red flag law
Previous Post
Next Post
red flag laws gun violence restraining order

By Tom Vaughn MD

‘Red Flag Gun Laws’, or ‘Gun Violence Restraining Orders’ are becoming increasingly popular among opponents of the right to keep and bear arms.  Politicians from both major parties seem anxious to use these laws strip Americans of their right to armed self-defense guaranteed by the Second Amendment, as well as their right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

The premise of these laws is that individuals who are believed by others close to them to present an imminent risk for committing suicide or violence against others can be stripped of their right to have firearms.  Typically, such action requires just a complaint, subject only to judicial review, without informing the subject of the complaint or allow him/her the opportunity to respond prior to firearm confiscation.

If approved by the judge, armed government agents are dispatched to seize firearms from the accused.  Unsurprisingly, executing these orders can lead to violence and tragedy (as in Maryland recently).  Unfortunately, these laws are misguided—or represent misdirection—and fail on multiple levels.

First and foremost, how such a scheme denies the accused’s right to due process is obvious. From the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”   Subjecting these complaints to unilateral judicial review without allowing the accused an opportunity to hear the complaint and respond, or even be notified of the proceedings, before dispatching law enforcement amounts to glorified SWAT-ing.

Further, these ‘GVROs’ allow government intervention based on the suspicions and claims of laypersons. Even experienced professionals specializing in mental health have extremely limited ability to reliability gauge suicide risk—family and law enforcement officers with little to no training have even less chance of making accurate predictions.

Similarly, psychologically based violent behavior—as opposed to politically motivated violence, or the actions of those with a history of repeated criminal violent conduct—cannot be predicted reliably even by psychiatric professionals.

To be sure, there are potentially dangerous individuals roaming these United States—though the government has an extremely poor record of interceding proactively to defend law-abiding citizens.  Gun control laws in particular have a well-established history of endangering rather than protecting Americans from violent people.

To protect innocents from such individuals, we should have a legal framework in place which would allow intervention with high risk individuals prior to the commission of heinous irrevocable acts.  But it must be done in ways that respect subjects’ right to due process and that insures the greatest likelihood of success—which highlights the most glaring problem with ‘Gun Violence Restraining Orders’.

While firearms, and handguns in particular, are the most commonly used weapons in the United States by those committing murder or suicide, about 1/3 of all homicides and about half of all suicides in this country are completed without the use of firearms.  It defies common sense to claim that individuals present such imminent risk to themselves or others that emergency intervention must be undertaken, but that only minimally impedes their ability to complete an act of violence by denying them only one means.

If we even could reliably predict who is about to commit suicide or homicide, the only logical response would be to completely restrict all potential means for completing those acts.

The process to accomplish that is arrest and detention, with urgent psychiatric evaluation and treatment when indicated.  In California, for example, prior to passage of a ‘Red Flag Law’ (AB 1014) in 2014, the state had already had a statute on the books for nearly 50 years allowing individuals deemed at extreme risk to be detained for evaluation for 72 hours (Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150, passed as part of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act of 1967).

This incongruity begs the question as to why politicians’ and other gun-grabbers’ chosen remedy is to seize guns. The only logical conclusion is that their primary goal is not to protect people, but rather to use the excuse to confiscate firearms.

Legal standards for arrest and incarceration or other confinement are usually quite stringent.  The vague concerns of disgruntled relatives are normally not considered sufficient—though politicians appear keenly interested in expanding the pool of eligible complainants.  The California statute at least requires that such individuals, once detained, must be evaluated and adjudicated a danger or be released within a brief proscribed period of time.  If at that point they are deemed a risk to themselves or others, restricting their Second Amendment rights would be in keeping with Heller.

Many politicians of both parties and other government officials would be happy to appear in a photo-op with a pile of what they claim are ‘guns removed from dangerous individuals’.  However, ask them to line up with a group of falsely accused citizens, removed from their homes at gunpoint and incarcerated, subjected to mental health evaluations and/or charged with ‘Pre-crime’ by a star chamber consisting of a niece who thought they were ‘a little off’ and a judge who is likely to be more afraid of not looking ‘tough on crime’ than of trampling on the Bill of Rights.  That glad-handing lineup is going to be pretty darn short.

