Pennsylvania’s state House rejected a bill last week allowing courts to invoke “extreme risk protection orders” on gun owners — orders that would allow authorities to require gun owners to surrender their firearms for the period the order is in effect.

It was a close vote — 102 to 101 — but we believe that 102 legislators made the correct decision.

If Pennsylvania is to pass some version of a so-called “red flag” law, we believe its proponents need to more adequately address skepticism that the process for invoking “extreme risk protection orders” affords the accused their constitutional rights to due process — to challenge the order in a fair and transparent legal proceeding. Too often, advocates for such measures have been too dismissive of protecting the rights of the accused and of the foundational principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The measure reinforces a point our editorial board has repeatedly made — As important as the Second Amendment is, gun control proposals would almost always require infringement of a multitude of rights to be remotely effective.

We appreciate our region’s lawmakers for respecting our Second Amendment rights and we hope other members of our state Legislature can some day accept that individual rights — including the right to keep and bear arms and the right for the government to prove the guilt of men and women to an independent judiciary before the government can punish them — are vitally important to our nation and its people’s way of life — not inconveniences to side-step in pursuit of ideological agendas.