Swearer: This is What a Good Red Flag Law Would Look Like

national gun control confiscation

(AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

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

 

comments

  1. avatar Dan W says:

    We need to compromise on the gun control issue with the Democrats. We will meet them halfway just like they say they want.

    A complete and total ban along with violent confiscations of all firearms from all Democrats. This will get them what they want, good and hard.

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      The Democrats should lose all credibility as a valid political party in the US. The Republicans are only marginally better by comparison.
      This isn’t Europe. People are tiring of their secular humanism, lies, subversion, and corrupt coercive methods.

      1. avatar Freebird says:

        More coverage of Corey Bookers mask slip on last weeks Meet the De-pressed.

        Chuck Todd walks him into it ….. ” Take whatever gun control you can get NOW , then keep coming back for more ”

        Some compromise.

    2. avatar Chris Sauer says:

      WE MUST NEVER COMPROMISE ON GUN CONTROL!

      We must work on criminal control & conviction. We can never whittle away at any right or we end up with the whole right being in small pieces on the ground. Guns don’t hurt/kill people, people use them to. (And they use bats and hammers and knives and cars…Etc.) Criminals don’t follow laws. If they did we would not have over 20,000 gun laws on the books, none of which work. Why add more? So more law abiding citizens can loose their god given rights? So they can be called criminals because a new law made them so?

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Criminal control, not gun control. Amen. Democrats and the media have crafted the narrative that the guns are the problem. Most people just seem to accept this without thinking about it.

      2. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

        The problem is that it is easier to blame a gun, since most criminals are low income minorities. Demanding civilization out of low income minority communities is considered racist, so both parties go after everyone’s rights.

    3. avatar Rick says:

      The courts have established that you cannot abrogate or compromise a right. The answer is always to use the legal system as it was established and allow no short cuts in the name of expediency. I agree with the article in that due process can be followed and IF a citizen has a mental problem or committed actions that demonstrate that he or she is a danger to anothers life then by all means, you put them on the NO BUY list and you remove the firearms owned – for a period of time. There must also be a way to appeal this action and regain your 2nd amendment rights, your firearms and you right to buy firearms. If this is not done, a government that is anti-gun could systematically assume that all armed citizens are a danger and use red flag laws to disarm it’s citizens. Or just those who decent politically.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I can not only foresee massive abuse, I will be planning on contributing to it. I’ll be right up front phoning police departments across the nation to warn them of liberal politicians who pose an unreasonable risk to their neighbors and must be disarmed. I am aware that they are armed due to unnamed sources, and that their guns and ammo are hidden in the walls of their houses. You may have to rip out the studs to find them, but this is really urgent.

        Another way to state that, is to say that any demonstrated abuse of the system must be punished with minimum prison sentences of more than a year, combined with future phone numbers coded “do not respond” for the police.

        1. avatar Southern Cross says:

          And also do the same thing to known criminals. Even though the Democrats don’t want to.

  2. avatar Joseph says:

    That’s better than some laws currently in effect in some states, but red flag laws in general are still an attempt to pick up a turd from the clean end.

  3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    The danger of red-flag laws is not in the idea itself…

    No. I’m thinking the danger is in the idea itself: depriving people of their fundamental rights when they haven’t even committed a crime. We already have laws in every state that bar people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, because they represent a threat to themselves or others, from owning guns. That has due process, and it is *still* heavily abused and selectively applied.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Exactly. The whole idea is an assault on the 2nd Amendment and on gun owners. The objective is to make every gun owner aware that exercising their rights comes at the cost of knowing that at any minute the law may come busting through their door to take their property on the accusation of a single person. And how exactly do you think the cops will be coming through your door when a court of law determines that you’re a dangerous person with guns? It’s just a way for anyone to SWAT someone without the consequences.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        Red Flag Laws are an assault on the First Amendment, freedom of speech applies to the internet and freedom of association includes the NRA; the Fourth Amendment, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause; the Fifth Amendment, deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation; the Seventh Amendment, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; the Eighth Amendment, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments; the Ninth Amendment, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people; the Fourteenth Amendment, 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.
        Need I say more, oh, yes the Second Amendment.
        Allowing Red Flag Laws to exist is allowing the nullification of civil rights. Sure today it is about guns, tomorrow it will be about speech, association, voting, and every right enumerated and every right not enumerated until they effect the return of slavery, but this time we will all be the slaves.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights were designed to stop these petty tyrants from imposing their will on the citizenry. So it should be no surprise how ardent they are about undermining these restrictions on their power.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Cloudbuster,

