I am writing you in strong opposition to SB 240, the misnamed “substantial risk” order bill. I agree with Gun Owners of America that passing laws based on the likelihood of an individual to commit a future crime as a pretext for taking their guns is a good story line for movies like Minority Report, but not for upholding “due process” which you swore to defend upon taking your Oath to uphold the Virginia and US Constitutions. Not being able to cross examine your accusers or to even know them, and then to have your firearms taken without compensation and to leave such persons defenseless is an assault on fundamental justice. During the period in which an individual is denied the ability to effectively defend themselves creates serious harm. In that period when they are denied guns, the innocent victims of confiscation are defenseless against home invaders, robbers, and other violent criminals. Would you want this to happen to your own family? There are already laws on the book to deal with those suffering a mental health crisis. So why was this bill even introduced? Records show that in Connecticut and Indiana, 30 percent of respondents subject to protective orders who had the means to secure counsel, had the initial gun removal decisions reversed. Confiscation petitions, while filed by police or a Commonwealth attorney, may be initiated by spurned lovers, angry spouses in a divorce, etc., disgruntled neighbors, etc. Further, there is no civil cause of action for a wrongfully accused person to sue for having his firearms removed. The criminal penalty in SB 240 for false filings would require government officials to admit they were duped by the accusers so the likelihood of an accused winning in court would be slim. About a week ago, according to KITV/ABC News, a World War II Marine veteran and Catholic priest who ran and lived at a homeless shelter in Honolulu was subject to an “emergency risk order” filed by an occupant of the shelter. His WW II gun collection was to be turned over to the authorities. Father Rubie said the individual who filed the complaint was annoyed because he had been asked to leave the shelter for staying there too long. (KITV/ABC News) How many other individuals will lose their right to due process under Governor Northam’s and Senator Sullivan’s SB 240? I urge you to vote NO! Please advise me of your vote.

I am strongly opposed to SB 240, the so-called Red Flag “substantial risk” bill. Gun Owners of America has pointed out that the experience right next door in Maryland shows the harm such bills bring to citizens. On November 15, 2018, 61-year-old Gary Willis of Ferndale, MD, answered his door to police at 5 AM. They were there to tell Willis, a man they never met or had cause to visit, that he was subject to an Emergency Risk order. News reports indicated, that, “Willis became increasingly agitated … when they mentioned he’d have to leave the home … he’d shared with his family for 20 years.” When Willis did not drop his gun, the police shot Willis who died at his home. No charges were filed against the police. The Rhode Island ACLU questioned a 2018 ERPO measure similar to SB 240: “The standard for … issuing an order … could routinely be used against people who engage in ‘overblown political rhetoric’ on social media.… ERPO process requires speculation … about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better.” The claim that SB 240 is needed to address suicide is blatantly hypocritical. HB 1073 (Del. Kory) which abolished the common law crime of assisted suicide was supported by 52 democrat lawmakers who also supported passage of the House “substantial risk” bill (HB 674) which is supposed to reduce the likelihood of suicide. Furthermore, Carl Moody of William and Mary and John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime), did research and found that the Red Flag laws have insignificant effects of suicide and mass shootings. They wrote that, “the experience in Connecticut and Indiana is that red flag laws have had no significant effect on either homicide or suicide because there was substitution between firearms and other methods or because there was no significant effect on either of these modalities. We also find that ERPO laws have had no significant effect on deaths or injuries from mass public shootings.” Please tell me how you voted, as I want to share your position with my friends.

I am writing you in strong opposition to SB 240, the misnamed “substantial risk” order bill. I agree with Gun Owners of America that passing laws based on the likelihood of an individual to commit a future crime as a pretext for taking their guns is a good story line for movies like Minority Report, but not for upholding “due process” which you swore to defend upon taking your Oath to uphold the Virginia and US Constitutions. Not being able to cross examine your accusers or to even know them, and then to have your firearms taken without compensation and to leave such persons defenseless is an assault on fundamental justice. During the period in which an individual is denied the ability to effectively defend themselves creates serious harm. In that period when they are denied guns, the innocent victims of confiscation are defenseless against home invaders, robbers, and other violent criminals. Would you want this to happen to your own family? There are already laws on the book to deal with those suffering a mental health crisis. So why was this bill even introduced? Records show that in Connecticut and Indiana, 30 percent of respondents subject to protective orders who had the means to secure counsel, had the initial gun removal decisions reversed. Confiscation petitions, while filed by police or a Commonwealth attorney, may be initiated by spurned lovers, angry spouses in a divorce, etc., disgruntled neighbors, etc. Further, there is no civil cause of action for a wrongfully accused person to sue for having his firearms removed. The criminal penalty in SB 240 for false filings would require government officials to admit they were duped by the accusers so the likelihood of an accused winning in court would be slim. About a week ago, according to KITV/ABC News, a World War II Marine veteran and Catholic priest who ran and lived at a homeless shelter in Honolulu was subject to an “emergency risk order” filed by an occupant of the shelter. His WW II gun collection was to be turned over to the authorities. Father Rubie said the individual who filed the complaint was annoyed because he had been asked to leave the shelter for staying there too long. (KITV/ABC News) How many other individuals will lose their right to due process under Governor Northam’s and Senator Sullivan’s SB 240? I urge you to vote NO! Please advise me of your vote.

