GEOFF BENNETT: Recent history
suggests new gun reforms
are more likely to emerge
out of statehouses, rather
than Washington, D.C.
Over the coming days,
we will explore some
of the proposed and recently
enacted policy experiments
across the states.
William Brangham begins our
coverage with an examination
of extreme risk prevention
orders, more commonly
known as red flag laws.
The measures, which are
in use in 19 states, allow
guns to be temporarily
seized if family or law
enforcement believes
someone is a risk to
themselves or to others.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: On New
Year's Eve four years ago,
a sheriff's deputy was shot
and killed in a suburb south
of Denver by a man suffering
serious mental distress.
That killing prompted a
Republican state representative
to introduce a red flag law
in the Colorado legislature.
But that lawmaker then came
under attack from a conservative
gun rights group. His law didn't
pass, and the representative
lost his next election.
His name is Cole Wist. He's now
a lawyer in private practice.
And he joins me
now from Colorado.
Cole, great to have
you on the "NewsHour."
Just playing off this
example that motivated you
to introduce this bill,
can you help us understand how
your law would have worked? Who
contacts the authorities? Who
judges this? Who makes
the decision that it's
OK that someone should
have their guns taken?
FMR. STATE REP. COLE
WIST (R-CO): Well, good
evening, William. It's
great to be with you.
I will talk about how this would
have played out under the 2018
bill that I introduced. And
that is that the family
members or law enforcement
could apply for an extreme
risk protection order.
And they would swear out
an affidavit, submit that
to a judge. And if the
judge agreed that it met
a threshold determination that
the individual posed a risk to
himself or herself or others,
then the judge could
issue a temporary order
that would allow law
enforcement to remove firearms
from that individual.
Under our bill in 2018, there
was a three-day period that the
court would then hear whether or
not that order would be
made permanent. And we had
a very high level of due
process that was required
to be met by the movement,
by the movement, or the
person that was seeking
the protective order.
And under our bill, the
person seeking to remove
those firearms would have to --
would have had to have proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that
that individual posed a risk to
themselves or others, and that
removal of weapons from
that person's possession
was necessary to
accomplish those means.
There then would have
been an opportunity, if
the order was granted,
six months later to then
consider whether or not
that order should be renewed
or dissolved, and the
person could receive
their firearms back.
In the version of the bill that
passed in 2019, those periods
were extended quite a bit,
in fact, doubled to
364 days, if an ERPO is
entered against someone.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So you
were a Republican legislator,
a strong supporter of the
Second Amendment, and yet this
conservative gun rights group
came after you. They called
you a gun grabber. They
called you Cole the mole.
And they passed out flyers
attacking you. How did
that sit with you, having
this kind of blowback?
FMR. STATE REP. COLE WIST:
Well, it strikes me that we
miss the mark when we talk about
mass shootings or incidents
like the one that motivated me
to sponsor this legislation.
And that is, these are
matters of public safety.
And in all other cases,
and if you look at cases
of domestic terrorism,
in the mass shootings
that we have seen in the
United States over just
the last week, these are
domestic terrorist incidents.
And when we look at domestic
terrorism, our government
has not been hesitant
to make sure that we're
doing everything that we
can, in a proactive fashion
to make sure that we
protect public safety. But
when you enter the word
gun in this conversation,
it freezes the parties.
And, in my particular
circumstance, I guess, if you
could identify a sin that I
committed as a legislator,
and that is having the
willingness to talk to
folks on the other side
across the political
spectrum about solutions
that we can put into place
to protect constitutional
rights, to make the burden
of proof very, very high for
someone seeking to deprive
someone of the possession
of a weapon, and yet, at
the same time, recognizing
that there is an
important public safety
concern here that's not being
addressed by our current laws.
And that's the reason I
was motivated to introduce
this piece of legislation.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Given your
experience, as someone who
tried to reach across the aisle
and introduce something
that, again, to many people
listening to, you would think,
that seems like a reasonable,
sensible approach, does
that give you a sense
of pessimism that anything
is going to come out
at the national level?
Because leaders here in
Washington, D.C., right
now are trying to do
exactly what you did,
to reach across the aisle to try
to figure out, how can we stop
these tragedies from occurring?
Given your experience,
do you think that there's
going to be any hope here?
FMR. STATE REP. COLE WIST:
William, I'm always hopeful.
But I will give us an
example an exchange I saw on
Twitter last night between
a radio show host and Senator
Cornyn from Texas. And Senator
Cornyn, in the past few days,
has expressed some
willingness and openness
to talking to folks about
expanded background checks,
red flag laws, things
that we can do to try to
protect public safety.
He was called out for those
efforts last night, and he
immediately retreated back
to his corner and said: No,
I'm not going to introduce
anything that relates to guns.
So, again, if we really talked
about this as a public safety
issue, as trying to address
domestic terrorism, and not
focusing on the gun issue, then
I think we would make a whole
lot more progress.
But, unfortunately,
when political tensions
become high, as they are,
particularly with this
issue, folks retreat to
their comfortable corners.
And whenever folks are in
their corners, they're not
talking to folks across
the political spectrum
and, frankly, they're
not solving problems that
we need to have solved.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: In just the
last few seconds that we have,
do you have -- do you feel
strongly that red flag laws
should be passed nationally?
Do they really work to prevent
these cases, these tragedies?
FMR. STATE REP. COLE
WIST: Well, we have red
flag laws in 19 states.
And one of the first
states to pass one of
these laws was Indiana.
And I don't think anyone
would suggest that Indiana
is a blue state, by any means.
But I think they paved the
way and showed that you can
do this in a way that protects
constitutional rights and
still protects public safety.
In the couple of years
that Colorado has passed
this law, there's been a
lot of analysis done in
terms of whether or not
the laws have been abused
or whether or not this
law has been abused. And
I think, if you look at
the data, it shows that,
to the extent that folks
have sought these orders
with frivolous facts or
without a legal basis,
those have been denied.
So, the law is working.
The law can function.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Former
Colorado state legislator
Cole Wist, thank you
so much for joining us.
FMR. STATE REP. COLE WIST:
Thank you. My pleasure.