If individuals in our society truly present an imminent risk to themselves or others, then a tightly controlled process—such as California’s 1967 statute—is needed that would allow for emergency detention and professional assessment.  This would be a meaningful response that might actually avert tragedies.

If someone sends a letter to the local paper threatening to commit mass murder, I guarantee that local law enforcement response will NOT be restricted to collecting their firearms.  That individual will also be detained, and law enforcement may not stop at arresting them—they may even confiscate guns from their relatives.

‘Red-Flag Gun Laws’ and ‘GVROs’ are lies.  The real goal of these laws is not to protect anyone, except politicians whose fears center on re-election.  They are predicated on a series of false premises:

  • that lay people can predict violent behavior,
  • that just taking guns away from dangerous individuals sufficiently mitigates the threat of suicide and homicide,
  • that such individuals cannot easily hide firearms already in their possession from authorities (or simply acquire new ones via the black market),
  • and, that there isn’t a more logical and effective way to address well-founded concerns about people who present a risk of imminent violence.

Most importantly, they are based on the false premise that government can protect society effectively by imposing such anti-liberty interventions.

These are the same governments capable of twisting itself into such knots over an ill-conceived PR campaign that it failed to preempt a flagrantly dangerous individual whose home they had been called to dozens of times. The same governments that then failed to follow-up on a specific tip about him potentially attacking a school; government incapable that did not respond definitively when the same individual, known to on-site security as a ‘likely school shooter’, was seen on video carrying a ‘rifle case’ across a campus from which he had been barred.

It’s the same governments that issued ‘stand down and wait’ orders to brave officers ready to rush in risking death for a chance to save children they didn’t know; government whose response to the multiple failures that contributed to such carnage was to reassert its lack of duty to intercede in such cases.

Governments like that should instead be charged with operating a legalized SWAT-ing scheme to respond to ‘pre-crime’ without even the advantage of Phillip K. Dick’s ‘Pre-cogs’.

Too many Americans are ready and willing, even eager, to sacrifice their individual liberties for the illusion of security—but it is really someone else’s liberty they’re willing to sacrifice.  And too many politicians—of both parties—see their own political careers as the only moral imperative, and view logic, Americans’ civil rights, and the U.S. Constitution as little more than inconvenient impediments.


Tom Vaughan, MD is a neuroradiologist in private practice in Louisville, KY.  He is a shooting enthusiast who believes in individual liberty and personal responsibility.

This article originally appeared at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


    • And we would all be a lot more impressed with you if you could come to understand the meaning of; “on topic”. Regardless of what you think of someone’s personal beliefs, disparaging them for other beliefs(NOT relevant to the currant topic) smacks of acting like a spoiled four year-old.
      You know, like a child will argue that you shouldn’t tell her/himthem to use their inside voices inside, because you are too: old, fat, short, bald, or whatever other thing he chooses to make up. That’s just the way spoiled infants are, but as an adult you really should have known better.
      I’m assuming, OFC, that PG2 is older than six. Chronologically, not mentally.

      • “we”? Ok Kenneth, so you either have multiple personalities or you use multiple profiles posting here? Always entertaining when a brand new profile surfaces to partake in a group attack..and uses “we”…funny stuff.

        • Kenneth, work on your reading comprehension skills and avoid making baseless insults. You look ignorant regardless your position on big pharma.

        • So you think that vaccines are on topic vis-a-vis a discussion on SWATing people you don’t like?
          WOW! Speaking of sounding like a fool…
          Tell you what. Why don’t you post something explaining how YOU think those two things relate. I’ll bet you a hundred bucks you can’t.

        • Now, now. . . there IS some validity to being an anti-Vaxxer, as there is ironclad anecdotal evidence that being vaccinated for something can cause detrimental effects later on.

          For example, I was vaccinated for Polio when I was a boy; I am now, some 50 years later, just beginning to suffer from stiff joints (well, all but one, of course) and substantial hair, vision, and hearing loss. Proof? You tell me!

          Same thing with Measles; I got that one early on, and now I’m suffering from forgetfulness and poor-quality sleep. Shingles? Yeah, got that one, and the last big windstorm ruined my roof. Fact!

