The Stevens County Times reports in Audience seeks Westrom, Backer support on two gun bills:
An audience member asked if the two legislators would support two bills that would make the state safer in relation to guns.
One bill calls for universal background checks. A second bill would make it more difficult for those with mental health issues to obtain a gun, several audience members said. A specific feature of the second bill would allow parents to seek a restraining type order that would prevent a child with mental health issues from obtaining a gun.
[Torrey] Westrom [R-Elbow Lake] said he'd support the second bill which would make it more difficult for an individual with mental health issues to obtain a gun because it sounds like a bill he's already supporting.
The meeting took place on March 23 in Morris, Minnesota.
There's no bill matching that description in the list of bills that Westrom has authored or co-authored in the 2017-2018 session, though it's possible Westrom could support a bill that already has five authors, the limit in the Minnesota Senate. One such bill is SF1262, authored by Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park. The bill was introduced in 2017.
Back in February, the St. Paul Pioneer Press's Tad Vezner reported in Where’s Minnesota in the gun debate? Here’s a list of bills currently before the Legislature:
The bill, originally sponsored by Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, would allow law enforcement and family members to petition a court to prohibit a person from possessing firearms if they pose “a significant danger of bodily injury to self or to other persons by possessing a firearm,” and if less restrictive alternatives are deemed inadequate.
The court petition would include such information as violations of other restraining orders; any history of threats of violence; any felony arrests, or misdemeanor stalking or domestic assault arrests; “the unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm”; and any evidence of drug or alcohol abuse, weighed against any attempts at rehabilitation.
The court would require a “preponderance of the evidence” to issue the order — a lesser standard than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is required for criminal convictions. The order’s duration, set by the court, could be anywhere from six months to two years.
The bill did not receive a hearing in either the House or the Senate last year. It was referred to the Senate’s judiciary committee.
While Westrom can''t sign on as a co-author of the Latz bill, there is an opportunity for him to act in good faith on his public statement to his constituent in Morris. On March 1, 2018, Senator Sandy Pappas, DFL-St Paul, introduced SF2883, which is pretty much a mirror bill to that offered by Latz last year.
Since the bill only has three authors, Westrom could put his money where his mouth is and sign on as a co-sponsor. That would eliminate any question that he really supports the bill.
While Westrom would be the only Republican on either bill in the Minnesota legislature, he would not be the only Republican in the country supporting the idea. In mid-March, NBC News reported in Gun violence: What Trump said vs. what Trump did:
Extreme Risk Protection Orders
What Trump said: The president expressed strong interest in proposals by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and others to pass laws that would allow police, family and friends to seek an Extreme Risk Protection Order in court that would temporarily take firearms from an individual they worry could hurt themselves or others.
Trump sparked an outcry on the right when he complained that going to court was too burdensome and police should take guns immediately from suspects instead.
"You could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second," he said in his White House meeting with senators.
What Trump did: The White House encouraged every state to pass Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, which a fact sheet said "should be carefully tailored to ensure the due process rights of law-abiding citizens are protected." The NRA has opposed prior state legislation on gun restraining orders, citing due process concerns. . . .
While Breitbart and other sources have reported that the NRA now supports the concept, The Trace reported on March 29 in The NRA’s Public Support for Red Flag Laws Isn’t Felt in Many State Capitols:
The NRA has historically opposed red flag laws. Last year, it urged Oregonians to contact their governor to veto the state’s current risk protection law. The year before that, the gun group told Washington residents to vote no on a ballot initiative that created “so-called ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ (ERPO).” But the organization has publicly reversed its position since Parkland.
Chris Cox, the NRA’s top lobbyist, announced through the group’s YouTube channel that Congress should incentivize states to adopt red flag laws. “These proposals can be done right now,” he said in the video. “While they won’t solve everything, they will help lead to a broader discussion on how to address a culture of violence in America.” Despite Cox’s pronouncement, however, the NRA-ILA continues to oppose red flag legislation at the state level.
Curiously, "extreme risk protection orders aren't mentioned in a press release the Minnesota Senate Republican Caucus sent out on Westrom's positions on school safety, Sen. Westrom supports increase to MN school safety.
Nor is it included in the senate Republican package described in the press release, Senate Republicans advance school safety proposals.
Photo: Torrey Westrom.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments