2025 Question 2
Citizen Initiative
Do you want to allow courts to temporarily prohibit a person from having dangerous weapons if law enforcement, family, or household members show that the person poses a significant danger of causing physical injury to themselves or others?
Referendum Question 2 – Perspectives
Reasons to Vote YES
Public safety tool: Gives courts the authority to act quickly if someone shows warning signs of harming themselves or others. Could help prevent suicides, domestic violence incidents, or mass shootings.
Family & law enforcement involvement: Allows those closest to the person—family, household members, and police—to intervene when they see dangerous behavior.
Temporary and court-supervised: Orders would be issued only after evidence is presented in court, with the restriction limited to a set period of time.
Proactive prevention: Seen as a way to address threats before they escalate, potentially saving lives without waiting until after violence occurs.
Reasons to Vote NO
Concerns about due process: Some may worry that people could lose their rights before being convicted of a crime, based on accusations that may later prove unfounded.
Second Amendment concerns: Opponents may view this as government overreach that restricts the constitutional right to bear arms.
Potential misuse: Fear that the law could be abused in personal disputes (e.g., family conflicts, divorces) to unfairly target someone.
Temporary nature questioned: Some may feel it doesn’t address underlying mental health issues or long-term risks, only imposing a short-term restriction.
✅ In short:
YES = Public safety, prevention, court oversight.
NO = Rights protections, due process, fear of misuse.