          Cause and Effect? I don’t know, but surely there MUST be a connection! Consider the correlation between the Dearth of Pirates and the Rise of Global Warming: Do we have fewer pirates now than ever before? Do we now have Global Warming?


          Same thing with vaccines.

          Wilbur and Orville were right: “Damn, Orville, we’re NEVER going to get these bicycles to fly until we put some wings on ’em!”

          And the Rest is History.

        • Google Pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, he USED to be an expert government witness….until he testified in deposition that vaccines are causing autism. Then google the 1986 Childhood vaccine injury Act, a law signed by then President Reagan to remove the public’s right to sue the vaccine manufacturers when their products caused injury or death….because vaccines were so safe the vaccine companies had to be protected….
          Swarf, next time you shit out your mouth, bring some toilet paper to clean up after yourself.

        • I agree with John in AK. Vaccines are dangerous themselves. I got a flu shot years ago and about a week or two later I got Mono. I had no exposure to anyone with it. Nothing other than the vaccine could have caused that.

      • His first 2 paragraphs are fiction, literally. So he’s either straight up lying, or repeating the lies of others. Either way, automatic credibility DQ.

    • I’d be more impressed if for just once you could leave a comment that didn’t involve your fantasies about vaccines.

      • The only fantasies about vaccines are the bumper sticker slogans that “vaccines are safe and effective” that trolls and people with little knowledge on the subject parrot endlessly.

        • Wait a minute. You are anti big pharma? I am also. None of that has been made clear, but I guess that is the danger of getting so far off topic. This is all under a page about using the police as one’s own personal vengeance machine. I can’t see how vaccines, good or bad, relate to that.

        • Kenneth, as posted above, maybe try working on your reading comprehension skills before you start throwing baseless insults around. You look like a fool regardless your position on pharma.

        • Ken…..newsflash…..people don’t cut and paste their own posts……not very bright are you? And to answer your question above as to what gun rights and medical rights have in common, well the same forces are using identical strategies and language to deprive us of our rights to own firearms and to deprive us of our rights to make our own informed consent medical decisions. We’re losing both, and when we lose the right to refuse medical/pharmaceutical procedures, we’ve lost everything. The people who run the levers of government can decide to subject you to any invasive drug, preocedure they see fit. If you think that sounds ridiculous or far fetched, you haven’t been paying attention to current events Ken.

        • Newsflash2. CUT and paste is NOT copy and paste. Is it even possible for you to pay attention? This is the problem with sheep that can only fit one thing into their head. They rant, rave, hate on, and vilify everything that isn’t exactly what they want. They pay no attention to any questions or facts, only repeat themselves, ad nauseam.
          When you act that way, you drive everyone away from whatever it is that you want to draw their attention to. IOW, you’re your own worst enemy. The ones who repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot, always by ‘accident’. The kind nobody wants on their side, because they do way more harm than good.
          You should be working on that weakness, but I’ll bet you that hundred bucks you owe me from above, double or nothing, that you won’t.

        • Ken, cut..copy….talk about missing the forest for the trees. People like yourself are why we are losing, and will eventually lose what remains of our individual rights.

        • So, IOWs you will learn nothing. Ever. Examine your own self? Never! Discuss the issue? Respond to questions? Never!
          Now you owe me two hundred bucks.

        • Literally laughing, you’re really not very bright, are you? It’s a miracle you stumbled across some vaccine truth and were able to recognize it.

    • I mean no offence to you, but seriously you should read a little about political topics. We are all here to talk about guns and gun laws. This article is about guns and gun laws and not vaccines.

      I don’t know anything about vaccines, and I’m not going to pretend to but we are talking about guns and not vaccines.

      When there is an article here about vaccines, we’ll look to you for a response. Otherwise you simply clogging up the comment section.

      Freedom of speech and all that so say what you want, but your persistence and off-topic rhetoric merely makes others deny your position rather than defer to it so you are doing more harm for your position than good. Time and place for everything.

    • I went and got all the vaccines I could other than the smallpox vaccine which is not offered normally in civilized countries, and I’m not autistic or gay or whatever it is you people think vaccines turn people into.

  1. I listened to this very interesting podcast about science and guns. One of the most interesting things to me was the fact that there isn’t any correlation between the number of guns and the crime rate. They are independent variables with only one exception: homicides against women, which go up steadily with the number of guns, at least according to the data they looked at.

    But, this already correlates with the known correlation between domestic abusers and violence potential—that’s not a new thing at all. I think the analyses were done by Australians but I am not sure. Here are the links for both segments in case anyone else is interested.

    Science Vs. Guns Part 1

    Part 2

    There were things about some of their analyses I was not sure about but I did find it interesting.

    • “They are independent variables with only one exception: homicides against women, which go up steadily with the number of guns, at least according to the data they looked at.”

      If true this actually does make some sense. No matter how angry you are or how prone to violence the concept of killing someone with a knife, bare hands, beating them to death or some such is much more likely to give pause than using a gun.

      That’s not a knock on guns. It’s just a statement of fact. A knife is a hell of a lot more personal than a gun. You’ve got to be pretty determined to use a knife or strangle someone.

      Personally, I’d suggest based on this data that the answer is more women with firearms. It’s a pro-2A solution that empowers women to defend themselves and makes them equal to men so even the 3rd wave feminists can’t get bent out of shape about it without exposing their rank hypocrisy.

      • Here’s my thought about that though, as someone who has worked with a lot of DV survivors both male and female.

        Most of the abuse in DV relationships is psychological. That abuse is largely centered around gaslighting the target and breaking down their sense of self worth and efficacy. This is true regardless of the gender of the person being targeted, and it works equally on the vulnerable regardless of gender.

        Being a competent and confident gun owner doesn’t protect you from psychological manipulation and abuse, unfortunately. However, the strongest link for mass shootings (when defined as the “4 or more dead” standard) appears to be a history of domestic violence, so again, that’s a place to crack down with the laws already in place, seems to me.

        I’d be interested in your thoughts on the podcasts. I’m searching to see if there is another segment I missed but I think there’s only those two. Overall it’s surprisingly favorable to gun owners IMO, much more so than I thought it would be.

        • According to PodCast Addict the episodes on guns are:

          Gun Control Pt 2 (8/11/16)
          Guns (8/4/16)
          Gun Violence (10/29/18)

          It appears that Gun Control Pt 2 is the sequel to Guns from 8/4.

        • verbal and psychological abuse can affect health and well being, no doubt. but for the ones smart enough to gtfo, dragging the wrath of the jilted along while trying to sever ties, armed and proficient would seem to have the best chance.

        • PodCast Addict? Now, how did I not know about this. Thanks!

          There are a few things I was not sure about, but I also think they did a reasonable job of explaining that Australian culture is not like US culture and that this accounts for why their population didn’t really have an issue with AR bans.

        • “However, the strongest link for mass shootings (when defined as the “4 or more dead” standard) appears to be a history of domestic violence, so again, that’s a place to crack down with the laws already in place, seems to me.”

          How do you “crack down” on this? You’re already restricted if you are convicted of domestic violence?

        • “I’d be interested in your thoughts on the podcasts.”

          I listened to the first one in it’s entirety (minus the commercials).

          My view would be that she’s trying but the subject is, at best, outside her area of expertise. She doesn’t understand polling and conflates it with epidemiology. This leads to statements that she doesn’t question like “No epidemiologist would do that”. Well, no, but a pollster would and that’s effectively what Kleck did, poll people. He never attempted to approach the topic from an epidemiological point of view because he did his initial work before the idea of looking at violence through the lens of epidemiology, a tactic I’m still unsure about. Her approach, which conflates various different disciplines, leads her to draw a conclusion that I don’t think we can say for sure is valid. It certainly raises questions about her conclusions.

          She also makes assumptions that potential errors in polling all go in one direction and that a survey with a completely different technique is more valid simply because it has a larger sample size and asks questions differently (but not necessarily in a better way). She also uses the “virgin birth argument” to bolster her claims when it doesn’t do that. If we were to believe that her argument here is 100% valid then we would have to assume since people lie about demonstrable things that it’s entirely possible that people who lie about DGU’s lie to cover up the fact that they had a DGU the same way that these women lied about ever having had sex.

