utbagpiper
Banned
Rep. Seelig's HB 50, Dating Violence bill expands the ability to get a protective order to those are merely in a "dating" relationship, as opposed to those who are married or otherwise legally family members.
The bill would allow a judge to restrict a person's RKBA based merely on the request for a protective order and the relatively low legal standard of "clear and convincing"
evidence that the order should be granted. RKBA would only be able to be restricted after the person is notified and given a chance appear in person and contest the order. But no criminal charges need to be filed, no arrest made, and not all of the usual protections afforded the accused in a criminal trial are present in these civil type hearings.
Whether or not it is proper to extend protective orders to dating relationships is not an RKBA issue so I offer no opinion here.
Whether or not it is proper to abridge a fundamental, constitutionally enumerated right without even an arrest/indictment/charge for criminal activity, nor trial or conviction for same is very much an RKBA issue and I strongly oppose the idea that our RKBA should be so easily taken from us.
I encourage all to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee (and your own legislators) to politely but firmly voice your opposition to this bill as it is currently written.
Members of the committee are:
Rep. Kay L. McIff, Chair
Rep. Lee B. Perry, Vice Chair
Rep. Patrice M. Arent
Rep. LaVar Christensen
Rep. Brian M. Greene
Rep. Craig Hall
Rep. Eric K. Hutchings
Rep. Brian S. King
Rep. V. Lowry Snow
Contact info at http://le.utah.gov/house2/representatives.jsp
Sample email/fax or talking points:
Dear Rep xxx,
I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 50, Dating Violence Protection Act. As currently written this bill would allow a judge to issue a protective order that would eliminate a person's right to own and possess firearms even though the person has not even been arrested for nor charged with any criminal act, much less actually convicted. If real crimes have been committed in a dating relationship, the perpetrator should be arrested for those crimes, charged, and given due process. Current law allows his rights to possess firearms to be restricted during the criminal process. There is no need to make it even easier to attack a person's constitutionally enumerated rights to legally possess firearms.
Please oppose HB 50 unless it is amended to protect our rights to possess firearms.
I would appreciate hearing how you intend to vote on this bill.
Thank you.
xxxx
Charles
The bill would allow a judge to restrict a person's RKBA based merely on the request for a protective order and the relatively low legal standard of "clear and convincing"
evidence that the order should be granted. RKBA would only be able to be restricted after the person is notified and given a chance appear in person and contest the order. But no criminal charges need to be filed, no arrest made, and not all of the usual protections afforded the accused in a criminal trial are present in these civil type hearings.
Whether or not it is proper to extend protective orders to dating relationships is not an RKBA issue so I offer no opinion here.
Whether or not it is proper to abridge a fundamental, constitutionally enumerated right without even an arrest/indictment/charge for criminal activity, nor trial or conviction for same is very much an RKBA issue and I strongly oppose the idea that our RKBA should be so easily taken from us.
I encourage all to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee (and your own legislators) to politely but firmly voice your opposition to this bill as it is currently written.
Members of the committee are:
Rep. Kay L. McIff, Chair
Rep. Lee B. Perry, Vice Chair
Rep. Patrice M. Arent
Rep. LaVar Christensen
Rep. Brian M. Greene
Rep. Craig Hall
Rep. Eric K. Hutchings
Rep. Brian S. King
Rep. V. Lowry Snow
Contact info at http://le.utah.gov/house2/representatives.jsp
Sample email/fax or talking points:
Dear Rep xxx,
I am writing to ask you to oppose HB 50, Dating Violence Protection Act. As currently written this bill would allow a judge to issue a protective order that would eliminate a person's right to own and possess firearms even though the person has not even been arrested for nor charged with any criminal act, much less actually convicted. If real crimes have been committed in a dating relationship, the perpetrator should be arrested for those crimes, charged, and given due process. Current law allows his rights to possess firearms to be restricted during the criminal process. There is no need to make it even easier to attack a person's constitutionally enumerated rights to legally possess firearms.
Please oppose HB 50 unless it is amended to protect our rights to possess firearms.
I would appreciate hearing how you intend to vote on this bill.
Thank you.
xxxx
Charles