I am strongly opposed to SB 240, the so-called Red Flag “substantial risk” bill. Gun Owners of America has pointed out that the experience right next door in Maryland shows the harm such bills bring to citizens. On November 15, 2018, 61-year-old Gary Willis of Ferndale, MD, answered his door to police at 5 AM. They were there to tell Willis, a man they never met or had cause to visit, that he was subject to an Emergency Risk order. News reports indicated, that, “Willis became increasingly agitated … when they mentioned he’d have to leave the home … he’d shared with his family for 20 years.” When Willis did not drop his gun, the police shot Willis who died at his home. No charges were filed against the police. The Rhode Island ACLU questioned a 2018 ERPO measure similar to SB 240: “The standard for … issuing an order … could routinely be used against people who engage in ‘overblown political rhetoric’ on social media.… ERPO process requires speculation … about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better.” The claim that SB 240 is needed to address suicide is blatantly hypocritical. HB 1073 (Del. Kory) which abolished the common law crime of assisted suicide was supported by 52 democrat lawmakers who also supported passage of the House “substantial risk” bill (HB 674) which is supposed to reduce the likelihood of suicide. Furthermore, Carl Moody of William and Mary and John Lott (More Guns, Less Crime), did research and found that the Red Flag laws have insignificant effects of suicide and mass shootings. They wrote that, “the experience in Connecticut and Indiana is that red flag laws have had no significant effect on either homicide or suicide because there was substitution between firearms and other methods or because there was no significant effect on either of these modalities. We also find that ERPO laws have had no significant effect on deaths or injuries from mass public shootings.” Please tell me how you voted, as I want to share your position with my friends.

I am writing to you because I oppose the passage of SB 240, the supposed emergency risk reduction bill. Even advocates of so-called “Red Flag” laws admit there are due process problems which they “wink” at, because they say alleged murders or suicides might be prevented by such laws. Law Professor David Kopel told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2019 that: “an ex parte system deprives individuals of five of the seven elements of due process: notice, opportunity make an oral presentation, opportunity to present evidence, cross-examination and response to evidence, and the right to counsel.… Even at a subsequent hearing, the Giffords/Bloomberg system continues to deprive the individual of due process, because the individual is not allowed to cross-examine adverse witnesses. … the adverse witnesses, including the accuser, never have to appear in court; they can submit affidavits instead.” Under SB 240 only law enforcement officials are supposed to conduct an alleged “independent investigation” of a theoretical risk of gun violence by an individual. But the bill does not prevent or forbid a jilted romantic partner, a teen daughter who is on the outs with parents, a pediatrician who worries his 10-year-old patient could be harmed by his father’s gun, a political rival, a stalker, or others from approaching the police or Commonwealth attorney to ask that an ERPO complaint be filed. Guns can be removed for up to 180 days at a time. The ERPO can be renewed after that. The “threat” of harm to self or others need not be imminent. Extreme Risk bills like SB 240 do NOT require that an individual show evidence of insanity or mental illness for firearm removal orders. “Red flag” laws only remove guns, they do not address conditions leading to suicide. Nor do they reduce suicides or mass shootings. William and Mary’s professor Carl Moody and gun rights author John Lott found that the “Red Flag” laws have insignificant effects of suicide and mass shootings: “The experience in Connecticut and Indiana is that red flag laws have had no significant effect on either homicide or suicide because there was substitution between firearms and other methods or because there was no significant effect on either of these modalities. We also find that ERPO laws have had no significant effect on deaths or injuries from mass public shootings.” Democrat legislators claim such laws will reduce suicides, but 52 Democrats voted in favor of eliminating the Common Law crime of assisted suicide (HB 1073, Del. Kory). How hypocritical is that? I ask you to vote against SB 240. If you decide to vote for it, please give me your detailed explanation. This matter is of tremendous concern to me and my friends. Gun Owners of America is keeping me informed, and I will share their information and your response with my like-minded friends. Thank you.