          Overall I’d say she gives it a valiant effort for such a short time-frame (the length of the podcast) but that she’s completely out of her element and has a pretty rudimentary view of science. I’d say her little “slip” about “man made global warming” proves this to be the case.

          Mind you, I’m not saying she’s stupid. I just think she’s in over her head and drawing conclusions that don’t necessarily mean anything and which certainly cannot be said to reach or exceed a 95% confidence interval.

        • “You’re supposed to be restricted, yes. But domestic abusers who aren’t supposed to get guns do get them anyway. Devin Kelley was one such.”

          … and so the question stands, how do you “crack down”?

        • Ash: By waving one’s wand powered by unicorn farts, naturally!
          This is a good example of the way people today seem unable to use logic or reason. The definition of criminal behavior is: “the refusal to obey whatever laws are in place”. Somehow, the fact that no law, no matter how well written, will deter those who decide to break it, escapes almost everyone today.
          Statists simply cannot conceive of one who ignores the laws. Just saying “crack down” is all that is needed to these ones. Statists seem to believe that the govt will just make everything happen via magic. Those of us who live in the real world know better, but they ignore the world, in favor of pretty fantasies. Just like all other religious fundamentalists.

      • and no matter how concerned you are about someone else’s well being it’s just so easy to drop a dime in their best interests without thinking through the possible consequences.
        the note read, “they took them all and won’t give them back. nothing left to live for. hope you’re happy.”

        • I continue to be very resistant to the idea of conflating mental health with gun issues.
          Because most mentally ill people aren’t violent. In fact, they’re more likely to have violence committed against them than to commit it themselves.

          There’s the suicide thing. Maybe some telegraph their intentions beforehand. In my limited experience working with the families of people who suicided, the ones who succeeded mostly never gave anyone at all a warning, precisely because they were afraid someone would try to stop them. So mental health help reducing suicide would be dependent on someone declaring that they had that in mind in the first place.

          My concern is that all these mental health measures will get passed that won’t actually affect the problems, and that then somebody will turn around and say, “See, that didn’t do anything, mental health doesn’t work and isn’t important!” When the whole thing was, you have to apply the right solution to the right problem in the first place.

          Cracking down on domestic violence issues would make feminists happy and also make an inroad into some of the stuff people are upset about. That said, effort should be made to make sure the system also correctly deals with female abusers and male victims and that there are harsh consequences for false charges.

    • How about UPPR?
      Using the Police for Personal Revenge? I’d like the word “grudge” in there, but I can’t figure how to make it into an easily pronounceable acronym like “upper”. At least, not in the 60 seconds I spent typing this.

        • I think Lawfare doesn’t have the emotional pull.

          We already have a universal belief that SWATing is a horrible thing that murders innocent people and can be done to anybody, thus it needs to be deterred.
          If we can connect Red Flag to SWATing, I think it’ll go a long ways in tilting public opinion away from tyranny.

        • That’s what I’m hoping a good, emotion grabbing, acronym would do in today’s world of thinking and speaking in shorthand.
          “PAYNN”? Policing Against Your Nasty Neighbors? Pronouncing it “pain” would do the emotion grabbing part.

        • Editing is long gone. Like proofreading, its as dead as the Dodo bird.
          A year ago this site said they were working on getting the notifications to work. Now, a year later, all they’ve managed is to get the edit function to fail also. After a few more years of such ‘improvement’, it won’t even be able to be read or accessed.
          I guess, at that point, their work will be done, and it will time for a good long vacation.

      • Larry, that’s what gave me the idea of advocating through changing the language used in the discussion.

        But should we use that term, my term (legalized swatting), or something else?

  2. “Too many Americans are ready and willing, even eager, to sacrifice their individual liberties for the illusion of security—but it is really someone else’s liberty they’re willing to sacrifice.”

    Other than a few oddballs the truth is that they’re willing to sacrifice someone else’s liberty, not their own.

    You won’t find too many owners of “SCARY GUN X” that want to ban and confiscate “SCARY GUN X”. What you find instead are non-gun owners who want to ban/confiscate that firearm or other firearm owners who don’t own that particular firearm and see no reason to do so.

