They are called Extreme-Risk Protection Orders. Some people call them Red-Flag Gun Confiscation. Whatever you call it, we’re supposed to call the cops and stop a bad man with a gun before he hurts someone. That sounds more like the script from a cop-drama on TV than what happens in real life. In practice, these laws are designed for abuse. We’ve already seen them fail to stop violent crime. We’ve also seen police kill gun owners during early morning Red-Flag raids. At best, innocent individuals have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to get their rights restored after they’ve been served with a red-flag order.
Is that the unavoidable price of freedom, or is that the bigoted abuse of a disfavored minority for political gain?
will they take cars if the neighbor says he is going to run over the kids blocking the street ? will they take computers if you post, I should beat that sex offenders ass ? Red Flag laws are about disarming Americans…
I’m curious what criteria has to be met. Ideally, there would need to be some history of mental illness or violent behavior. Where I live, I believe LE would require that before kicking in doors. However, if you’re in a liberal area… you’re at the mercy of whomever doesn’t like you. Definitely unconstitutional no matter how you look at it.
In practice, the criteria will probably be decided by those involved in issuing the order.
A domestic violence protection order should be issued only in cases where there is a danger to one of the parties involved. However, some divorce court judges will issue them as an automatic practice, any time the wife simply states she is afraid of what her husband might do.
Red-Flag gun laws could easily go the same way, with a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach being taken with any reported concerns.
Domestic is definitely going to be a problem. Police do tend to protect the wife/girlfriend regardless of the situation. I called the police once, on a crazy bitch, and they started giving me a hard time like I was the one causing problems. He didn’t even write a report. So, yeah…I can see that getting out of hand real quick.
I so hope you are right about the Supreme Court challenges. These red flag laws are by design, horrible socialistic abuses that should never have been passed anywhere.
It is clear that they are designed for speed (to confiscate), not accuracy (in whose guns get confiscated). Could you imagine all our laws so designed? One difference we would see is a presumption of guilt, not of innocence, for all possible crimes. Many more people would be sitting in jail waiting for their court dates than currently.
If any of this passes a lot of guy’s will go to jail and lose rights when a wife or girlfriend gets pissed and makes a phone call…or an asshole neighbor or co-worker…this may be way more effective for the anti-gun left than any anti-gun law…
I agree. Our current laws already allow the courts to require mental health evaluations, which can result in confiscation. However, that process requires time and accuracy (a.k.a. due process). These Red Flag laws are just a quick way to sidestep the Constitution.
I agree again. Unfortunately, that is already happening across our society. The Me Too movement is just one example. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that Me Too rightfully exposed some real creeps. However, some innocent people also got hurt and they will never have an opportunity to clear their names.
We have red flag laws here and the psycho-bitch across the street has had the law called on her numerous times and been to the loony barn, but she’s still waddling the streets and threatening her husband.
I’m considering donating a gun to the cause, dropping it off in their driveway and seeing whether her or old man jenkins gets to it first and does us all a favor. With one dead and the other in prison, I can finally get some peace around here.
If someone is nuts, they don’t need a firearm to kill, even if they are in possession of firearms already. And not all of them show signs of previous mental illness.
The University of Texas clocktower shooter killed his wife and his mother before the shooting. He stabbed them to death with a knife.
In the 1999 Atlanta Georgia shooting, the shooter bludgeoned his wife and two young children with a hammer…AND he was also a suspect in the beating death of his first wife.
In the 2014 Isla Vista shootings, the shooter killed three men with a knife and used his car to mow over many people as he was shooting.
The Columbine shooters also had bombs and one of them had already been reported to the Sheriff’s department a year prior where he had been making death threats and they even found bomb materials at his house. All this before the shooting at the school. Many other shooters had also been to see a psychiatrist or showed signs of violent behavior, and yet they were allowed to walk the streets, and many still passing background checks and others just stealing the weapons they need.
Even if the guns are removed from the homes of people who are reported, there are many many ways to carry out a mass attack or killings without a firearm.
Red Flag laws are nothing more than another way to take away people’s firearms while at the same time giving the impression they are doing something to prevent a mentally ill person from doing harm. They don’t care about the people and they don’t care about mental illness. Once they have the guns, that’s all they care about. And if the person enters a mental health facility, it’s all about the money and government kickbacks. Then come the drugs, which makes it even worse.
Ok, here’s a thought… with the recent mass shootings, I wonder if it’s a ploy to justify and strengthen the red flag laws. Can’t just ban weapons out right but, if you terrorize the public into believing any crazy can mail order a machine gun, they will willingly accept unconstitutional restrictions on gun owners.