Red Flag Laws

As the Trump administration makes bump stocks a felony, the GOP-led Senate is considering allowing the police to pre-emptively seize your guns if someone files a 'red flag' report.
These laws allow law enforcement, and in some states, relatives and other concerned parties, to petition judges in order to temporarily restrict access to firearms from people who may be a harm to themselves or others.

Supporters of the laws say they can save lives by removing guns from individuals who should not have them. Some states have used the laws to successfully protect individuals from suicide, at least one study shows. Opponents of such laws say they violate the second amendment and say they do nothing to thwart the underlying issues causing the threat....

"I think passing a federal law is probably beyond what the market will bear. But creating an incentive at the federal level for states who want to go down this road...I think that's the best way, at least initially to solve this problem," [Sen.] Graham said.

Instead, he hopes to get a federal law enacted to incentivize states to create their own unique extreme risk laws.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee's top Democrat, said future red flag laws should include what amounts to be a progressive wish list of gun control measures, including universal background checks, closing the so-called Charleston loophole and banning assault weapons.

"To be clear, extreme risk gun laws are a vital part of that effort," Feinstein said.
I'm not entirely sure what I think about these laws. On the one hand, there have been several cases of school shooters, etc., who were repeatedly reported to police before they carried out their murders. It might make some sense to create a mechanism for handling cases like that. On the other hand, since they haven't yet committed any crime, seizing their property -- even temporarily -- would ordinarily be out of line for the government. And, of course, there's no reason to believe that the power to 'temporarily' seize your guns, until you satisfy the government that you're fit to retain them, won't be expanded and abused. The fact that Sen. Fenstein can't help but slaver over the additional measures she wants on top of this highlights the risk of letting this camel get its nose into the tent.

So on balance, I think I'm opposed to the idea, even though I can see why it might be a reasonable thing to want to do in some cases. However, my opposition is weaker than it usually is to gun control measures.

14 comments:

raven said...

My opposition is absolute. In nearly every case cited as reason to enact this obscenity of a law, the authorities were notified, usually many times over, of the assailants actions, AND had plenty of legal steps to take, but refused to do anything that would have precluded the killers actions. The Parkland murders were a case study in official screwups and coverups, all because we just can't offend the wrong people.
This will inevitably be expanded to give any aggrieved individual the ability to lie and instigate a 3 am no knock raid on any gun owner. To start with, it will be used as SOP in any divorce, just like restraining orders. It will be used by any snowflake who thinks they are "threatened" by the mere sight of a firearm. All public speech will become a potential raid trigger. Don't go talk about hunting or target shooting in the local cafe. Now imagine this coupled with the laws on "hate speech- how soon will that be tied in to justification? No "haters" should have guns, right?

I can think of nothing more inimical to the principles set down in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, than to empower an unknown accuser and secret court, with the police power of home invasion and confiscation. With no ability of the accused to offer a defense. This takes "swatting" to a whole new level.

I will step out on the limb here and make a few predictions- People will get killed over this, both those whose weapons are being taken away, and those taking them away, with a seasoning of those who turned informant to boot.

E Hines said...

It'll be interesting to see how those worthies think they'll be able to discriminate among legitimate warnings that are accurate, legitimate warnings that are erroneous, and false warnings that are made pursuant to personal beefs, among other reasons for "warning."

It'll be interesting to see how those worthies think such considerations can be made in a timely enough manner to achieve the claimed goal of temporarily disarming a truly out-of-control individual.

It'll be interesting to see how those worthies will move to separate a truly out-of-control individual from access to firearms while protecting right other members of the household to access to those same firearms. Especially since they'd be sharing a house with that same allegedly dangerous individual.

I think it's useful to have such discussions out in the open so we can see how idiotic and dangerous these ideas are. The examples of shooters about whom police (and/or others) were warned and who took no action don't illustrate the need for more controls; they illustrate the need for better training and responses to the warnings made.

Those examples aren't all of the cases; there always will be corner cases. Legislating for those corner cases, though, is just to slide down the steep slope to loss of liberty.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

I will step out on the limb here and make a few predictions- People will get killed over this...

I think I read of a man being killed during a 'red flag' seizure just last week, Raven, so people have already been killed over it. But just one guy here and there, not 50 kids at a school or 50 people at church or a concert. And the kind of guy police exist to kill: dangerous men. So I think society will be happy to accept the occasional death to disarm them.

Or, as is more likely, "to disarm us."

raven said...

I don't know about the man who was killed. Was he a threat to the public, or just armed and concerned about an early morning intrusion on his home? As soon as the cops killed him, no doubt he was put into the same gallery as Pablo Escobar.

The core idiocy here is the belief you can disarm a man by taking his guns. If a man is dangerous enough to need disarming, he had better be locked up. Will they take his drivers license? Confiscate his tools? Allow him to buy gas? Shop at Walmart? Raid all his friends who have guns?

