Big win for gun rights in Oklahoma this week as Gov. Kevin Stitt signed into law legislation banning red-flag confiscation schemes, also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO).
The first state in the Union to pass such a law, Senate Bill 1081: The “Anti Red Flag Act,” as it’s known, stops authorities from seizing firearms from individuals who are merely accused of being a danger to themselves or others.
To clarify, an individual subject to an ERPO has not been convicted of a crime nor has he or she been adjudicated mentally ill, yet guns are grabbed and 2A rights are suspended for a period of time, usually up to 12 months.
“I find it impossible for any red-flag law to respect due process or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” said Rep. Jay Steagall (R-Yukon) who sponsored SB1081 along with Sen. Nathan Dahm (R-Broken Arrow).
“I have taken the oath to protect our Constitution seven times throughout my 22 years of service and nine deployments in the military, an oath that I take very seriously,” he continued in his statement to The Oklahoman. “I will not stand idly by and let this freedom be stripped from us.”
Opponents of the ban on red flag laws argued that due process is protected as the accuser has to go before a judge and provide evidence that the accused is a credible threat before the confiscation starts.
“It’s right in the name — Extreme Risk Protective Order,” explained Melissa Provenzano (D-Tulsa). “You’ve got to get the order before you can get the gun from the individual. I don’t think we should just show up and take peoples’ guns either. There’s a process here.”
SEE ALSO: School Board Member Calls Lockdown Protesters ‘Bioterrorists,’ Threatens to Shoot Them
As of April 2020, 19 states and the District of Columbia have passed some type of red flag law, according to Wikipedia.
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owner of America indicated that the passage of SB1081 is an “encouraging” step in the right direction, cutting against the grain of the current trend.
“Oklahoma, which recently became a Constitutional Carry state, has been showing the way in restoring and reaffirming the right to keep and bear arms,” said Pratt in a press release.
“At a time when the anti-gun Left and even some on the right are pushing these dangerous Red Flag gun confiscation orders, it’s very encouraging to see a state stand up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” he continued.
Thus far we know of at least one incident where a man was killed as a result of a red-flag confiscation order. Sixty-one-year-old Gary J. Willis was shot dead by police when they came knocking at his door to take his guns around 5:17 a.m. on Nov. 5, 2018.
Following the incident, Michele Willis, Gary’s niece, expressed confusion over why the incident escalated to the use of lethal force.
“I’m just dumbfounded right now,” she said. “My uncle wouldn’t hurt anybody. They didn’t need to do what they did.”
SB1081 took effect immediately.
The Democrats love bans; made me smile when I read one of their orders was being banned! I live in CO; where I have seen small, but steady, decreases in our constitutional rights over the last 20 years. Hopefully some of OK’s freedom will make its way into my state via the pan handle
“Opponents of the ban on red flag laws argued that due process is protected as the accuser has to go before a judge and provide evidence that the accused is a credible threat before the confiscation starts.
“It’s right in the name — Extreme Risk Protective Order,” explained Melissa Provenzano (D-Tulsa). “You’ve got to get the order before you can get the gun from the individual. I don’t think we should just show up and take peoples’ guns either. There’s a process here.””
I’m sorry, does this so-called representative not know the laws and the constitution? What part of, ‘it’s right in the name’ says I can violate the Bill of Rights and just take your ‘stuff’ without a fair trial in front of a jury of our peers and judge who follows the constitution and the laws because ‘someone’ ‘claims’ they are a threat to others?
“Opponents of the ban on red flag laws argued that due process is protected as the accuser has to go before a judge and provide evidence that the accused is a credible threat before the confiscation starts. ”
Yes, but if I’m not mistaken, the procedure is still “ex-parte”. The accused is not present and has no say in the matter. So, without a fair trial, they are confiscating private property.
Good job Gov. Stitt!
Yes, that’s correct.
Gotta love the way the supporters of these un-Constitutional “Red Flag” laws carp about how the victim’s(yes, victim!) rights aren’t being violated. Oh yeah, you might get your day in court, whenever the crowded docket allows you a hearing. Also, consider who’s deciding on restoring your rights & firearms. What if it’s a Leftist, anti-gun judge?(Far too many of them!)
And what about the risks of an armed confrontation when the police come a’calling with a no-knock raid?
Busting into a home at 4am unannounced? Logical assumption: criminal home invaders.
In the PDRO (People’s Democratic Republic of Oregon) if you abide by the ERPO, then you can petition to have your firearms returned after a year, but if you fight it, then you permanently lose your gun rights. Where is our great protector of the Constitution, the federal government, in all of this? It turns a blind eye to everything these Orwellian states are doing, and sits on its hands.
The DOJ is too busy reviewing all the mounting evidence regarding the Silent Coup against the Trump Admin. and then shirking its responsibility to prosecute. Sorry, no time to nullify these Red Flag laws.
That’s great. It’s like the way they used to test a woman to see if she’s a witch. Throw her in the lake. If she floats, she’s a witch. Either way, your going down.
Apt analogy; chilling how much truth there is in it
Damn right.
Why doesn’t this site ever talk about “our” Rights???? Comments are always waiting for moderation??
At least they announce it. I’ve left other gun sites because they tacitly censor my postings. One site didn’t even allow you to commend someone for defending themselves. Censorship is rife everywhere, as everyone must be politically correct these days. They could get negatively branded by the SPLC if they let one radical comment slip through.
Mainly, the reason why we censor is for spammers. We get targeted a lot by bots from around the globe.
Why don’t you then return the favor and share some nice malware with them? 🙂
LOL.
Funny, their moderators aren’t too good at screening-out trolls. But, say *^%$ in your comment and get scrubbed.
Where did this “legislation from hell” originate? The first word in the acronym should’ve been a red flag to indicate that it’s wrong ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL. “Extreme”