The Defend Our Children Act, Senate Bill 351 would increase the age at which Ohioans can buy a firearm, but it would also adopt the state’s first “red flag law.”
Senate Bill 351 is co-sponsored by all Senate Democrats and supported by Moms Demand Action Ohio, part of Everytown for Gun Safety’s grassroots network that fights for public safety measures that can protect people from gun violence.
The red flag law process begins with a petition from law enforcement, family member or household member to a state court demanding temporary removal of firearms from someone deemed to be a danger. After the petition is filed, the court will then hold a hearing with the concerned parties. If clear and convincing evidence is found, the order is granted to confiscate weapons, sometimes without any prior notice to the person in question.
(Caroline Morse. “Ohio’s proposed ‘red flag’ gun law under scrutiny after other states revise regulations.” WDTN 2 News. Dayton. July 06, 2022.)
One of the senators that introduced the bill, Sen. Cecil Thomas, believes red flag laws operate the same way as search or arrest warrants, allowing judges to make decisions prior to having a hearing.
“Common sense policies such as universal background checks and a red flag law will help keep deadly weapons out of the hands of dangerous people,” said Sen. Thomas. “We can’t stop working to address gun violence.”
Senate Bill 351 combines several gun reform proposals previously introduced by Senate Democrats and will:
require background checks for all firearm transfers (currently Senate Bill 73 – Thomas);
raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21 (currently S. B. 74 – Thomas);
enact a Red Flag Law to allow the courts to temporarily confiscate firearms from people considered at risk for themselves or others (currently S. B. 138 – Williams);
prohibit negligent storage of firearms and authorize an income tax credit for the purchase of firearms safety storage units (S. B. 279 of the 132nd General Assembly – Sykes and Tavares);
add a mandatory three-day waiting period for all gun purchases;
increase funding for Ohio Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports grants and expand the program to include all grades.
Moms Demand Action Ohio released the statement:
“These laws can help prevent suicides, mass shootings and domestic violence gun deaths, and the just-passed Federal Bipartisan Safer Communities Act provides $750 million in much-needed funding over the next five years to support crisis intervention services, including the implementation of state Red Flag laws. The bill will also unlock a well-established existing funding stream to support the implementation of Red Flag laws.”
(Kristine Woodworth, Ohio chapter leader.)
Senate Bill 351 is currently sitting in the Senate’s Rules and Reference. It has not been referred to a committee. If approved, Ohio would join 19 other states and D.C. that enforce red flag laws.
Local Reaction
In a recent commissioners meeting on July 7, 2022, Scioto Commissioner Bryan Davis stated the following …
“The bottom line is … I have said multiple times, and we have seen it this week, red flag laws do nothing … nothing to prevent someone from going out and get a gun and going out and shoot some place up. Period! It does nothing.”
(Facebook address: https://www.facebook.com/sciotocountycommissioners/videos/702887844141102.)
Although the Scioto commissioners would likely deny Davis's comments are politically motivated, the proof is in the setting and in their obvious stubborn resistance to measures to check gun violence.
During the meeting on July 7, Davis said to those in attendance and those watching live on Facebook …
“But red flag laws where you have people making determinations that this person is mentally ill, and this person's a threat, and this person's 'that.' And there's no real good determination or good way to do that, I think is a dangerous, slippery slope for this country to move down because at that point, you know anybody could look at any of you (referring to attendees at the meeting) and say 'I don't like you. I think you're mentally ill. And you can no longer possess a firearm.' That is a dangerous precedent to set in this country.”
So, Davis takes it upon himself to speak as a representative of the county and say our commissioners oppose bills like Senate Bill 351. All of this he does in response to a simple question of mine: “Will the commissioners address rescinding the Second Amendment Sanctuary designation (of 2020) in light of gun violence?”
The discussion at the commissioners meeting quickly turned to laments of prayers and ten commandments being taken from public schools, the public “reaping what they sow,” and the proverbial “they” wanting next to take baseball bats away from “us” – all of which was met with guffaws and outright laughter from those chosen to fairly represent the people of Scioto County. I was offended. It was obvious that my citizenship has been deemed “politically radical” and pigeonholded as “second-class liberal.”
I ask you, the reader – Is this the place to debate these views and to pass resolutions and judgments of a purely political nature? I think not, but then again, I watched the Facebook live feed of the meeting, and I felt as if I had entered a private, expedient conversation or as if I had wandered upon a breakfast table of folks espousing ethical opinions. Davis judged my views as simply “fodder” and this blog I write as the home of outlandish opposition.
In addition, Davis belittled my attempts to rescind the Second Amendment Sanctuary designation even though Scioto is beleaguered with people suffering from health concerns, many at risk with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems. He dismissed my petition to rescind the designation by saying …
“90 people signed his petition out of 74,000, so I mean, I think the people of Scioto County spoke and I think the people of Scioto County support the Second Amendment as well as all 27 amendments to our Constitution.”
The false assumption is that all 74,000 residents of Scioto read my petition and that only a small percentage signed it because the vast majority “favored” the sanctuary designation. No such conclusions can be drawn from the online petition. Talk about false conclusions and slippery slopes! If anything, Davis just dismissed the view of myself and many other people opposed to the sanctuary designation as “meaningless.” By the way, the sanctuary statement has absolutely nothing to do with “supporting all 27 amendments” of the Constitution as Davis infers.
I asked a question only to find out that local politics turned the commissioners disgust for the topic into a sermon on the worthlessness of red flag laws, and then ended by effectively laughing such an unimportant minority view right out of the room. Instead of fielding the question with evidence-based reasoning and inviting debate, the commissioners chose to make ridiculous claims to energize emotional, conservative resistance to change.
This is the state of the progressive movement in Scioto County. Officeholders and officials of one stripe dominate local views. Their politics play out despite any critical opposition, and, in fact, any different idea here is often judged un-Christian and un-American by that majority. The truth is that many now are indifferent, and some are afraid to express their views in fear of retaliation. I might call your attention to recent attempts to limit drug rehabs and to limit library resources. High emotions, false conjectures, and unwarranted accusations all ran high … as they still evidently do.
I will end with a gentle reminder. The common good may suffer greatly from stubborn, unsupported resistance. The community should understand that what one group deems “sacred” may need to be questioned, may need to be studied, and may need to be changed. Recognizing alternatives and giving concessions leads to equality and justice. Turning a public meeting into a kangaroo court or into a holy ghost revival serves some, not all. That is the current state of affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment