Gretchen Hoyt McDevitt 
Member since Oct 21, 2016



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments


I am concerned about 1491 as it does not offer enough protections of the civil rights of the person who is the subject of the extreme risk protection order. 1. The petitioner who seeks the order has plenty of time to prepare for the court date. However, the respondent (often someone with mental illness) is only required to get 5 business days notice of the impending hearing. How does a person suddenly find qualified representation in 5 days? 2. It would be costly for the respondent to fight this. I see no provision in the initiative to provide legal fees to the respondent who may be indigent. 3. If the protection order is granted, the subject has to wait an entire year before s/he can again seek to have his gun rights restored. 4. There is no requirement for evaluation, treatment, or monitoring of the subject and does nothing to address the underlying issues. If the person is truly dangerous, this initiative is just putting a bandage on the problem and delaying the tragedy.

More info: “The ACLU of Washington has not taken a position on Initiative 1491.  We do not support the initiative because of the due process and other concerns outlined below.  While keeping guns out of the hands of people who pose serious risks to safety is a reasonable public safety measure, the ACLU’s role is to evaluate such measures by their impact on civil liberties, and we have concerns that the initiative has inadequate due process procedures.  Further, these deficient due process procedures could set a bad precedent for other criminal justice processes..."

6 likes, 44 dislikes
Posted by Gretchen Hoyt McDevitt on 10/21/2016 at 11:02 AM

© 2017 Inlander
Website powered by Foundation