DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Gov. Mike DeWine pushes for ‘red-flag’ law allowing courts to confiscate guns

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Gov. Mike DeWine said Monday that his administration is drawing up “red-flag” legislation that would allow authorities to confiscate guns from those deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.

DeWine is taking up the banner for an issue unsuccessfully pushed by his predecessor, fellow Republican Gov. John Kasich, during the final months of his administration.

"I’ve challenged our team to come back with something in the area of red-flag legislation that can pass,” the governor told reporters Monday afternoon. But, he added, “We need to have something that can actually pass, so that’s certainly something that’s part of the criteria.”

Currently, Ohio law only permits a court to confiscate people’s firearms if a civil protection order is issued against them for domestic violence or fear of such violence. However, a handful of other states, including Indiana, have “red flag” laws in place that allow friends and family members to petition a court to remove firearms from people who pose a threat to themselves or others.

At first glance, it may be surprising that DeWine would back such a law, given his support for rolling back other gun-control laws and that he was endorsed in last year’s gubernatorial race by the National Rifle Association.

But on the campaign trail last year, DeWine told The Plain Dealer/cleveland.com editorial board that he would support a “red flag” law as long as there’s due process involved. That’s similar to the NRA’s position on the issue.

DeWine’s comments came two days after a high-profile shooting in a California synagogue.

After last year’s mass shooting at Parkland High School in Florida, Kasich urged state lawmakers to pass a number of gun-policy reforms, including a “red flag” law. But the Republican-dominated legislature ignored Kasich’s proposals and instead voted to loosen Ohio’s gun-control laws -- a move Kasich called “dirty, stinking politics.”

It remains to be seen whether state lawmakers will be more receptive to DeWine’s “red flag” proposal than they were to Kasich’s, though its chances of passage will likely be improved if it’s not bundled with a number of other proposed gun reforms.

https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2019/...yEu-sYVJPAyEIRE

Interesting. On one hand, there’s a constitutional issue with this. Morally, however, I completely get it. It’s high time we got proactive rather than reactive.

The main reason I posted it was that it shows a court can take your guns away with a protection order. In many cases we can see that protection orders can be obtained with little to no evidence. In a previous thread on this issue it was claimed that someone who doesn't like you or wants to gain an advantage in a divorce proceeding can use such a law against you. Yet with the way protection orders are set up, they can pretty much be used in the exact same way.

I'm all for someone who actually needs protection to have that. But it is all too often used as a weapon against the person the order is being filed against.

It does state in the article that whatever measure is brought forward would allow for due process, but it isn't defined as to what that means.

Almost makes up for that heartbeat bill. It will never pass the GOPer rule in Ohio though.

This will likely be used in all the wrong ways and I do not think, whatsoever that this is how you are going to stop shootings.

I tend to agree with you. This is one of those things that sounds great in theory, to take guns from those "deemed to be a threat to self or others".. but the implementation and the downstream effects of this could be horrific.

So you won’t speak on how you interpret the “wrong ways” it will be used?

I’m tired of cop outs around here. Let’s hear it. You know.

“They’re coming to take our guns away!”