The total ignoring of any due process, and the violation of fundamental rights is like bait for the tyrants, pissant and powerful alike. I have run into many moonbats who would gladly destroy a mans life over an ideological difference, and this is a perfect tool to do so. Mark my words- (I have always wanted to use that cliche) the informants will not be limited to "police officers, family, ex family," etc etc- it is going to end up with any person with a grudge having a deadly lever over any gun owner they select. The law will be stretched just like every other law. What judge can take the political risk of saying, "sorry Ms. Jones, we don't believe you", or "sorry Mr.Jones, you are not a close enough relative, only the boy friend of his ex) and then having her/him be right? Even if one in a million, the judge is going to play it safe and issue the order- it is how the bureaucracy works. Consequently, a lot of them are going to be issued. Some judges will be elated at the power to attack deplorable's. And these laws are not going to be used on the gangbangers- and they will prove useless against mass killers, who will simply keep their mouths shut.
The red flag will be used as a political weapon-against us.
Our Founders spin.

Grim said...

Here's the story:

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/fatal-officer-involved-shooting-in-anne-arundel-county/

I don't know exactly what prompted the order, but the man is sure enough dead over it.

Dad29 said...

the risk of letting this camel get its nose into the tent.

Are you calling Feinstein a camel?

If not, WHY not?

Grim said...

You know me well enough to know both that I am not, and why I am not.

In any case, it hardly seems an insult. Camels are valuable, in their way.

MikeD said...

Let's leave aside the VERY clear wording of the Second Amendment for one moment ("shall not be infringed"), I still object to this because of the VERY clear reading of the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You cannot deprive a citizen of their liberty NOR property without due process. And no, some unnamed official taking the word of some anonymous claimant does NOT qualify as "due process". Due process invokes the rights of the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to confront their accuser, the right to call witnesses in their favor, the right to counsel.

"But that's only for criminal prosecutions". Oh, but if you're talking about seizing the property and restricting the constitutional rights of a citizen, and it's NOT a "crime" then it must be a civil suit, which is then covered by the Seventh Amendment which says if the controversy shall exceed $20 (and show me a gun that cost less than $20; no, really, please do, I'd like one), the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. And all of this must be observed before they can seize your property.

"But what about the truly dangerous, why can't we stop them before they commit a crime"? Unlike in the book/movie Minority Report, we DO NOT convict people of actions they have not yet taken. If someone is truly a danger to themselves and others, yet have managed (somehow in the modern minefield of regulations and process crimes) to not break a single law, then I submit that perhaps they're not as much a danger and you may think. I also strongly believe that if we REALLY do want our government to have the power to ignore the plain and clear language of the document that provides the legitimacy of that government, then we should execute the Constitutional options provided IN that document to alter the Amendments and what they mean. If you cannot do so because there is insufficient support in 3/4 of the States or Congress, then you do not get to simply ignore the Constitution. Period.

Dad29 said...

Dear MikeD: the Government has been ignoring the Constitution for at least the last 50 years, but certainly for the last 20.

That's OK, though. Most citizens have ignored the Government and its pomps and works for that long, too. The gun seizure proposals in 2 states have been disasters, with ~5% compliance (or less.) No reason to think this will be any different.

Grim, Sen Feinstein is another excellent example of traitor-in-office and she is NOT as valuable as a camel.

raven said...

A comment by Jeff on the red flag law on instapundit, about the list of people allowed to make confiscation reports- he captured the essence-

"...police, roommates, and ex-spouses and other former romantic partners..."
A more complete list of people with suspect motives and possible axes to grind, would be hard to find.

ColoComment said...

We're dealing with it in Colorado. Since the election, you'd almost think that [new} Dem Gov. Polis & his Dem majority legislature were turbo-charged, the way they've lined up socialist bill proposals. NPV, bill designed to essentially shut down new fracking development, full day kindergarten, red flag re: guns, extravagant family leave, new payroll tax designed to by-pass our TABOR law. You get the picture....

Very brief summary of red flag proposal highlights:
"HB 1177 creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order which can be obtained by law enforcement, family member or a member of someone’s household. A judge has to agree someone is a “significant danger” to themselves or others. If that happens, law enforcement then temporarily confiscates the person’s guns.
A court hearing is then held within 14 days where the person must show by “clear and convincing” evidence they are entitled to recover their guns. A judge can order the weapons be held for a year.
There are similar laws in 14 states but Republicans have attacked the bill as a “gun grab” because it doesn’t require police to force the person to be evaluated by a mental health professional."

https://www.chieftain.com/news/20190326/colorado-senate-president-garcia-will-vote-no-on-red-flag-bill

Dave Kopel lays out his concerns:
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2019/03/26/colorados-dave-kopel-testifies-at-u-s-senate-hearing-on-red-flag-laws-in-the-states/

Grim said...

On reflection, being 'forced to be evaluated by a mental health professional' is reason enough to oppose this. The Constitutional arguments are sufficient, as well.

So I suppose my opposition has hardened as a result of this discussion.

douglas said...

I hear you, Grim. It's the sort of thing you want to think can be ok if it's just done right, but then you start trying to figure out how to do it right and start seeing all the holes and traps.

But it's going to get passed- if not federally, then progressively more and more states will adopt these measures, until and unless the courts find them unconstitutional.

ColoComment said...

I just saw this, re; Colorado proposal.

https://kdvr.com/2019/03/27/denver-police-union-joins-opposition-to-red-flag-bill/