Under pressure, NRA voices support for gun violence restraining orders

WASHINGTON —Facing intense public pressure, the National Rifle Association is starting to talk about the types of gun violence restraining orders it would support after years of opposing them.

The orders, also known as "extreme risk protection orders," allow a court to temporarily restrict individuals' access to firearms when they exhibit "red flags" that they are a danger to themselves or others. Such “red flag” laws have received additional attention following the Valentine’s Day mass shooting in Parkland, Fla.

The NRA has fought "red flag" legislation in at least 17 states as "anti-gun." But in a recent NRATV video, the group’s top lobbyist said Congress should provide funding for states to adopt “risk protection orders.”

“This can help prevent violent behavior before it turns into a tragedy,” Chris Cox said.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Gun-control advocates say it's unclear whether the comments represent a new opening to pass legislation — especially given the NRA's history of resistance to such laws.

In August, the NRA offered what appeared to be blanket opposition to gun violence restraining orders, saying on its website that they diminish due process and have "obvious potential for abuse."

Earlier this month, the NRA helped defeat a “red flag” law in Utah. And on Friday, the association urged its members to lobby against legislation in Maryland because it "lacks basic due process protections and is ripe for abuse."

"The NRA fought red flag laws for years,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “If they’re serious about supporting them now, they’ll signal as much to their lobbyists in the 22 states where red flag bills are currently pending."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said, "It’s one thing to put out videos attempting to sound reasonable – it’s quite another to actually support and help pass life-saving legislation.”

NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker insisted the NRA hasn’t changed positions.

“None of the pieces of legislation that have been introduced have included adequate due process so we’ve opposed them,” she said. “Our position has always been dangerous people should not have access to firearms.”

Indeed, the NRA's support for such measures hinges on a multitude of requirements, which the association says are key to protecting Second Amendment rights and due process.

On Friday, NRA posted the lengthy list of conditions for a process it can support on its YouTube channel, as a commentbeneath the Cox video. Among them:

— Criminal penalties for those who bring “false or frivolous” charges.

— A determination by a judge, by “clear and convincing evidence,” that the person poses a significant risk of danger.

— A requirement that a judge determine whether the person meets the standard for involuntary commitment.

— If the order is granted, the individual should receive community-based mental health treatment.

“To be effective and constitutional, they should have strong due process protections and require that the person get treatment,” Cox says in the video.

Read more:Some officials wanted Florida school shooting suspect forcibly committed in 2016

House passes school safety bill as students protest inaction on gun violence

Baker, the NRA spokeswoman, couldn’t point to a federal or state bill that the organization supports, but she said, “We’re confident that there will be a bill introduced that provides adequate due process while ensuring that people who are a danger to themselves or others don’t have access to firearms.”

The NRA statements coincide with student protests across the country against congressional inaction on gun violence. Last Wednesday, thousands of students staged “National Walkout Day” events, marking the one-month anniversary of the shooting deaths of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The accused gunman, Nikolas Cruz, was long-known to law enforcement as troubled.

“My observation here is that the man did everything but take an ad out in the paper, ‘I'm going to kill somebody,’” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said at a Wednesday Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

After the shooting, Florida became the sixth state to pass a red flag law. (The NRA sued the state of Florida to block part of the law but didn't take a position on the red flag provision.) Several other states introduced versions of “red flag” bills in response to the shooting.

President Trump, as part of his response to the shooting, called on all states to adopt extreme risk protection orders and directed the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to states that want to implement the orders.

In Congress, other bills are pending and some are forthcoming.

A House bill would give states incentives to allow family members or law enforcement to get court orders to temporarily stop dangerous individuals from purchasing or possessing a gun. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sponsored the Senate version of the bill – and took Cox’s statement as a sign of support.

“Now there can be no excuse from Republicans to oppose our legislation,” she said in a statement.

However, Baker said Feinstein’s bill doesn’t offer “meaningful due process,” uses a low evidentiary standard and doesn’t require the individual seek treatment.

Graham and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., proposed legislation to create an extreme risk protection order process for federal court. Baker said their bill is “not workable.” The NRA opposes efforts to create a federal law tasking federal agents with seizing firearms in federal court, according to the YouTube post.

Blumenthal said federal law is critical to ensure protection through a national safety net, since many states won't adopt red flag laws "over gun lobby opposition." 

“The NRA wants a Catch-22: oppose a federal statute, supposedly relying on the states, and then oppose state laws, as it has consistently done," Blumenthal said.