Here is how these people think....arrive at your own conclusion:
Mr. Tumolo,
I am sorry that you find it hard to believe the position I took with the above vote, which was 139 in favor and 14 opposed, and included about 2/3 of the Republican Caucus as well. So it is not just a Democratic agenda issue.
The bill does not strip the rights of due process from people, but would remove guns for a certain time period only from a person deemed by a District Court Judge to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others.
Such removal would only occur after full due process. The Respondent would have advance notice of the petition, a full judicial hearing with the opportunity to have counsel, cross examine witnesses, present witnesses and evidence on his or her behalf and expedited appeal rights.
And while you ask about mental health, the House budget for the upcoming fiscal year appropriated $871 million to the Department of Mental Health, the highest level in a decade. Mental health is indeed being addressed.
Our existing process for holding , evaluating and treating people with mental illness who are considered to be dangers to themselves or others remains in place under G. L. Ch. 123 sec.12 and may be fully utilized in conjunction with the Extreme Risk Order.
This is in no way an attack on legal law abiding gun owners. It is very limited in scope, available only to family members and only affect persons thought to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others. And those persons have full opportunity under the law to refute that allegation and even appeal a potential adverse finding.
I hope that this gives you a bit more information on this bill. Thank you for reaching out to me about it.
Mr. Tumolo,
I am sorry that you find it hard to believe the position I took with the above vote, which was 139 in favor and 14 opposed, and included about 2/3 of the Republican Caucus as well. So it is not just a Democratic agenda issue.
The bill does not strip the rights of due process from people, but would remove guns for a certain time period only from a person deemed by a District Court Judge to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others.
Such removal would only occur after full due process. The Respondent would have advance notice of the petition, a full judicial hearing with the opportunity to have counsel, cross examine witnesses, present witnesses and evidence on his or her behalf and expedited appeal rights.
And while you ask about mental health, the House budget for the upcoming fiscal year appropriated $871 million to the Department of Mental Health, the highest level in a decade. Mental health is indeed being addressed.
Our existing process for holding , evaluating and treating people with mental illness who are considered to be dangers to themselves or others remains in place under G. L. Ch. 123 sec.12 and may be fully utilized in conjunction with the Extreme Risk Order.
This is in no way an attack on legal law abiding gun owners. It is very limited in scope, available only to family members and only affect persons thought to be an Extreme Risk to themselves or others. And those persons have full opportunity under the law to refute that allegation and even appeal a potential adverse finding.
I hope that this gives you a bit more information on this bill. Thank you for reaching out to me about it.