2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Federal Extreme Risk
Protection Order Act Of 2021, Which Would Authorize Red Flag Laws. In
June 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
against the adoption of the rule "(H Res 1153) that would provide for
House floor consideration of two bills (HR 7910 and HR 2377) related to
restricting access to firearms." The vote was on the adoption of the
rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-205. [House Vote 236,
6/8/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/8/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2377;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1153]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Federal Extreme Risk
Protection Order Act Of 2021, Which Would Authorize Red Flag Laws. In
June 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted
against the "motion to order the previous question on the rule (H Res
1153) that would provide for House floor consideration of two bills (HR
7910 and HR 2377) related to restricting access to firearms." The vote
was on a motion to order the previous question. The House agreed to the
motion by a vote of 217-205. [House Vote 235,
6/8/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/8/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2377;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1153]
2022: Fitzpatrick Voted To Allow Individuals Or Police Officers To
Petition A U.S. District Court To Issue An Extreme Protection Order To
Prevent An Individual From Buying Or Possessing A Firearm Or Ammunition
If The Court Were To Find That Such Acquisition Would Pose A Risk To The
Petitioner Or Others. In June 2022, according to Congressional
Quarterly, Fitzpatrick voted for the Federal Extreme Risk Protection
Order Act of 2021, which would "allow a family or household member of an
individual, or a law enforcement officer, to petition a federal district
court to issue an extreme risk protection order to prohibit an
individual from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition, if the
court finds that such purchase or possession poses a risk of imminent
personal injury to the individual or others. It would require courts to
grant or deny a petition for a temporary order, valid for 14 days, on
its date of submission. It would require courts to hold a hearing on a
petition for a long-term order, valid for a renewable period of 180
days, within 72 hours of issuing a temporary order or 14 days after
submission of the petition. In evaluating a petition, it would require
courts to consider recent threats or acts of violence by the respondent,
recent acts of cruelty to animals and evidence of ongoing substance
abuse. It would also allow courts to consider a respondent's reckless
use or display of a firearm or history of violence or attempted
violence." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote
of 224-202, thus the bill was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 255,
6/9/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/9/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2377]
The Bill Would Create A Process For The Surrender And Removal Of
Firearms Pursuant To An Issued Extreme Risk Protection Order And Bar
Individuals Subject To The Order From Possessing Firearms Under
Federal Firearm Law. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It
would establish procedures for the surrender and removal of firearms
pursuant to an extreme risk protection order and prohibit the
possession of firearms by individuals subject to an order under
federal firearm law." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/9/22]The Bill
Would Specify There Would Be No Filing Fee For The Petition And
Establish A Penalty Of Up To $5,000 Or Five Years Of Imprisonment
For False Petitions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "It would
also specify that there would be no costs for filing a petition and
establish a penalty of up to $5,000 or five years imprisonment for
making false or frivolous petitions." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/9/22]
The Bill Would Establish A Grant Program To Help State, Tribal And
Local Governments Implement Legislation That Would Permit
Individuals To Petition State Or Tribal Court To Issue Extreme Risk
Protection Orders. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill
would also require the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services within the Justice Department to establish a grant program
to assist state, tribal and local governments in implementing
legislation allowing individuals to petition state or tribal courts
to issue extreme risk protection orders, including to enhance the
capacity and training of law enforcement agencies and courts to
carry out the legislation." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/9/22]
2022: Fitzpatrick Effectively Voted Against The Manager's Amendment
That Would Require Training For Police Officers Over The Safe And
Equitable Uses Of Extreme Risk Protection Orders To Address Mental
Health Condition And Disability Biases. In June 2022, according to
Congressional Quarterly, Fitzpatrick effectively voted against the
manager's amendment to the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of
2021, which would "require training for law enforcement officers
regarding the safe and equitable use of extreme risk protection orders
to address bias based on mental health condition and disability and make
technical changes to the bill." The vote was on the adoption of the
rule. The House adopted the rule by a vote of 218-205, thus the
manager's amendment was automatically adopted. [House Vote 236,
6/8/22; Congressional
Quarterly, 6/8/22;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
2377;
Congressional Actions, H.Res.
1153]