There are currently no “red flag” or extreme risk protection order statutes in Georgia. While family violence protective orders and some stalking orders grant judges the authority to restrict possession of firearms for those subject to a “no contact” decree, no “red flag” type of legislation exists. That’s why HB 309, the “Georgia Red Flag Protective Order Act,” was introduced last February by Democrats in the state House of Representatives.
Its purpose? Creation of a system for allowing a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual to seek a risk protection order against that person from a judge without the target’s knowledge (what is known as an ex parte order). If granted, the ex parte order would restrict the target from purchasing, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.
Then, no later than 14 days after the order, a hearing would be scheduled to allow the targeted individual to be heard on whether their rights should be restricted. If the court finds by convincing evidence the target poses a significant danger to themselves or others by possessing a firearm, a judge could then arbitrarily take away that person’s firearms and ammunition for a year.
Though HB 309 was introduced in February, it died the next month in the House. And now, at the national level, it appears the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously helped it to die on the vine.
In a unanimous opinion the other day, the nation’s highest court ruled against police who seized a man’s guns without a warrant while he was in the hospital for a suicide evaluation. Police cannot justify the warrantless search and seizure based on the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion for the high court.
Some legal experts are concluding that this unanimous vote strikes a big blow to warrantless seizure of guns. The ruling’s implications affect “red flag” legislation like the one various Democrats proposed in Georgia. It is yet another high court decision signaling a strong tilt toward protecting due process as well as the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
