2022: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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: Schweikert Voted Against Allowing 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, Schweikert voted against 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: Schweikert 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, Schweikert 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]