Talking points that might appeal to Baker:
- Baker has the ability as governor, unique to MA, to "veto with amendment". He can essentially edit the bill and send it back to the legislature. This avoids the thorny political issues of a veto.
- Every other legislature that has passed, including CA, IL, MD, VT, FL, and CT have used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Washington State used "preponderance", but that was a ballot initiative, not a legislative bill.
- Other states did not have discretionary provisions for removing firearms for people not convicted for a crime. Massachusetts police do. What is the justification from removing the police, who have the power to actually investigate and take immediate action, from the equation? Is there any reason to believe that the judicial branch, with no investigatory capabilities, is more capable of making appropriate determinations as to risk? The bill should be amended to allow only law enforcement to file an ERPO.
- The "risk" rather than "significant risk" standard is unreasonable. Every human situation or action has some degree of risk.