Geoff: Recent history suggests
new gun reforms are more likely
to emerge out of state houses
rather than Washington, D.C.
Over the coming days, we'll
explore some of the proposed and
recently enacted policy
experiments across the states.
William brangham begins our
coverage with an examination of
extreme risk prevention orders,
more commonly known as red flag
laws.
The measures, which are in use
in 19 states, allow guns to be
temporarily seized if family or
law enforcement believe someone
is a risk to themselves or
to others.
William: On new year's eve four
years ago, a sherriff's deputy
was shot and killed in a suburb
south of Denver by a man
suffering serious mental
distress.
That killing prompted a
Republican state representative
to introduce a red flag law in
the Colorado legislature.
But that lawmaker then came
under attack from a conservative
gun rights group, his law didn't
pass, and the representative
lost his next election.
His name is Cole wist.
He's now a lawyer in private
practice, and he joins me now.
Cole, great to have you on the
newshour.
Just playing off this example
that motivated you to introduce
this bill, can you help us
understand how your law would
have worked?
Who contacts the authorities?
Judges this?
Makes a decision that it is ok
that someone should have their
guns taken?
Cole: Good evening.
It is great to be with you.
I'll talk about how this would
have played out under the 2018
bill I introduced, and that is
that the family members or law
enforcement could apply for an
extreme risk protection order.
They would swear out an
affidavit, submit that to a
judge, and if the judge agreed
it met a threshold determination
that the individual posed a risk
to himself or herself or others,
then the judge could issue a
temporary order that would allow
law enforcement to remove
firearms from that individual.
Under our bill in 2018, there
was a three-day period that the
court would then hear whether or
not that order would be made
permanent.
And we had a very high level of
due process that was required to
be met by the movement by the
person who was seeking the
protective order.
And under our bill, the seeking
person to remove this firearms
would've had to have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that
that individual posed a risk to
himself or others, and that
removal of weapons from that
person's possession was
necessary to accomplish those
means.
There then would have been an
opportunity if the order was
granted six months later to then
consider whether or not that
order should be renewed or
dissolved and the person could
receive their firearms back.
In the version of the bill that
passed in 2019, those periods
were doubled to 364 days if an
erpl is entered against someone.
William: You were a Republican
legislator, a strong supporter
of the second amendment, and yet
this conservative gun rights
group came after you.
They called you a gun grabber,
Cole the mole, and passed out
flyers attacking you.
How did that sit with you having
this kind of blowback?
Cole: It strikes me that we
missed the mark when we talk
about mass shooting or incidents
like the one that motivated me
to sponsor this legislation.
And that is, these are matters
of public safety.
And if you look at cases of
domestic terrorism and the mass
shootings we have seen in the
United States over just the last
week, these are domestic
terrorist incidents.
And when we look at domestic
terrorism, our government has
not been hesitant to make sure
that we are doing everything
that we can in a proactive
fashion to make sure that we
protect public safety.
When you enter the word "Gun" in
this conversation, it freezes
the parties.
In my particular circumstance,
if you could identify a sin that
I committed as a legislator,
that is having the willingness
to talk to folks on the others
across the political spectrum
about solutions that we can put
into place to protect
constitutional rights, to make
the burden of proof very high
for someone seeking to deprive
someone of the position of a
weapon.
And yet at the same time,
recognizing that there is an
important public safety concern
here that is not being addressed
by our current laws.
And that is the reason I was
motivated to introduce this
piece of legislation.
William: Given your experience
as someone who tried to reach
across the aisle and introduce
something that, too many people
listening to you would think
that seems like a reasonable,
sensible approach.
Does that give you a sense of
pessimism that anything is going
to come out of the national
level?
Because leaders in Washington,
D.C. Right now are trying to do
exactly what you did, to reach
across the aisle and figure out
how we can stop these tragedies
from occurring.
Given your experience, do you
think there will be any hope
here?
Cole: I am always hopeful, but I
will get as an example an
exchange I saw on Twitter last
night between a radio show host
and senator Cornyn from Texas.
Senator Cornyn in the past few
days has expressed some
willingness and openness to
talking to folks about expanded
background checks, red flag
laws, things that we can do to
try and protect public safety.
He was called out for those
efforts last night and he
immediately retreated back to
his corner and said no, I am not
going to introduce anything that
relates to guns.
So again, if we really talked
about this as a public safety
issue and as trying to address
domestic terrorism and not
focusing on the gun issue, then
I think we would make a whole
lot more progress.
But unfortunately, when
political tensions become high,
as they are particularly with
this issue, folks retreat to
their comfortable corners, and
whenever folks are in the
corners, they are not talking to
folks across the political
spectrum.
And frankly, they are not
solving problems that we need to
have solved.
William: In just the last few
seconds we have, do you feel
strongly that red flag laws
should be passed nationally?
Do they really work to prevent
these cases, these tragedies?
Cole: Well, we have red flag
laws in 19 states.
One of the first states to pass
one of these laws was Indiana.
And I do not think anyone would
suggest that Indiana is a blue
state by any means, but I think
they paved the way and showed
that you can do this in a way
that protects constitutional
rights and still protect public
safety.
In the couple of years that
Colorado has passed this law
there has been a lot of analysis
as to whether or not the law has
been abused.
If you look at the data, it
shows that to the extent that
folks have sought these orders
with frivolous facts or without
a legal basis, those has been
denied.
The law is working, the law can
function.
William: Cole wist, thank you so
much for joining us.
Cole: Thank you.