Supreme Court Case on State Legislatures Could Open Litigation Floodgates
The state of California is at a crossroads. The Golden State’s legislative body is under enormous pressure to pass a new gun control proposal. Opponents argue the proposed bill includes provisions that would make the state a den of gun violence. The court, in its recent oral arguments about a case on California’s gun control laws, made it clear once again what’s at stake.
The California Legislature is considering Assembly Bill 1334, which would establish a “red flag” law, which would require a judge to issue an order for the involuntary hospitalization of anyone believed to be a threat to someone’s health, safety or well-being. The bill would also allow police to confiscate guns from people who they believe could harm themselves or others. In most cases, such laws would not require courts to issue such an injunction.
“The bill would mandate state-issued letters to a patient who believes their doctor’s treatment could possibly constitute mental health treatment and would mandate the involuntary hospitalization of anyone whose doctor believed a treatment could possibly constitute mental health treatment,” said Jonathan Fahey, executive director of the California Gun Owners Assn., the plaintiff in a recent case, which involves California’s gun control laws.
But the court’s oral arguments about California’s gun control law have raised alarms on both sides of the issue. On the one hand, the court’s decision made it clear that the legal system could easily be overwhelmed with a flood of lawsuits over such laws. On the other, Chief Justice Ronald George was quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying the court would “close the courthouse door” to anyone who didn’t want to comply with the law.
“I don’t think anybody in Congress would have ever proposed a red flag law,” Fahey said.
The California Gun Owners Assn., filed a complaint against the state with the National Rifle Association and the state’s Office of Administrative Law in October 1998. The first case involved a man who was found mentally incompetent to stand trial
