE CENTER OF MR. THE MOTION IS BEFORE US AND WE DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT. I THINK WE’LL GET THE ORDER WITH THE AMENDMENT BE AND PUT OUR MONEY PERCENT OF SAMPLES IN A 24 MONTH IN THE MOTION IS BEFORE AND A REPRESENTATIVE AND WITH YOU HERE TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. YES; I THINK YOU CHAIR; SO 24 AMENDMENT WOULD GET PATEL AND THE SAME.>>HAVE PATTERN THAT WAS PASSED BY THE HOUSE FOR US. FOR THE DISCUSSION AND ON THE AMENDMENT.>>ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THEN SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE. THE MOTION CARRIED. ALL. IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE BILL. THAT THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENT. YEAH THAT WE HAD THANKS FROM THE REVISE OR SO WE’VE ANOTHER TECHNICAL AMENDMENT THAT YEAR. AND MAYBE THE NEXT JUST EXPLAINED EFFECTIVE PART OF>>MISTER CHAIR AND MEMBERS 20 DEATHS HERE 6 TO 8 AMENDMENT. IT’S SIMILAR TO THE AMENDMENTS THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED ON AN ADOPTED ON MONDAY THAT WERE NECESSARY DUE TO THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE STATUTES IN THE BILL WAS AMENDED LAST SESSION SO IN ORDER TO AMEND THE CURRENT VERSION OF THAT LANGUAGE THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ENSUE OF THE 2019 SUPPLEMENT VERSION OF SECTION 6 24.7 1; 3; SUBDIVISION AND THIS ONE COMES SOME MEMBERS FROM THE REVISED TO STOP THE AND A THE TROUBLE THE A DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.>>THE SCENE AND THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE AYE. NOW WILL EXPLAIN THE BILL.>>HOUSE BILL 9 IS A PROPOSAL TO HELP KEEP GUNS OUT THE HANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AT RISK OF HARMING THEMSELVES OR POSE A DANGER TO OTHERS THE BILL WOULD CREATE A PROCESS BY WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT OR A CITY OR COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN PETITION. THE COURT TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM WITHOUT FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF A FEW HIGH LOW; BUT THE COMMENTS RELATED COSTS AND TO GET THE CASE NOT THE BELL BASED UPON THE FISCAL NOT REVIEW. OVERALL THEY WOULD BE A FISCAL IMPACT FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF 231;000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 21 AND 248;000 IN FISCAL YEARS; 2223. QUICK BREAKDOWN. FILING FEES WOULD BE WAIVED FOR BOTH THE TESTING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CITY AND COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND ALSO FOR RESPONDENTS AS WELL. THERE ARE SOME ANTICIPATED PORT WERE THE COST RELATED TO CREATING THE NECESSARY FORMS HAVE BEEN ABSORBED THERE’S SOME CONFIGURATION COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THOSE COSTS ARE ALSO EXPECTED IT’S ABSORBED BY SPEAK FOR THE MINISTRY SEND AND THEY GOT THE CASE EILEEN’S A FISCAL NOTE RELIED ON USING COMPARABLE DATA ON DOMESTIC OF USE HE SAYS AND BASED ON THE ESTIMATES PROJECT THAT WON OFFICIAL FTE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR STATEWIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND THAT WOULD BE A COST OF $43;000 IN FISCAL YEAR 21. AND 86;000 FOR FISCAL YEARS; 2223. THERE ARE SOME MINIMAL COSTS AND THE FAR POST RELATED TO CREATING BEST PRACTICES AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND I’M ON THE START TO FIGHT A FIRE ARMS AND THOSE COSTS WITH THE UPS OR PIPE UP THE POST THERE’S A GRANT PROGRAM THAT IS ANTICIPATED THAT PUBLIC SAFETY WAS A MINISTER FOR A CAPITAL RESOURCES THAT MAY BE GOOD FOR STORAGE FOR LOCAL. AGENCIES AND THAT BILL WOULD APPROPRIATE A $100;000 TO PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THAT OR FOR THAT PURPOSE. FINALLY THERE ARE SOME COSTS RELATED WITH MODIFYING THE VERY RECORDS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT USES THE PERMANENT FUND THAT WAS DISQUALIFIED FROM HAVING A FIRE ARM AND NOW TO GET A COST OF ABOUT A 100 87TH OUT A $187;000. THE WORKED AT THE TERMINAL AND SINCE THE STATUTE SERVICES WITH THE UPS STORE AND THEY’RE BE ONGOING MEET THEM FOR FUNCTIONALITY AT 37;500 AND WHAT.