On the surface, red flag laws seem to make sense. Someone is making threats, acting in a crazy manner, and so forth, and a family member or LEO can make a petition which will have their firearms taken away for a period of time, and a judge must rule on this. Much like when a person is involuntarily committed. And we have
Marco Rubio: Red Flag Legislation ‘Makes All the Sense in the World’
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., continues his push for the U.S. Senate to look at his “red flag†safety proposal, taking to the TV airwaves in Florida to showcase it.
In the aftermath of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton this past weekend, earlier this week, Rubio urged U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, to look at his “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act†in their next meeting.
Rubio first introduced this bill in March of 2018, following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland. That same year, Florida implemented its own red flag law, which has provided Florida law enforcement agencies with the ability to carry out more than a thousand risk protection orders.
Then to Rick Scott
I’m a gun owner and NRA member. I support red-flag laws.
In Florida, about three weeks after the Parkland shooting — and after the views of experts in mental health, education and law enforcement were taken into account — I signed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act into law, surrounded by the families of those who tragically lost their lives.
Now, in the aftermath of the shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Washington should stop the partisan bickering and get to work on solutions. The steps we took in Florida, in addition to committing $400 million to increasing school safety, included a “red flag†provision. Properly constructed, the extreme risk protection order, as it’s known, is a common-sense public safety measure.
Anyone who has threatened self-harm, has threatened to harm others or is mentally unstable should not have access to a gun. At all. You can call it an infringement on rights if you want. I don’t care. Just get guns away from such people.
And
McConnell: Background checks, red flag laws will be ‘front and center’
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that strengthening background checks and red flag laws will “lead the discussion†on addressing gun violence in the wake of two mass shootings that left at least 31 people dead.
McConnell’s remarks on a Kentucky news radio show follow a conversation he had Thursday morning with President Donald Trump, who has called for revisiting stricter background checks for gun buyers as well as red flag laws, which allows authorities to limit a person’s access to guns if they pose an imminent threat to others.
So, even Trump is thinking about them. Now, on the surface, they seem good. But, what if no one reports the person? The mother of the El Paso nutter (news of the Dayton nutter has rather dried up since he is a Democrat through and through) called the cops, but, did not identify herself or her son. What if they are abused? The system is ripe for people making false claims, leading to seizure of lawfully obtained property, with the person having to wait a long time before the property is returned, and, they don’t really work well
(Reason) Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted such laws, most of them since the February 2018 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Although preventing mass shootings is the goal emphasized by advocates of red flag laws, data from Indiana and Connecticut, the first two states to enact them, show they are mainly used to protect people from their own suicidal impulses.
The evidence on whether they succeed in doing that is mixed, and so far there’s no firm evidence that red flag laws prevent homicide. One thing is clear: Taking away people’s guns based on predictions of what they might do with them raises thorny due process issues.
The Washington Post also notes the mixed results. And many have noted that they violate the 4th Amendment due process. The state cannot just come and take part of your land without a long hearings process, right? Now, if there was a guarantee that a court hearing would be held within 48 hours, it might be OK. A hearing in which someone did not have to lawyer up, costing them a lot of money. Really, the state should pay for a lawyer (a good one), since the State too away the accused’s property.
Is due process inverted?
Indy has a 14 day waiting period studies found was average 9 months. What is wait?
Is there right to legal representation?
What is the standard of proof?
What is the deterrent for abuse, does it include promise of civil suit?
Senator, please discuss. https://t.co/075PYvpJ6b— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 9, 2019
That’s the beginning of a long thread, worth the read.
The problem with red flag laws, like most of the Gun Grabbers agenda, is that they want them because it is a way to start taking away people’s guns. They slowly make them broader and broader. Chuck Schumer is warning McConnell that they best not be tepid.
If crafted correctly, they would be very specific, with little to no ability for executives and bureaucrats to rule make and expand. Here’s the law, here’s how it works, don’t go further, no mission creep. Period. If you want to change the law, it should require a 2/3rds majority to change it. Seriously, some people shouldn’t have firearms, just like some shouldn’t be allowed to drive. They’ve forfeited their Right through their own actions.
Now, though, consider, does a red flag law belong at the national level? On the surface it seems like something that states should do, right? But, the 2nd Amendment is a federal thing. Who better to implement than the U.S. Congress? And, get this: if one is passed, that is the law of the land. It would set the standard, and mean that states and municipalities cannot go further than the national red flag law. Liberals told us this when we were debating Arizona’s illegal alien law, SB1070, which was stronger than federal law. They all said that that was not allowed! So, trying to make any red flag law stronger than the federal one would nip that in the bud, putting gun grabbing states on notice that they cannot use red flag laws for backdoor confiscation gun grabbing.
