Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB204

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/23
• Refer: 1/31/23

Caption

In actions, proceedings and other matters generally, providing for extreme risk protection orders.

Impact

If enacted, SB204 will amend Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, introducing a set of procedures for securing extreme risk protection orders. The law will require respondents to surrender all firearms during the duration of the order, create a comprehensive registry for tracking these orders, and detail the legal obligations of law enforcement in enforcing these orders. These measures are designed to enhance the state's capacity to intervene in domestic violence situations and protect vulnerable individuals from potential firearm-related incidents.

Summary

Senate Bill 204 establishes a framework for extreme risk protection orders in Pennsylvania, aiming to prevent individuals deemed a significant threat from accessing firearms. The bill authorizes family members or law enforcement to petition the court for orders that temporarily suspend a person's firearm rights based on evidence that they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. The law provides a clear process for issuing temporary ex parte orders without prior notification to the respondent, ensuring instant protective measures when immediate danger is perceived.

Sentiment

Reactions to SB204 have been mixed, with supporters, including many mental health advocates and domestic violence prevention organizations, viewing the bill as a critical step in addressing gun violence and protecting communities. On the other hand, some advocacy groups and individuals are concerned about potential overreach and the impact on Second Amendment rights. The debate often centers around the balance between public safety and individual freedoms, indicating a deep divide in public sentiment regarding the regulation of firearms and mental health issues.

Contention

Notable points of contention include concerns about the potential for misuse of protective orders and the implications for individuals’ rights without due process. Opponents argue that ex parte orders, which can be issued without a respondent's presence or hearing, might lead to emotional distress and unjust restrictions. Furthermore, the need for a structured approach to ensure that procedural safeguards are in place is emphasized, ensuring that the rights of both petitioners and respondents are respected in the interest of fairness and justice.