    The number of people in this country who would voluntarily and knowingly give up their own rights is very, very slim. They want to take the rights of others and figure that it since it only affects “those people” it will will only ever affect those people.

    A lot of Americans are fucking dumb and made that way intentionally. Carlin was absolutely right when he said the school system is meant to turn out nice, compliant drones who don’t ask questions and do what they’re told.

    • I’ve been wondering that as well. Given the frequent bluster by cops and copsuckers about how they’ll never enforce gun confiscation, well… they’ve been remarkably silent about these red flag laws. I’ve been saying for a while now that any cop who has ever taken a gun from somebody that Congress and the courts have decided “shouldn’t have them” is going to enforce confiscation orders. It’s merely a difference of degrees, not of type

      • The cops in Florida seem to have been enforcing the seizure law quite vigorously since its recent enactment, in the few hundreds I understand.

  3. Red flag law and universal background checks are the only way they can actually take your guns. They cant amend the constitution, because obviously that wouldn’t fly. They cant executive order it, so they have to death-by-paper-cut their gun confiscation. I have about as much sympathy for any “law” enforcement officer who would carry this out rather than quiting, as I do for any law enforcement officer that commits any other crime. You may have to do it to keep your job, but all that means is that your job is wrong. When these red flag laws start resulting in the death of officers, dont feign surprise. Theyre not representing the law of the people, they’re enforcing dictates of something that doesnt come from America. If I serve jury duty on one of these someday, i’ll be sure to assign the blame where it belongs, not with citizens.

  4. The New World Order rolling in faster than you think, laugh at it but look what’s happening around the country.

    • I believe you are absolutely correct! I think my veteran relatives are correct. *THEY* are trying to illegally and unconstitutionally seize arms from the U.S. Citizens, and redefine the Bill of Rights, PERIOD! No vaccines, No reasonings, No deep contemplations! Our vets, soldiers, and true patriots will never let this stand! It sounds more and more like a Deep State coup!

  5. From the doctor’s own essay:

    “… we should have a legal framework in place which would allow intervention with high risk individuals prior to the commission of heinous irrevocable acts. But it must be done in ways that respect subjects’ right to due process and that insures the greatest likelihood of success …”

    So, yes, he does favor red flag laws. Ones that already exist or could be be better written. Ones with due process of law and standards that make sense.

    This is why our side should be either writing proposed laws or writing amendments to existing laws. Such as existing laws on 72 hour mental health holds.

  6. How about an anonymous tip line that we can call to report people that are texting when they are driving? Then police and a tow truck can be sent to the address to deal with the offender and impound their vehicles. Think of all the lives that could be saved.

  7. The confiscation will be orchestrated in the media as not only just and necessary but an eventuality gun owners must face.
    By their standards no one who is not in law enforcement or a special person should be armed. It’s a matter of classifying all of us into classes unfit for firearms ownership.
    Disagree and you’re part of the problem.

  8. How is this any different then the Luatenberg Amendment? An unjust law depriving those who’ve committed a MISDEAMENOR offense from guns for life. America land of the free? Free to do what your told, when your told….. ps If anyone wants to donate some lead, I need about 140 metric tons of it to capture the neutrino’s I need to make my Neutrino Fusion Bomb.

  9. I’m curious what happens when someone doesn’t comply.

    I get that they’ll rip up your house, torch open your safe (I’ll be standing way back when they start cutting or grinding where I keep 30 lbs of reloading powder) pull any 4473s, interrogate you and deprive you of liberty, etc etc.

    But what if they can’t find what they think they should and someone remains silent except to ask if they are under arrest or free to go or that they want to talk to lawyer?

    Can they (get away with) arresting you until hearing? On what charge?

    I ask because I assume most of the “crazies” that are hell bent on murder with a gun are not going to give up. I know as a citizen I would feel no obligation to disclose what firearms I owned and where I kept them.