>>THANK YOU MISTER PERCENT OF BRIDGES THAT I I KNOW YOU PROBABLY DON’T HAVE A COPY OF THIS LETTER. BEFORE I RECEIVED THIS FROM I’M A FORMER CONSTITUENT NOW LIVES IN ROSEAU BUT SHE CONTACTED ME AND I GOT THIS E-MAIL LATE TODAY AND AND SHE’S A WOMAN THAT SURVIVED ABUSE AND LATER HER. ABUSER WENT ON TO COMMIT EVEN WORSE THAT ARE SPOKEN OF IN THIS LETTER. BUT I WANT TO DRAW MEMBERS ATTENTION TO THE PARAGRAPH IN THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE STARTING WITH THE SECOND SENTENCE WELL START AT THE FIRST; SO I URGE YOU TO STOP THIS MADNESS AND DO NOT CREATE ANY NEW GUN LAST THEY WILL ONLY LIMIT MY ABILITY TO OWN A GUN AND ONLY HER LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AS YOU KNOW MANY WOMEN LIKE MYSELF SUFFER FROM PTSD DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY BECAUSE THEY’VE BEEN ABUSED. I FEAR THAT IF YOU PASS THE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK WELL THAT AND THEN I THINK I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO OWN A GUN FOR THEM ARE RED FLAG LAWS. CONSTITUTIONALLY SO I THINK ONE OF HER CONCERNS IS THAT BECAUSE SHE’S SUFFERED SOME MENTAL PROBABLY IS ON ANTIDEPRESSANTS OR SOMETHING THAT THROUGH A LOT LIKE THE RED FLAG LAW THAT PROHIBIT HER FROM FROM HAVING A FIREARM AND STILL I DON’T THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD 4 IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY WHEN SOMEONE HAS A FIREARM TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. AND ESPECIALLY SOMEONE THAT HAS THIS PAST THE FEEL VERY VULNERABLE AND THE FIREARM. ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF SICK SECURITY AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT UM I I CAN’T YOUR BUILT-IN THANK>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF REPRESENTATIVES KOSKI. THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR AND THANKS FOR THE BILL REPRESENTATIVE AND YOU KNOW I I NOTICED I LISTEN TO YOUR I’VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE WAVING FILING FEES FOR THIS WE’RE WAIVING THE NEED FOR THEM TO MAKE APPLE CATION WITHIN THE LEGAL PROCESS. YOU’RE GREASING THE SKIDS TO PUT PEOPLE INTO THIS PROGRAM. I HAVEN’T SEEN THIS THE DEMOCRATS IN MINNESOTA ARE SO BIG AND HOLE TO TAKE OUR GUNS THAT THEY’RE GOING TO GREASE THE SKIDS IN THIS TO GET PEOPLE INTO THIS PROGRAM. MISTER CHAIR REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON. WHAT DO WE DO. YOU’VE GOT A SECTION OF THE AMENDMENT THAT TALKS ABOUT LIBRE LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR HARM FOLLOWING SERVICE OF AN ORDER EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT. SO WHAT IF SOMETHING IS BASICALLY THE GOVERNMENT ISN’T WHILE LIABLE FOR DAMAGE. THE POLICE DO. WHEN THEY BREAK DOWN THE DOOR. AND THEY ENGAGE A PERSON IN AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR FIRE. WHERE IS THE LIABILITY PROTECTION. FOR THE POLICE OFFICER. BECAUSE WE’RE GOING VENTURE LOSE A POLICE OFFICER FROM THESE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN MARYLAND WHEN A GUY DIED WHEN THEY BROKE THE DOOR DOWN. WE’RE SENDING POLICE INTO A SITUATION. TAKE A FIREARM AWAY FROM A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN. VERY VERY PROTECTIVE OF THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. GOT GOVERNMENT CAUSING A CONFLICT GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO CAUSE DAMAGE WITH THIS BILL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO HURT PEOPLE WITH THIS BILL THERE THE LIKELY IN THE LONG TERM WILL BE PEOPLE KILLED BY THIS BILL. SO WE HAVE A SAFE THAT REPRESENT RICHARDSON.>>THANK YOU MISTER MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE TO LOOK AT THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE 105. RED FLAG LAWS PEOPLE BACK 20 AND THE UNITED STATES; THE FIRST RED FLAG BILL WAS PASSED IN 1999 AND CONNECTICUT AND P BETWEEN 19 99 IN 2013; THERE WERE 762 ORDERS AND AT IN CONNECTICUT. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN OF A RESULT OF WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT THAT HAPPENED AND MARYLAND. I WOULD ALSO POINT TO THE FACT THAT THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF LESSONS LEARNED AS WE NOW I BELIEVE HAVE 18 STATES THAT HAVE ADOPTED RED FLAG LAWS AND SOME OF THE REALLY IMPORTANT THEY THINK BEST PRACTICES HAVE COM. CITIES LIKE SAN DIEGO OVER A YEAR PERIOD. HAVE A 189 ORDERS AND OF THOSE 189 ORDERS. A 188 OF THOSE THEY WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE INDIVIDUALS IN A WAY THAT DIDN’T INVOLVE BREAKING DOWN A DOOR IN ORDER TO WORK WITH THEM AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN ORDER AND SO MY RESPONSE WITH YOU THAT IN TERMS OF THINKING UP HOW HOW LAW ENFORCEMENT IS RESPONDING. THERE ARE WAYS OF THE ESCALATING CONFLICT THAT DON’T NECESSARILY INVOLVE. BREAKING DOWN A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.