Politicians are Dead Wrong About the Danger of Red Flag Laws

SWAT team truck armored vehicle

Bigstock

By the Firearms Policy Coalition

In the era of “just do something” public policy, legislators on both sides of the aisle are pitching red flag legislation as a moderate form of gun control; one having a positive impact on mental health reform while simultaneously keeping Americans safe. Nothing could be further from the truth, and what these politicians won’t tell you is that their position is unsupported by evidence and riddled with far-reaching, unconstitutional implications for everyone.

How Red Flag Laws Work

So what happens when someone is subjected to a red flag seizure? Any of a number of acquaintances – a family member, teacher, roommate, or even a co-worker or former co-worker, can file a petition with the court to have an individual’s rights stripped from them.

This means that people with a merely tangential relationship to a respondent can file a petition, and because most red flag laws have no measures to deter malicious filing, they leave the door open for malicious people to bring forth unsupported accusations.

When the petition is filed, an initial hearing is typically held without the subject person present, so he is completely unable to defend himself. The standard of proof is substantially lower here than what would be required had an actual crime occurred, and as such it’s incredibly easy for the order to attach with little to no evidence.

do something protest

Bigstock

The Danger of Gun Confiscation Orders

Once a seizure order is issued by the closed court, state-sanctioned “swatting” occurs. The police can show up unannounced at the person’s door, potentially catching him off-guard. This is a recipe for catastrophe, because the police can be mistaken for intruders.

Even if the police identify themselves during a seizure, a combination of insufficient training and heightened anxiety still puts human life in unnecessary peril; red flag laws have already resulted in at least one confirmed death when a surprised homeowner answered the door and was shot by police during a brief argument.

Assuming the police are successful in safely executing the seizure order, not only do they take the respondent’s firearms, ammunition, and magazines, several states also revoke the subject person’s concealed carry license, which can be costly and time-consuming to replace or reinstate. Following the initial seizure, the order remains standing for two to three weeks unless a final hearing is held.

No Right to an Attorney

Unlike in a criminal trial, the subject person has no right to legal representation during final hearings, which often means spending thousands of dollars in legal fees if they want a competent defense. Even if a person is innocent and goes deep out of pocket for a lawyer, they might still lose their rights.

Standard of Evidence

The evidentiary standard for a final hearing is even lower than the initial hearing – “preponderance of the evidence” – which means the difference between the state keeping or returning the respondent’s firearms is essentially a coin toss. If the person loses, the state may keep his property for up to a year, and in New Jersey, indefinitely unless a court terminates the order at a later date.

Red flag laws raise several red flags of their own: they victimize the poor, deny due process, and allow the state to seize property for a substantial amount of time when a crime hasn’t even occurred, leaving people defenseless in their own homes.

Legislators can’t prove they are effective in deterring violence, and they ironically amplify the stigma against people with mental health issues. Not only are these laws ineffective, they may even deter people from seeking the help that they desperately need, creating the threat politicians claimed to be addressing.

To learn more about the specifics of these laws, their history, and FPC’s policy position, you can read more here. To take action against Red Flag Laws, go to StopRedFlagLaws.com

comments

  1. …Or are just plain Unconstitutional! The very Definition of TYRANNY, issued by Authoritarians of the Star Chamber! Executed by The “Sheriff of Nottingham, and his henchmen no less!”

  2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

    This is tyranny plain and simple. We are rapidly approaching 1776 levels of tyranny.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Oh, we passed those levels of tyranny decades ago, but we’ve got TV, internet, central heating, indoor plumbing and a million other things that make us too comfortable to revolt.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      No we are not. Re-read the Declaration of Independence. It is a long list of the reasons we broke away from the English Crown. It takes a hell of a lot of exaggeration to claim we currently live under anything like this list:

      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

      ” …
      He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

      He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

      He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

      He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

      He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

      He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

      He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

      He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

      He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

      He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

      He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

      He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

      For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

      For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

      For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

      For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

      For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

      For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

      For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

      He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

      He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

      He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

      He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

      He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
      … “

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        We have a whole new list of transgressions to lay at the feet of the federal government.

