Open letter to Senator Dahm
Here's a copy of my "open letter" to State Senator Nathan Dahm as a
followup to a question I had for him at a recent meeting regarding "red
flag" laws. Sen. Dahm "gets it". I just wanted his feedback on what
appears to be a "judicial loophole" that allows judges to deprive
citizens of enumerated rights with no due process:
----------------------------------------------------
Senator Dahm, thanks for taking the time out to speak in Guthrie last night, and for sticking around to greet everyone.
I had asked a question about ex parte VPOs and whether the Legislature should do anything to limit judges' discretion on VPO conditions. I thought I'd pull the relevant statute and point out something interesting I found. OS 22 section 60.4 deals specifically with VPOs and states in Paragraph C.1:
"C. 1. At the hearing, the court may impose any terms and conditions in the protective order that the court reasonably believes are necessary to bring about the cessation of domestic abuse against the victim ... (continues)"
Now, this seems to indicate conditions set at the permanent hearing, which is at least adversarial and allows for counsel, cross examination, etc.
But.. (you knew there was a but). I also took a look at the VPO application form (link at end). On page 6/7 item 13, is a checkbox that states:
"Defendant should immediately surrender all firearms and other dangerous weapons within the Defendant’s possession or control and any concealed carry license to _____" (insert LEA here)
The catch here is, Section 5 determines whether the VPO is an emergency ex parte order, and thus no hearing. In addition, the checkbox number 13 on firearm seizure doesn't list an authorizing statute like several of the other relief items. I may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but this seems like a Constitutional "defect" wherein it is possible a Court can order, ex parte, the seizure of firearms based solely on a sworn affidavit and without a hearing.
Please advise!
----------------------------------------------------
Senator Dahm, thanks for taking the time out to speak in Guthrie last night, and for sticking around to greet everyone.
I had asked a question about ex parte VPOs and whether the Legislature should do anything to limit judges' discretion on VPO conditions. I thought I'd pull the relevant statute and point out something interesting I found. OS 22 section 60.4 deals specifically with VPOs and states in Paragraph C.1:
"C. 1. At the hearing, the court may impose any terms and conditions in the protective order that the court reasonably believes are necessary to bring about the cessation of domestic abuse against the victim ... (continues)"
Now, this seems to indicate conditions set at the permanent hearing, which is at least adversarial and allows for counsel, cross examination, etc.
But.. (you knew there was a but). I also took a look at the VPO application form (link at end). On page 6/7 item 13, is a checkbox that states:
"Defendant should immediately surrender all firearms and other dangerous weapons within the Defendant’s possession or control and any concealed carry license to _____" (insert LEA here)
The catch here is, Section 5 determines whether the VPO is an emergency ex parte order, and thus no hearing. In addition, the checkbox number 13 on firearm seizure doesn't list an authorizing statute like several of the other relief items. I may be making a mountain out of a molehill, but this seems like a Constitutional "defect" wherein it is possible a Court can order, ex parte, the seizure of firearms based solely on a sworn affidavit and without a hearing.
Please advise!
Comments
Post a Comment