Let's take a look at Initiative 1491

In the past two months, we've printed a lot of election coverage in The Eagle. Last week, it was candidates for state representative and senate; the week before, it was county commission. We've printed Associated Press (AP) stories on state races and most initiatives.

We've attended candidate forums in Skamokawa and Cowlitz County. We missed the forum in Grays River because our Cathlamet crew was busy at meetings there and the Grays River crew was flooded in. We've even had a bit of coverage of the presidential debates.

One issue we haven't covered so far is Initiative 1491, which, according to the ballot title, "concerns court-issued extreme risk protection orders temporarily preventing access to firearms. This measure would allow police, family or household members to obtain court orders temporarily preventing firearms access by persons exhibiting mental illness, violent or other behavior indicating they may harm themselves or others."

We haven't seen an AP analysis of this initiative, so I went to the voters' guide which appeared in the mail last week.

Proponents say Washington State has taken important steps to keep guns out of dangerous hands. But there are still gaps in our laws that make it hard to keep guns away from people threatening violence against themselves or others. We know that the majority of mass shooters and individuals who attempt suicide show signs of their intentions, but current law leaves families and law enforcement - often first to see those warning signs - unable to take life-saving action. Initiative 1491 empowers families and law enforcement to prevent tragedy -- giving them a chance to remove guns from a dangerous situation when they know someone is a threat to themselves or others. Initiative 1491 would also expand protections that keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. Similar laws in other states have been shown to prevent some suicides. Initiative 1491 closely follows existing process for other civil protection orders. Both parties may present evidence in court. A judge determines whether evidence of danger is sufficient and issues an order, effective for one year. There are criminal penalties for false petitions.

Opponents say, "I-1491 disregards existing state laws that already require treatment and restriction of potentially dangerous individuals. Recently implemented laws actually provide early detection and intervention of persons at danger to themselves or others. I-1491 associates mental illness with mass shootings and violent crime. Statistics show that only 3-5 percent of violent acts are committed by people with serious mental illness. A broadly defined set of people, including former roommates and police, can file a petition against you. Due process is undermined by allowing immediate ex parte orders; hearings and judgments without notice to the accused person. I-1491 is a targeted, discriminatory abridgement of Second Amendment rights.

I will support this initiative.

Family members are often the first people to notice signs that someone is considering suicide or who is thinking about perpetrating a mass shooting. Family members may try to get the individual into counseling, but if guns are available, they can do little under current laws to keep the individuals from using them.

The initiative would allow family members and/or law enforcement to petition a judge for a protection order requiring the individuals to surrender their guns. Petitioners must demonstrate that there is a serious threat of violence. Both sides can present evidence. Besides limiting individuals' access to firearms, the judge can also refer them to counseling to ensure they get the help they need. The orders can be renewed annually.

The initiative would save lives. Proponents say 70 percent of firearm-related deaths in the state are suicides, and this initiative would give family members and law enforcement the tools to remove access to firearms and to get people in crisis the access to treatment they need.