      2. avatar Last Hope says:

        Enuf – The Crown was unable to successfully disarm the colonies in advance of instituting marshal law which was sure to come. The same kind of people with same kind of tyrannical mentality have learned the lessons from their fellow tyrannical travelers since that time, FIRST disarm the citizens, then make them serfs who are only allowed to do the “elites” bidding. Basically slaves allowed to exist but never to challenge the elites who bilk the people for billions and send their antifa fascist thig to kill those who dare step out of line. First step to tyranny is always remove the ability of the general populace to resist in any meaningful way the rest is easy after that. For now these evil leftists are afraid of the people because they are afraid to push their tyrannical objectives too far and risk arevolt but once we the people cannot resist all restraints will be gone, along with the Constitution and our liberties. Then the last light of freedom will be extinguished, likely forevermore.

        1. avatar Texican says:

          Only until Jesus returns! There will be a lot of surprised tyrants then! However, we do need to resist tyranny just like the Founders of this country did.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          Dude… Leave the religion out of politics. You look foolish.

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          That’s “martial law” — I’m not sure what “marshal law” would even be… rule by federal marshals?

        4. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Dude… Leave the religion out of politics. You look foolish.

          Getting you to think that was one of the left’s biggest triumphs of the 20th century.

      3. avatar Jake says:

        Nice list, apparently your not paying attention, let’s use tyrant Hillary with her kill list, her hiding information that should’ve been public, and all the tyranny that went into her hiding information? It had to gone through king obama with his blessings or the hand up the puppet a$$ told him to, and how many have the the tyrant fed killed? Bet it’s more than public knowledge! Where did the idea of red flag laws come from? Wasn’t a public forum, it was behind closed doors in some mansion hidden from public view! I’m sure someone out there has a way to turn the tide on red flag nazi laws, like a group of freedom fighters turn in someone and wait for swat(Stika) to show up? Yes I believe our government is way off the rails, how many committed treasonous acts to try and take down a sitting president? How many have been charged with treason, sedition, or high crimes 3 years after the fact? NONE!

      4. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Too long. You’re supposed to write a comment, not an essay. I don’t care how good it is. I quit after paragraph 3.

        1. avatar J Gibbons says:

          Worth a read as he copied right out of the Declaration of Independence.

  3. avatar Rocketman says:

    Red flag laws need to be taken to the Supreme Court. The fact that no one in the government or the major media ever brings this up, I believe, is the reason that they instinctively know that what they are doing is a clear violation of the Constitution and would be declared null and void. And if the Supreme Court would say that Red Flag laws are legal it would show that would show to the average citizen of this country that the justice system in this country is a total sham and needs eradicating.

  4. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Im not aware of how many so called Red Flag confiscation orders have actually been carried out yet. In the states that have them. Of which here in Florida its on the books. Eventually someone will get his or her day before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately we just have to wait till some collector with a large amount of weaponry and dollars to back themselves up might have to occur. I know if I was overheard saying I want to kill or shoot up such and such. To most I do have a a lot more then most in my group of toys. I couldn’t afford to fight the system as they say. We will have to wait till there is someone who can or a pro gun group to foot the bills.

    1. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      It’s the ‘yet’.

      We cannot underestimate the lengths they will go through to disarm as many as they can. They are playing a long game, our attention span is as far in the future as the NY Pistol SCOTUS case.

      If they get a ‘Red Flag’ law, they will exploit it in ways we haven’t even considered yet. Remember that little blurb about how non-government resources will be sniffing out potential mass shooters?

      Just imagine if the ‘Joyce Foundation’ were to ‘volunteer’ to help with the data mining…

    2. avatar Double Ought Spy says:

      Read an article a couple weeks ago about an Orlando attorney who has successfully won 5 of 6 red flag cases she defended. She also said that in Florida since Parkland there have been 2500 red flags thrown. Her name is Kendra Parris. She is also appealing the law to second district to have it declared unconstitutional.

  5. avatar John W Weber says:

    It’s the same as domestic violence if a woman wants to cheat on her husband or for financial gain all she has to do is file a complaint of domestic violence. No proof needed so my by her word. How do I know I’ve been a victim of a false report 3X by the same woman. It cost me attorney fees, almost lost my 2md amendment rights. The 3rd time she filed a protection was to move our daughter across the country. When the courts were presented overwhelming evidence that she had lied once more to get her way. I asked the judge if something would be done about her false reports, he said we will look into it next time. I looked at my attorney and said about my wife just let her do whatever she wants, because God only knows the next false report she will make. All I can say is this they will probably get 1 out of 100 reports that are legitimate, but the anti gunners found a new way to disarm the law abiding citizens.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      The family court system is complete disgrace to fathers and husbands; men are only seen as a checking account which is to be bled-out at the female’s discretion… And, you’ll never hear the feminist harpies complaining about that systemic justice.

      I’m sorry to hear that you were one of its many victims.

      1. avatar Guesty McKracken says:

        I love women. When they let me.

    2. avatar B.D. says:

      Been there done that dude. Luckily I had a judge who apparently knew that these women are 99% full of shit. I got lucky, but my checkbook still didn’t. She kept her fee’s (which she put on a credit card and cannot pay off) and I paid mine. She’s tried a couple things since the initial break up and divorce stuff like custody battles etc etc, but my lawyer shuts that shit down. Still, the court is a long process and they always seem to find some way for a continuance because they don’t have any case.

      If I am EVER in a relationship again, there will be a pre-nump. No if ands or buts.

    3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Has everyone forgotten the Soviet Union?? The falsely accused disappeared. It was a place full of “Red Flags”. (No pun intended.) If someone in the party didn’t like you, you got a 2 minute “trial” and you were sent to Siberia. Our politicians know exactly what they’re doing. It’s a great way to get rid of their competition…and undesirables (aka deplorables). They may be evil….but they’re not stupid. We’re stupid for taking it at face value.
      Your ex-wife isn’t stupid. She knows how to work the system. (Sorry about that.)

  6. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    The so-called safeguard of “Red Flag” laws is that there’s a clause for prosecution of false reporting. Who believes that anyone will ever be prosecuted for making a “Red Flag” report? Given court upheld “prosecutorial discretion” District Attorneys will never pursue the false reporting with the same vigor they pursue the “Red Flag” orders with.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      They don’t prosecute 4473 liars now so why would they prosecute liars for red flags?

  7. avatar DanC says:

    red flag laws are supported by:
    1. stupid people
    2. socialists
    3. communists
    and
    4. criminals

    1. avatar TonYL says:

      The very same people that fall for government controlled health care and coerced/mandated/forced vaccinations. WTF is pgtwo?

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        WTF is pgtwo?

        You.

    2. avatar joefoam says:

      You’ll have to add non gun owners to you list. If you don’t own a weapon you simply don’t care what happens to someone who does. Sadly gun owners are at a disadvantage numerically, there are twice the amount of non gun owners as owners, who will be subject to democratic tyranny.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        There are many “gun owners” out there that feel safe in their owning guns and that no one will come after them. After all, they are white, always owned firearms and are “good people”. They live in nice communities, not the ghetto.
        I went to a Halloween party(for old people), and one guy dressed as the Godfather, he had a real nice Smith and Wesson strapped to his waist. I live in Calif and told him that to be safe he should put it in his trunk before he left the party, and he told me it was his right to have it. I have to agree with that, but he does not have a CCW on L.A.Co. I am glad he made it home without being pulled over or having to go through an alcohol check point.
        These people believe that it can’t happen to them, and believe that these laws are focused on the lower classes, so are for the red flag laws.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” red flag laws are supported by:
      1. stupid people
      2. socialists
      3. communists
      and
      4. criminals ”

      That list accounts for about 90% of the government, and ALL of the Democratic Party.

  8. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    This secret crap is outrageous. Kind of reminds me of some FISA court horse hockey a couple thre years ago. They are trying to cut a REALLY fine line with the 4th,5th, and 6th amendments by trying to call this kind of poice state stuff civil and not criminal but confiscating property that is possessed in the exercising of a specific Constitutional right kind of put such acts into the criminal classification because they are taking property without due process and the “accused” being given an opportunity AND attorney to defend himself because apparently, it will require some kind of legal proceeding to have the property returned which could be interpreted to mean that the accused had his property permanently confiscated meaning he has been determined to be some kind of criminal according to the last couple of lines of the 5th, especially if the accused can’t afford legal representation. It would be time to start yelling “Miranda”!!!

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Its only secret until deployment. The next minute it’s public record and you’re a marked man

  9. avatar Joe Blow says:

    “The police can show up unannounced at the person’s door, potentially catching him off-guard. This is a recipe for catastrophe, because the police can be mistaken for intruders.”

    ‘Mistaken for intruders’ – If there was one thing I could change about the typical idiot’s attitude today, it would be to solidify an important principle.

    ALL typical police behaviors (such as shooting people, kidnapping, stealing property, forcing a car off the road, spraying people with pepper spray, etc) is, prima facie, criminal behavior. This is always criminal action and should immediately be treated as such and stopped with lethal force, unless the actions are in accordance with federal constitutional law, state constitutional law, and department policy SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    If the action is found to have been in violation of any of these guidelines after the fact, any privilege the offending “officer” (now read felon) claimed is null and void from the instant that any of the guiding laws or principles were violated. Constitutional interpretations could be applied retroactively as well.

    In other words, everybody knows that a red flag order is unconstitutional because of all the different well-established liberties that are ignored. No one would bet their own money on these holding up especially if vigorously enforced.

    Anyone trying to enforce one of these now has betrayed the sacred oath to uphold the constitution and he knows it, but it just hasn’t been formally declared as such yet. This delay should not provide legal protection or revenge for a well-deserved bullet to the head when someone chooses to kick in a door without knocking.

  10. avatar Rick3 says:

    Included link goes to a “404 page”

  11. avatar Dude says:

    “they ironically amplify the stigma against people with mental health issues”
    I’ve noticed that. Plenty of people that aren’t a threat to anyone deal with things like depression and anxiety.

  12. avatar Frank Vazquez says:

    I can’t fathom the idea that anyone would want to turn back the clock on the progress this country has made and the system of government that has allowed us as a nation to thrive.
    This liberal idea of some kind of gun free, weapon free, and violence free utopia is sheer fantasy and just one part of the media hype and social media circus to gain the support and votes of stupid people who can’t see the effects and fallacies of the liberal agenda’s political strategies.
    When a rich and famous liberal finds themselves defenseless or railroaded by someone, something or the victim of certain laws that eradicate due process, then we will hear about what’s right or wrong and what is fair or unfair and finally what is not constitutional.
    But for now, all that matters is that the left screws up the lives of anyone who is conservative and pro-Second Amendment. These idiots and their puppet followers deserve to suffer but why should the rest of us have to take this crap, who stand for this country, the flag, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. When will Republicans and those who see the reality of current events take a stand and make some noise. It’s like they ignore what the left is doing to this country.

  13. avatar Dude says:

    Death threats can be an illegal assault. If it’s credible and proven, it can even be a felony. How about using existing laws to be more proactive and less reactive? Prosecute death threats. If a criminal loses that case, he will be flagged per existing law and can’t legally purchase a gun. That won’t stop him from attaining one if he really wants it, but neither will red flag laws. At least this way he gets due process without any new laws required.

    1. avatar Ragnar says:

      Unfortunately, we can’t even agree on what constitutes a “death threat”. Is “Come and Take It” or “Molon Labe” considered a “death threat”? Saying “my AR-15 is ready for you” a death threat warranting a Red Flag order?

  14. avatar Stephen Craig says:

    What I don’t understand is why haven’t these been challenged in court, with the idea to get it in front of the Supreme Court. Doesn’t make sense that a suit hasn’t been filed against them. Where is the NRA or other gun rights groups when you need them. These scare me the most out of all the things being talked about now.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      They will be. At some point, a family with money and connections will experience a “SWAT” raid under ERPO, and someone innocent will die, with private security video footage to show the world what happened. The LEOs will claim they did everything per the law, and the outcry to change or reverse the law will ramp up.

      1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        They didn’t take SWATing seriously until some important people experienced it. Hopefully someone important and innocent will experience a Red Flag and things will change….for the better. ( Of course it would have to be a Democrat for the media to take notice.)

  15. avatar Oscar Lee James III says:

    “Firearms Policy Coalition Issues Policy Statement on Calls for “Red Flag” Laws, More Gun Control, and President Trump’s Remarks”
    https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-red-flag-laws-trump-remarks

  16. avatar mac says:

    The perfect Leftist Democrat ending for the problem of “gun violence.” Red Flag laws get the police knocking on the door of the law abiding gun owner, a responsible person who otherwise would not attract the attention of law enforcement. He shoots at the cops when they begin to batter down his door; they shoot back to defend themselves and complete their mission.

    Black Lives Matter is happy because police officers are killed. The Treyvon Martin and Mike Brown gangster types are happy because an armed citizen, who might have shot one of their “homies” has been neutralized. The Dem politicians are happy because their lunatic base is likewise happy with the resulting loss of police and armed citizen lives. Lastly, psychopathic mass murderers can go on doing their thing, completely unabated by Red Flag laws!

  17. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    In response to Stephen Craig’s comment/question as why no one has challenged Red Flag laws in court, I point out that the case now before SCOTUS [at least it will be when they reconvene] has been in the pipeline for at least 6 years. It was in 2013 when the Circuit Court ruled against the US Constitution and sided with New York City.

    So far there is one confirmed death due to Red Flag laws and not a single case of anyone having been saved. After the victim was dead, the daughter stated that he ‘was not a danger to anyone’, but who cares just as long as guns were seized. There is also at least one case of a non-gun owner who is now flagged. Of course the person flagged has never been adjudicated as being mentally deficit nor has he be involuntarily committed for mental health evaluation. He had a clean police record before the Red Flag order was entered.

    In most states laws are already on the books that would do the same thing, ie take someone who poses or may pose a danger off the streets. The drawback to using existing laws is that actual due process has to be followed. Court with both the accuser and the accused present with attorneys, witnesses, evidence–everything that Red Flag laws do not require.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” been in the pipeline for at least 6 years ”

      This is the best argument for putting sunset clauses on every law. Make it a constitutional amendment.

  18. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    As usual the article made the most wildest accusations and did not take into consideration that red flag laws will vary from state to state and if passed on the Federal level will be open to amendments to the proposed law to protect the rights of people. Even if a Federal Law is passed or one at the State Level its various aspects can be challenged in court and will be.

    There is an old saying “Do not throw the baby out with the bath water” and Red Flag laws are long overdue and will save lives.

    1. avatar Basarab Laiotă says:

      Have you considered that some of your posts may be considered hate speech by someone, who could then file a red flag complaint against you, maybe even anonymously depending on which state? Or someone could file false complaint out of thin air if they didn’t like you?

      I am not threatening you or anyone else; just another person pointing out the danger of enabling the government to act based on a very low standard of evidence (feelz) with no repercussions to the filer/accuser. If you think swatting is a problem, just wait till red-flagging becomes a thing. Or a weapon to use against those with different political views.

      Aren’t there existing laws that enable a concerned person to tell the school officials, police, FBI, etc. that Johnny Smith says he is going to shoot up the high school with a shotgun and then shoot himself? Why do we need red flag laws in order to save lives?

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        A red flag law just addresses guns and ammo and they do not have to take the person into custody or even do a well check for a 5150 hold. This is much easier on the government – the person is not in their hands and the guns are.

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Swatting people who open carried was fun but it did not get people killed by the police and it got some police departments sued. Red flag laws have already gotten people killed and it protects police who do the killing. Red flag laws mean more blood and we are blood dancers if we are anything.

      1. avatar Sam Hill says:

        Ask the guy in Ohio how much fun he gonna have doing 15 months in prison for a death caused by swatting. He should have got a public hanging in the downtown square.

    3. avatar Matthias Corvinus says:

      How ironic. The liberals are throwing out the baby with the bath water by insisting on unconstitutional laws. Taking away half of the Bill of Rights will not save any lives.

  19. avatar Hannibal says:

    Not only that but it’s essentially a free pass to conduct a fishing expedition and find anything illegal the person might have in the house.

    The only way to really avoid this danger is to live as a hermit off the grid or never tell anyone you own guns. And somehow I think that second option is one that the liberals would love almost as much as taking all guns away.

  20. avatar Redd Flagg says:

    In 1999, Connecticut was the first to enact a red flag law, following a rampage shooting at the Connecticut Lottery. It was followed by Indiana (2005), California (2014), Washington (2016), and Oregon (2017). … Three other states have also enacted red-flag laws so far in 2019: Colorado, Nevada, and Hawaii.

    1. avatar Redd Flagg says:

      States with Extreme Risk Protection Orders; After the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, that number more than doubled, as more states enacted such laws: Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, and the District of Columbia.

      1. avatar SoBe says:

        And ours was supported by Republican legislators and signed into law by a Republican governor.

  21. avatar B.D. says:

    Fucking tyranny. There is only one way to fight tyranny like this. Legal battles will take place for decades. A gun fight can change it in minutes.

    Come and take them.

  22. avatar MDH says:

    You had me at the first three words of the headline.

  23. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

    Are there Red Flag Laws on the playground? A 7th grader can easily kill a 3rd grader with few well placed kicks. Just saw (in England) kids using another kid’s head (14yr old) as a soccer ball (aka foootball). What will the punishment be?
    It was watched and filmed by other kids and parents!!! Watched and filmed??? Who are these people?

  24. avatar Icabod says:

    There was Gary Willis in Maryland. One Saturday night, as his niece reported, “ It was family being family.” At 5:17 AM police we’re at the door with a red flag order. Other then the police, there were not witnesses or recordings made as to what happen. The officers story was Willis was armed at the door, put the gun down to read the order, then picked the gun up. He died.
    There has been no investigation or media follow up. The police chief closed the case.

    Then there’s Vermont. Two teenagers talked about shooting up a school. One said he could pick the local on his uncles gun cabinet. Police arrested the teens, then arrived at the uncle’s house. They found the guns properly secured in a commercial gun safe. Further, in this case Vermont law only applies to the parents. The uncle was exempt from the red flag law. Despite the teen being locked up, no evidence they had the skills to pick the lock, and no legality under the law, they seized the guns.

  25. avatar Docduracoat says:

    Do we have to wait for someone to be
    “Red flagged” before it goes to the courts?
    This is a perfect case for the Supreme Court to rule on constitutionality.
    Presumption of innocence, privacy, searches, confront accusers, lots of issues here.

    1. avatar SoBe says:

      Not so easy. You have to wait for someone to be Red Flagged, go to trial, lose at trial, appeal and lose the appeal (usually more than one loss on appeal), apply for SCOTUS cert, win cert (few cases are granted cert), and the go before the SCOTUS.
      SCOTUS does not have original jurisdiction on any current Red Flag laws nor on any Federal Red Flag laws if any are passed. It is in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has vigorously defended this interpretation.
      “Article III, section 2, of the Constitution distributes the federal judicial power between the Supreme Court’s appellate and original jurisdiction, providing that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in “all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls,” and in cases to which a state is a party. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress made the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction exclusive in suits between two or more states, between a state and a foreign government, and in suits against ambassadors and other public ministers”.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        In short they are banking on the laws being too hard to challenge and therefore in effect for years, even decades.
        Plenty of unconstitutional laws exist simply because it’s too hard to get them before the Grand City Council of the United States.

  26. avatar jbob says:

    Forgot to mention that in many states law enforcement has the power to trigger a red flag something that is going to be abused to hell and back to bypass pesky things like search warrants. In my mind this is the most nefarious aspect of Red Flag Laws.

  27. avatar Chuck says:

    ERPO’s are unecessary. Someone that’s a threat to themselves or others, can already be held for 72 hour evaluation/observation under current law in all 50 States. If no threat is observed during that time, they’re released. If a problem does exist, the person can be held until such time the treating physician determines they can be released.
    We don’t need more laws, we need to enforce the ones already in place. Stop the Monty Hall “Lets Make A Deal” plea bargains. Maximum sentence under the law, and no parole for good behaviour. No more hand slap punishments. Hold LEO’s, Judges, Lawyers an Professionals that don’t follow prescribed practice (Broward County is a good example), responsible and charge them if they fail to do their job. Disbarre, dejudge, fire or flat out imprison judges that don’t follow the Constitution and try to legislate from the bench. Better yet, send them all on a cruise in a leaky boat. Start prosecuting public officials that violate their oath of office.
    Quit putting up with this crap and tell the whiners to piss off.

  28. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Red Flags” of another kind in action (via Instapundit)…

    https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/men-reporting-women-on-tinder

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      Blatantly stupid internet nonsense in no way rises to the level of what these red flag laws are doing. Everyone on tinder should feel bad for taking it seriously

  29. avatar Andy says:

    Has a single crime been prevented by enacting a red flag law on an individual? “I think so” isn’t a legal precedent for determining a a law’s effectiveness. Our legal system is designed to prevent crime by threat of punishment and to punish criminals for violations. It is not designed to act on a whim or because one thinks, but cannot prove, violence might take place. These are unconstitutional laws clear and simple.

  30. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Arrest and confinement of an “immanent risk” is already in place in multiple laws, police protocols and more.

    The point of “red flag” proposals seems to be not so much removing threats and dangers, but removing any consequences form people who want to accuse someone else of being a threat and danger.

    1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      You know, as a good cizen I want ot “red flag” about a dozen folks hwo have blatantly threatened violence, abuse, and more against about half the country, plus specific individuals by name. Given that they’re associated with groups, support movements (Antifa / Occupy), and have inspired whack-jobs (Congressional softball shooter-guy), these flags are extra red.

      There’s hours of video of this. This Is CNN!

  31. the world is better off with those fucking politicians
    زوج درمانی قطعی

    1. avatar Broke_It says:

      What’s it like being a robot?

  32. avatar Johnny Bullets says:

    The right to due process out-weighs any person’s right to life.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email