    • I’m guessing the person will be arrested, taken into custody, sit in a cold cell with shit food and fucked up mattress, lights left on constanly, then three days later they’ll have an evaluation via Skype and be committed to an institution for a 30 day evaluation. Then if your found to be as saine as the rest of the nuts that got you there, you be released. Fast forward , you go down to the local GS to buy a firearm, fill out your 4473 ,” have you ever been committed to” presto no guns anyway.

  10. Your social media accounts are already being assessed for “High Risk” indicators. When this becomes law, the “offending” material will be supplied to the appropriate authorities. It is only a matter of time before that knock, or no-knock arrives at your door.

  11. Red Flag laws will go much further than just gun control. The possibilities of this stuff is endless.
    Essentially all due process of law is dead.

  12. Violent folks will simply use means other than guns.
    It would be more effective in the long run to require schools to teach a course in Partner Vetting to all students. Complete with graphic pictures of victims of violence. Like Driver’s Ed 50 years ago..

  13. Seems to me that some law makers are so pathetically helpless at dealing with law breakers that they flail about finding completely ineffective ways to piss off those who want to obey laws if the laws only weren’t so useless at effecting criminals. Stop punishing the innocent!

  14. At least in Vermont, it’s even worse. One can do absolutely nothing wrong other than have a relative make a threat and say they’ll get guns from you, and the judge signs the order to have them taken away. Why this was preferable to simply warning the innocent relative to keep them locked up so the would-be mass shooter couldn’t get them has yet to be reported.

  15. I disagree with the title of this article. it is not “Glorified SWATing,” it is Government sanctioned SWATing. Much worse

  16. The article was forgetting this…

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  17. And forgetting this…..

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

  18. Forgetting this….

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

  19. Or forgetting this….

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

  20. Or forgetting this….

    Proposed 25 September 1789
    Ratified 15 December 1791

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  21. …Or forgetting this…at least the 1st section…

    Proposed 13 June 1866
    Ratified 9 July 1868

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

  22. Red Flag Laws Are Glorified Swatting… that’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

    “Protection” of people “at risk” isn’t the point, it’s the fig leaf. No-knock raids, house-trashing searches, incidental charges, confiscated property, crushing legal fees, shot dogs …

    No guns for you! and if tbey can’t get a ban, they’ll weasel through enough harassment in stead. “The process is the punishment.” so, make sure it’s penalty enough. Any questions?

    (6 obvious changes to the law as proposed would mitigate those problems, n possibly “protect” better at the same time. Why’d they write it the way they did? Could it be that those costs are the point?)

  23. Wait until NY passes their Red Flag bill. It will allow the filing to be made on school children.

    That means that their parents will have to surrender their guns as anyone in the household will be required to do for any of the other Red Flag Bills.

    This is a cutesy way for LE and pols to back door confiscation and begin testing how difficult confiscation in general will be using the color of law to protect the states and LE from suits.

    This all is not going to end well.

  24. Don’t forget that there are NO penalties for deliberate false accusations.
    Have a fued with a neighbor?
    Mad at your soon to be ex spouse?
    Angry that your stepdad grounded you?
    Call in a red flag accusation!
    Knowing that people will make false accusations is a feature of these laws.


    Who can petition for such an order? Close family? Neighbors? Cops? Someone with little or no relationship to the subject?

    What evidence is required? What is the level of proof?

    What is the penalty for falsifying a petition? With a specific and significant penalty false reports will be very common.

    What provisions protect the due process rights of people subject to such an order? There are cases where due process does not require your being able to present your case before an initial decision is made. Temporary mental health commitments and other restraining orders are two examples. That said, it is critical that everything be done to protect due process. At a minimum, a second hearing should be automatically within 7-14 days. Anything less than that isn’t remotely a due process protection.

    Not surprisingly, California was one of the first, if not the first, state to pass one of these laws. In 2016, the law required that a hearing be scheduled within 14 days. Only law enforcement and family could request an order. Only 90 orders were issued state wide in 2016 – so the good news is that they were uncommon. Of these 90 cases 90% were reversed at the second hear, once the subject was able to present their case. So the good news is that judges are willing to reverse these orders, and since many subjects undoubtedly could not afford a lawyer, they are willing to do so when the subject represents themselves. The bad news is that it appears that there is a great deal of abuse.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here