BigCity
retired undertaker
Got this "reply" in my email TODAY concerning my non-support for 1302 earlier this year......
Dear BigCity:
Thank you for your correspondence to Governor Larry Hogan regarding “red flag” legislation. As the Governor’s Chief Legislative Officer, he has asked me to respond on his behalf.
When Governor Hogan announced his support for policies that allow family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court to issue an extreme risk protective order, he emphasized the imperative need to protect due process. While the Maryland General Assembly was considering HB 1302, the Governor’s Office urged legislators to include due process protections such as “a high evidentiary standard in order to issue a lethal violence protective order, an opportunity for the respondent to address the petition made against him or her, expedited hearing timelines, and a limited scope of who can petition the court under this process” in the final version of the legislation.
House Bill 1302, in its final form, contains a number of important due process protections. The court is required to provide written notice to the respondent about the process, potential consequences, and future hearing dates on both the interim extreme risk protective order and temporary extreme risk protective order. The respondent must be given an opportunity to to be heard on the question of whether the judge should issue a final extreme risk protective order. Finally, in order to issue a final risk protective order, a judge must consider evidence presented by both the respondent and petitioner and must find by clear and convincing evidence, the highest evidentiary burden in a civil proceeding, that the respondent poses a danger of causing injury to themselves or others by possessing a firearm.
In order to protect against frivolous filings, the legislation limits those that can petition for an extreme risk protective order to certain mental health or medical professionals, law enforcement officers, and specified family members and close relations of the individual. A petitioner would file for an order under penalty of perjury and set forth specific facts in support of the claim that the individual poses an immediate and present danger to himself or others. Further, HB 1302 requires and allows a court to review all relevant court records involving the petitioner and respondent.
A copy of House Bill 1302 as enacted is available here: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/Chapters_noln/CH_250_hb1302e.pdf.
Thank you for your correspondence. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at 410-974-3336.
Sincerely,
Chris Shank
Chief Legislative Officer
Dear BigCity:
Thank you for your correspondence to Governor Larry Hogan regarding “red flag” legislation. As the Governor’s Chief Legislative Officer, he has asked me to respond on his behalf.
When Governor Hogan announced his support for policies that allow family members or law enforcement officers to ask a court to issue an extreme risk protective order, he emphasized the imperative need to protect due process. While the Maryland General Assembly was considering HB 1302, the Governor’s Office urged legislators to include due process protections such as “a high evidentiary standard in order to issue a lethal violence protective order, an opportunity for the respondent to address the petition made against him or her, expedited hearing timelines, and a limited scope of who can petition the court under this process” in the final version of the legislation.
House Bill 1302, in its final form, contains a number of important due process protections. The court is required to provide written notice to the respondent about the process, potential consequences, and future hearing dates on both the interim extreme risk protective order and temporary extreme risk protective order. The respondent must be given an opportunity to to be heard on the question of whether the judge should issue a final extreme risk protective order. Finally, in order to issue a final risk protective order, a judge must consider evidence presented by both the respondent and petitioner and must find by clear and convincing evidence, the highest evidentiary burden in a civil proceeding, that the respondent poses a danger of causing injury to themselves or others by possessing a firearm.
In order to protect against frivolous filings, the legislation limits those that can petition for an extreme risk protective order to certain mental health or medical professionals, law enforcement officers, and specified family members and close relations of the individual. A petitioner would file for an order under penalty of perjury and set forth specific facts in support of the claim that the individual poses an immediate and present danger to himself or others. Further, HB 1302 requires and allows a court to review all relevant court records involving the petitioner and respondent.
A copy of House Bill 1302 as enacted is available here: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2018RS/Chapters_noln/CH_250_hb1302e.pdf.
Thank you for your correspondence. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out at 410-974-3336.
Sincerely,
Chris Shank
Chief Legislative Officer
