Dear Editor:
As an attorney hoping to contribute to the public interest, I read the letter of Mr. Bo Gill, Chairman of the Bedford County Republican Party, to Representative Pat Marsh which you …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, below, or purchase a new subscription.
Please log in to continue |
Dear Editor:
As an attorney hoping to contribute to the public interest, I read the letter of Mr. Bo Gill, Chairman of the Bedford County Republican Party, to Representative Pat Marsh which you published in your paper May 16, 2023, repeating his contention “Red Flag Laws” are not an “appropriate solution” to gun violence because they are “prone to abuse” and pose “potential infringements on our constitutional rights” whereas “allocating resources to mental health support, early intervention programs and improved access to quality mental healthcare” promote public safety and prevent violence better. He urges Mr. Marsh to “reject any red-flag legislation that may encroach upon our rights.”
But an ordinary “Red Flag Law” is no such unlawful encroachment because my previous letter (Times-Gazette, May 16, 2023, page 3A) showed it is constitutional; this letter shows it involves adaptation of existing, even long-standing, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules 64 and 65.03.) Under these Rules properly adapted, a judge, after reviewing statements sworn to in one or more affidavits, may (or may not) issue a writ of attachment to seize firearm(s) under a restraining order instructing the defendant(s) to appear at a later date to show cause why such seizure was improper. How many pre-judgment writs of attachment have ever been issued for property (a firearm is property) since Tennessee became a State in 1796? Thousands.
The complaint (the set of allegations which is the basis for the restraining order) would set forth how the situation qualifies under the detailed definitions of “mental illness” “substantial emotional disturbance” “developmental disability” and “intellectual disability” contained in Section 33-1-101, T. C. A. (except “serious emotional disturbance” must be amended to include an adult as well as a child.) A local District Attorney or, perhaps, members of the defendant’s own family (or those most likely concerned by the threat of imminent harm posed by the situation) would file it with the court.
This is done in most cases without defendant’s knowledge. Why?
It is the initial detection of a mental illness, substantial emotional disturbance or developmental or intellectual disability that involves the most danger to everyone because that detection is often the result of elaborate denial or concealment and because, when revealed or disclosed finally, the discovered mentality is often accompanied by a whole range of raw emotions, such as shock, surprise, shame, guilt, fear and embarrassment, or the deeper sequestration and concealment of the firearms subject to that discovery.
But Representative Lamberth of Portland, Republican Majority Leader, says to the media that, where firearms are involved, he is adamantly opposed to any ex parte procedure (the procedure I have just described before a judge which happens without defendants’ knowledge.)
Lamberth’s stance seems contrary to the “unwavering support for mental health initiatives” which Mr. Gill in his letter praises Mr. Marsh has in pursuing remedies for gun violence. For if Mr. Lamberth truly supported these mental health initiatives unwaveringly, he could see how such a useful tool the ex parte procedure of an ordinary “Red Flag Law” is in dealing with an exploding mental health crisis in the real world.
Besides, under every version of a “Red Flag Law,” defendant does get a chance to appear and to contest the seizure of his firearm at the very next hearing. Further, the criminal penalties which Tennessee Code Annotated already provides (Part 9 of Chapter 3 of Title 33) for aggressive plaintiffs abusing the rights of “mental health service recipients” (the defendant here) can easily apply to all I have just described here. (And be made to by the Legislature if it has the will to do so.)
Where and how are there any violations of an American’s or a Tennessean’s rights in what I have just written? Thanks for reading.
Sincerely,
William Prentice Cooper
Prospect Hill
Nashville, Tennessee