Extreme Risk Civil Protection Order Amendment Act of 2017

Introduced by Ward 1 D.C. Councilmember Brianne Nadeau

Overview

Grants temporary civil protection orders in an ex parte hearing for petitioners alleging that the
respondent poses an immediate and present danger of harming themselves or others;
MPD must immediately remove any firearm from the respondents control or possession and
prohibit the purchase of other firearms;
The temporary order lasts 14 days to reduce the elevated risk that the presence of a firearm
would create and hopefully avert a tragedy.
The respondent can be heard at the second hearing; and
The judge decides if it is more likely than not that there is significant threat of harm justifying
removal of firearms for a one-year period based on evidence presented.

Why we need this legislation?

Currently, there is no legal vehicle that moves swiftly that allows people with knowledge of an
immediate and present danger to remove firearms from the hands of those that will cause harm to
themselves or others. This is different than other temporary restraining orders because the person
alleging the harm is not required to be the target of the threat. It would help in the following situations:

Attempted suicide;
Persons who are mentally incapacitated, but have not been adjudicated as such;
Persons who demonstrate recent threats of violent acts; and
Person who have shown a pattern of violent acts within the past 12 months.

Waiting for a person to act could mean that the chance to intervene comes too late to prevent a
tragedy. The ERCPO Amendment Act of 2017 fills in the gaps in the law by creating a stronger
preventative measure that allows the community and law enforcement to reduce access to firearms by
those who are a risk to themselves or others.

What other jurisdictions have similar legislation?

California (2014 legislature enacted Gun Violence Restraining Order)

Washington (November 2016 voters passed an Extreme Risk Protection Order)
Indiana
Connecticut

(Continued on back.)
The Extreme Risk Civil Protection law originated in California after a 2013 shooting at the University of
California Santa Barbara. The family witnessed their son showing increasing signs of dangerous behavior
and shared their concerns with police and the sons therapist. Neither had no authority to intervene. He
went on to shoot six people on campus.

Does this violate the Second Amendment?

No, the Supreme Court noted in Heller that the Second Amendment is not unlimited and there are
categories of people that should be prohibited from possessing firearms. Subsequent rulings in
Connecticut and Indiana have upheld similar gun violence protection orders finding that states may
restrict access to firearms by dangerous people if it is in the interest of public safety or an individuals
welfare.

Due process protections?

Like domestic violence ex parte orders, an emergency ERCPO requires an allegation that the respondent
poses an immediate and present danger to themselves or others. If the judge agrees, then it is a short
window of 14 days to determine if the restrictions should remain or be dismissed. This legislation also
provides adequate opportunity to be heard and is similar to due process in domestic violence orders.

The difference in this legislation and other proposed legislation

Other proposed legislation has been centered on removing guns in domestic violence cases
where there is a restraining order.
This restricts the petitioners to those who are the victim of interpersonal, intimate partner, or
family violence, stalking, sexual assault or sexual abuse. See D.C. Official Code 16-1001(9).
Unfortunately, gun violence is not restricted to these categories and this law is aimed at filling in
those gaps.