Prepare now. This will be a tough fight, and heaven help us if any more nutcases perpetuate more of these murders before 2020.  Start letting your representatives now know that you do NOT support it under any circumstances.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900082670/donald-trump-gun-laws-utah-red-flag-law.html

Our language is dated; the "shall not" argument is appearing to have less and less effect on representatives. For example, I have been approached by one Republican representative that wants to talk ERPO compromise, and I'm aware of about a dozen other House representatives that could vote for one if they thought it had the requisite support from both fellow Republicans in the house and their constituency.  Senate is not likely to break step with House on a gun-related resolution with widespread Republican support if it makes it to them, however efforts will definitely be made to reach out to these Senators as well and let them know where Utahns stand.

Because of this, I suggest a different tact. I'm not suggesting ignoring ERPO's lack of constitutionality, but the opposition is effectively working to appeal to pragmatism. Therefore, I advise giving valid reasons why Red Flag/ERPOs are bad policies. Some suggestions:

ERPOs...

* Have a chilling effect on free speech, by compelling people to remain quiet about firearms and firearms-related topics.

* Will de-incentivize people from seeking mental help, for fear of losing their firearms.

* Ignore due process, by forcing citizens to prove innocence instead of accusers proving guilt.

* Have an extremely low  evidentiary threshold, and a broad range of implicating behaviors.

* Don't protect adequately against false accusations. Although Handy's bill contains language about penalties for false reports, proving that someone accused you falsely is dramatically more expensive and difficult than filing an ERPO.

* Are showing early evidence in states with existing statues that upward of a third of all ERPOs submitted are done maliciously.

* Disarm entire households, including spouses, adult children, and other live-in relatives; this puts families at risk.

* Have the potential to create significant cultural/social stigma -- If your boss catches wind that the Sheriffs took all your guns away, what's that going to do to your standing at work?

* Being served in civil court, you're not granted a public defender, meaning you must come out of pocket for defense -- an expense that most can't easily satisfy.

* Can be served sequentially, one after another, potentially leaving you disarmed and stuck in the cycle of courts for extended periods of time.

* Law enforcement is not legally compelled to actually remove the firearms, making you an immediate felon if you have an ERPO against you, and retain control of your guns. This scenario is particularly nefarious, because should Law Enforcement not seek to confiscate your arms, you're now in possession of firearms as as "prohibited person" under an ERPO, debarred from ownership --and you may not even know you have an order out against you!

* Put Law Enforcement at risk; gun ownership is part of the soul and fabric of this country, and people take their Constitutional rights very seriously.  Confiscation is likely to cause escalation that wouldn't have otherwise occurred.

* Are widely opposed in other states by Law Enforcement. A large and growing number of Sheriffs across the country have vowed to not enforce ERPOs both for he safety risks they present to citizens and officers, and out of respect for the rights of the citizens they serve. In Colorado alone, 44 of 64 counties have either passed resolutions against it or have publicly stated they will consider resolutions against it.

* Cannot be possibly quantified as to whether or not they are effective; because it is pre-crime, not every ERPO stops a mass shooting, suicide, or violent domestic event. To suggest so is faulty logic.

* Will introduce significant household anxiety; this may act as a catalyst and potentially create issues when none existed prior.

* Are not effective at stopping suicide.  Proponents of the bill are claiming that removing the guns will reduce the likelihood, however other countries with far more restrictive firearms laws like Belgium, South Korea, Japan, and Finland have higher rates of suicide without the same access to firearms.  Countries with similar ease of access to legal firearms, like Czechia and Switzerland, have lower suicide rates. It's a problem of cultural pressures and expectations that need resolving, not a lack of firearms laws that stand in the way of reduced suicides.

* No state that has introduced ERPOs has ever left the statute alone, looking to expand it year over year; it is a clandestine confiscation grab with ever-expanding power.

We, as well as the Utah Shooting Sports Council, are working on some things together (where needed) to stymie the advancement of ERPO here in the state.

All the help you can provide is welcome.

Thank you for posting your thoughts on the subject.  There were a couple that I hadn't considered and it re-enforced several I had already contemplated.  The constant tinkering with legislation already passed and in effect is particularly important because our legislators have a penchant for not being able to leave laws alone.  For them it is always a "new and improved" version.

They think they "must" pass legislation to be effective. Sometimes the best course is to do nothing, but that's not their job.

I don't think we are going to avoid this. ERPOs drive a stake into the heart of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

This is the most dangerous law gun owners have ever faced. It will incentivize people to divest themselves of their guns, lest they face a lifetime of legal harassment. This is Soviet style control. Good luck gents, because it's coming.