>>THANK YOU MAKE UP FOR THAT MISTER CHAIR; THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE RICHARDSON. WELL YOU KNOW; THE EXAMPLE USE ONE DOOR GOT BROKE DOWN IT SOUNDS LIKE. WE KNOW THAT ONE PERSON GOT KILLED IN MARYLAND. IF WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD A BILL THAT WE KNOWINGLY EXPECT THAT HE’S GOING TO CAUSE A CON BUT HAITIAN THAT SOMEONE COULD GET HURT OR KILLED. I DON’T THINK WE’RE BEING RESPONSIBLE AS A LEGISLATURE MEMBERS ENCOURAGE A NO VOTE ON THIS BILL I THINK IT’S IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US TO DO THE STUNT PEOPLE MINNESOTA INTO THE FINE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT THERE WORKING FOR TO DO THEIR JOB EACH DAY.>>MISTER CHAIRMAN AND AS WITH HOUSE FILE IT FOR THIS. HOUSE FILE 9 IS AN ATTACK ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL LIBERTY. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT AGAIN AT A TIME WHEN A TIME WHEN WE SEE GREATER CONCERN ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS AND PERSONAL LIBERTIES THAT WE ARE SEEN BEING A MAJOR PARTY THAT IS SO COMMITTED TO WRIST; TAKING AWAY OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT; IT’S IN THIS CASE WHAT IT DOES IS IT MAKES THE LAWFUL GUN OWNER AND IT PUTS IN A POSITION OF BEING A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT. YOU SHOULD BE DOING THIS. THE REALITY IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE MATTERS. OF OUR SECOND AMENDMENT. THE CONCERNS THAT YOU’RE SEEING EXPRESSED BY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED. THE FEAR THAT MANY OF US HAVE ABOUT COME PEOPLE GOVERNMENT COMING FROM OUR GUNS ARE JUSTIFIED AND IT’S JUSTIFIED IN RHETORIC WE SEE THE POLITICAL LEFT IS JUSTIFIED IN THE CANDIDATES ARE COMING FORWARD THAT JUSTIFIED BY THE BILLS THAT ARE BEING PASSED THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. BUT THIS CHAMBER LACKS THE VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL I’M CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL NOT BECOME LAW. WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE SENATE BLOCKING THIS AND DEFENDING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. BUT I’M ALSO VERY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE REGARDLESS OF HOW THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS HAPPEN. I DON’T SEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE A MAJORITY OF MEMBERS OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WILL STAND AND TAKE AWAY INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. WE SEE THIS IS EVENTS WITH THIS BILL WE’RE SEEING A PUSH BACK NOW FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES FOR 3 COUNTIES AND MAYBE EVEN 4 COUNTIES HAVE NOW PASSED. SANCTION A SANCTUARY RESOLUTIONS FOR THEIR COUNTIES. I’M FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE. I LOVE IT WHEN THE DFL TALKS ABOUT GUN CONTROL I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT. FOR 30 YEARS; PLUS WHATEVER YOU GUYS BRING FORWARD GUN CONTROL YOU GET ABSOLUTELY WIPED OUT AT THE BALLOT BOX IN NOVEMBER. I LOVE IT. BUT AS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN; I AM CONCERNED THAT MAJOR PARTY CONTINUES TO ATTACK MY INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS I WOULD ASK MEMBERS TO THE FURTHER DISCUSSION; MR. WE’RE GOING TO ROLL CALL VOTE ON A REPLACEMENT. AND I DON’T GET A. YOU SO MY SLOWER APPROACH TO CALLING FOR THE NOBLE. I JUST ANNOUNCE THE HOME OR OKAY ARE WE READY ALL ARE. YEAH WE SHOULD HAVE THE MOTION TO RENEW YOUR MOTION FIRST OVER IN MY MOTION THAT HOUSE FOUND 9 AS AMENDED THE RECOMMENDED TO BE PLACED ON THE GENERAL REGISTER IT AT THAT MOTION IS BEFORE US ANY A FURTHER DISCUSSION. IT’S NOT CARLSON I. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON S.>>REPRESENTATIVE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE ALBRIGHT KNOW. REPRESENTATIVE BERNARDI I TO REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SNELL REPRESENTATIVE DAD ME I. REPRESENTATIVES KOSKI THROAT. REPRESENTATIVE EKLUND KNOW. REPRESENTATIVE HAMILTON NOW. REPRESENTATIVE HANSEN YES. REPRESENTATIVE 1000 YES. REPRESENTATIVE HART REPRESENTATIVE POINTS TEEN DEATHS. REPRESENTATIVE PRE SHOP. REPRESENTATIVE WHEELING YES. REPRESENTATIVE LEE. REPRESENTATIVE LONG YES. REPRESENTATIVE MARIANI WELLS THAT REPRESENTATIVE MARK WORD; NO. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON YES. REPRESENTATIVE NOR YES. REPRESENT A COLLAPSE IN YES. REPRESENTATIVE TOPPING YES. PERCENT OF SCHUMACHER KNOW. REPRESENT TOOK WILSON; NO. NOW REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE US YEAH. THE COUPLE

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *