The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.
The danger of red-flag laws is not in the idea itself, but in the way many states have implemented laws that neglect any meaningful sense of due process and that fail to provide necessary safeguards against abuse or misuse.
We must ensure not just that dangerous people are disarmed, but that they are disarmed through a fair process that prevents non-dangerous individuals from inadvertently losing their Second Amendment rights as well.
One of the primary and, frankly, legitimate concerns is that these laws function to make “best guesses” as to who will commit violent actions in the future.
On the one hand, many other widely-accepted laws, such as restraining orders and prohibitions on firearm possession for those adjudicated mentally ill, are based on assessments that a particular person will likely pose a danger.
On the other hand, this is not “Minority Report,” and we don’t have a Pre-Crime Division with psychic powers.
Because of this, we must demand that red-flag laws use narrow definitions of “dangerousness” that focus on patterns of objectively dangerous behaviors. In particular, laws that paint gun ownership as inherently suspect — such as by allowing judges to consider the recent purchase of a firearm as a factor indicating “dangerousness” — should be rejected. So should any broad criteria that would result in disarmament because of disfavored, vulgar or politically incorrect speech.
Moreover, because these laws involve restrictions on a fundamental constitutional right, they should require that allegations of dangerousness meet high burdens of proof, such as clear and convincing evidence.
Other types of traditional due-process protections, such as the right to an attorney and to cross-examine witnesses, should be afforded as well.
– Amy Swearer in What’s in a Good Red-Flag Law