GVRO's Gun Violence Restraining Order - thoughts?
This is not a new idea (California apparently already has these) but I heard it this morning on NPR.
This article is by David French of National Review - he claims to have received mostly positive feedback from people on the right sides nice this was published on Friday. The first few weeks aragraphs if the article are typical RW pablum so I've posted the gist of his points below.
I think this is an intriguing idea but not the ONLY measure that could be implemented. People close to troubled individuals are clearly going to have a better chance to observe their behavior and understand it in the person's history. French stated on NPR that GVRO's could also be useful in preventing suicides.
Thoughts?
---
Time and again mass shooters give off warning signals. They issue generalized threats. They post disturbing images. They exhibit fascination with mass killings. But before the deadly act itself, there is no clear path to denying them access to guns. Though people can report their concerns to authorities, sometimes those authorities fail or have limited tools to deal with the emerging danger.
It’s called a gun-violence restraining order, or GVRO.
1. It should limit those who have standing to seek the order to a narrowly defined class of people (close relatives, those living with the respondent);
2. It should require petitioners to come forward with clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others;
3. It should grant the respondent an opportunity to contest the claims against him;
4. In the event of an emergency, ex parte order (an order granted before the respondent can contest the claims), a full hearing should be scheduled quickly — preferably within 72 hours; and
5. The order should lapse after a defined period of time unless petitioners can come forward with clear and convincing evidence that it should remain in place.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/
