The Massachusetts Senate passed a bill Thursday that would give judges the power to strip weapons from individuals flagged as a danger to themselves or others.
The legislation, already passed by the House, would allow family members, roommates, current and former romantic partners, and police officials to petition a local court to take away a gun owner’s weapons for a year.
The proposal has been cheered by gun-control advocates as a way to save lives, while opponents say it’s a gun grab disguised as substantive public safety legislation.
The Senate passed the bill by a voice vote, meaning no senator had to go on the record for or against the politically sensitive measure.
The bill would create “a new legal tool to protect the public called an extreme risk protection order,’’ Senator Cynthia S. Creem said during floor debate.
“We’re not changing the Second Amendment,’’ she said. “We’re not doing anything drastic. All we’re doing is making restrictions on those that should not be using guns.’’
The Newton Democrat said that too many times after a tragedy, family memberssay they are not surprised and cite red flags that pointed to homicidal or suicidal thoughts.
On Thursday afternoon, the Senate adopted several amendments, including provisions mandating that courts notify gun owners of their right to counsel and shortening the amount of timesomeone found to be a danger would have to turn over their guns. Support came from Republicans and Democrats for those changes.
Eight states have enacted so-called red flag laws, though all differ in their specifics.
After the Senate vote, Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts expressed dismay. “Very disappointed,’’ he said. “We had a historical opportunity to really address suicide prevention, and they chose not to do that. They chose to just focus on the gun, which is not a big part of suicide in Massachusetts.’’
But Molly Malloy, a volunteer with the Massachusetts chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said in a statement: “We are proud of our state senators for taking action and urge the full Legislature to swiftly pass and send a strong bill to the governor. It will save lives.’’
If the House and Senate reconcile their bills, which differ on the margins, and Governor Charlie Baker, who supports the general idea of such legislation, signs it into law, here’s how it would work:
Say that on a Saturday night a gun owner’s former wife becomes concerned that he is suicidal. She could call the police and have them convey to a court the relevant facts about her former spouse, the reasons she believes he is suicidal, what guns he keeps in the house and where, and any history of legal action between them.
An on-call judge — who, under current law, is available for warrants, emergency restraining orders, and the like — would determine whether there is reasonable cause that the gun owner would cause bodily injury to himself or someone else. If warranted, the judge could authorize the police to order the surrender of the firearms.
The next business day, the former wife would be required to file a petition with the court, stating under the penalty of perjury all relevant facts.
The court would have 10 days to hold a formal hearing on the petition and could, in the interim, order the police to continue holding the firearms.
At the hearing, the judge would weigh information presented by the gun owner and the former wife and determine whether “a preponderance of the evidence’’ — a higher legal bar than “reasonable cause,’’ but a lower standard than “beyond a reasonable doubt’’ — shows that the owner poses a risk of bodily harm to anyone by having a gun. Orders would be valid for up to a year and could be renewed with judicial approval.
Anyone who surrenders guns could not legally obtain any new guns until the order expires.
Senator Bruce E. Tarr, the chamber’s Republican leader, said the bill still has a way to go before becoming law, as the House and Senate must work out their differences.
“But I think the one thing people agree to is that someone who is dangerous to themselves or others should not have access to guns,’’ he said.
The debate follows several recent high-profile mass shootings nationally.
Joshua Miller can be reached at joshua.miller@globe.com.