      Not only is the basic idea (“The danger of red-flag laws is not in the idea itself …”) wrong, so is this gem:

      We must ensure not just that dangerous people are disarmed …

      Government cannot come anywhere close to ensuring that anyone is disarmed. A police raiding party that shows up will only find the firearms at the premises that are easy to find. That raiding party will not find firearms hidden behind drywall, in an attic, buried in a tube in the back yard, or offsite. And a police raiding party will certainly not prevent someone from manufacturing additional firearms, borrowing firearms from unwitting friends, or purchasing firearms in private transactions.

      As countless people have stated countless times, either someone is too dangerous to be free among us or they are not. If they are too dangerous to have firearms among us, they are also too dangerous to have knives, vehicles, gasoline/matches, chemicals/poisons, and countless other objects.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        We must ensure not just that dangerous people are disarmed …

        We’re all dangerous. Ergo…

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      How about we apply just a portion of the effort to removing firearms from those who *HAVE* been convicted of a crime? Criminals all over the US are carrying loaded guns RIGHT NOW, THIS INSTANT! They would be worried about their violation of the law, except they are CRIMINALS!! If you collect all the guns from 20 people who *might* commit a crime someday, while leaving one proven criminal armed, you are not going to affect the crime rate. If you leave those citizens alone and shoot that criminal dead without due process (because we are totally talking about disregarding due process, right?) you will decrease crime.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        But the Democrats have stated they will not use Red Flag laws on known criminals.

      2. avatar G. W. says:

        How-a-bout we get back to the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Red flag laws are not Constitutional on several fronts.
        I will not contribute to nor will I vote for anyone running for elected office that does not support the US Constitution! It is time for all Americans to stand together and take our country back from the Socialist. I don’t want or need the government to tell me “lights out”.

  4. avatar Biatec says:

    Yes exactly thank you. As long as we give every American due process it’s okay to take away their rights. Finally someone is making sense.

    I mean any violation of human rights is okay if they go through due process. Want to throw someone in prison for 10 years for a victim less crime? just use due process!

    (I’m being sarcastic in case anyone is struggling.)

    1. avatar Dude says:

      How about you get a jury trial for a credible death threat? Make it felony assault if it isn’t already. If you’re guilty, you get thrown in jail, put on the naughty list, guns taken, etc. Except for some reason, police and district attorneys don’t care much about threats unless it’s a high profile case. Wouldn’t this be active criminal control??

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        yep. that’s why I am just an absolutist on rights. No speech should be illegal. We draw lines and they get selectively enforced and end up just protecting those in power.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hey Biatec, don’t we still have people in prison for possession of drugs? Just asking, because seems to me “possession of” anything, from MJ through thermonuclear weapons, is a victimless crime. When we approach the thermonuclear weapons, I’ll grant some slack, as one use would be too extreme to risk. But if someone attempts to steal my car by brandishing a doobie, I don’t think that risk is too extreme, let’s let freedom ring and see what happens.

  5. avatar Country Boy says:

    There are, and never will be a “safe red flag law”. Because there will always be anti gunners who will call LEOS on ANY firearm owner.

    I’ve already been a victim of a “moved from NY anti gun nut” (my neighbor) and ended up with a search warrant being served on my home on a Sunday evening. I was and still am 100% legal and when she found out that she couldn’t get me arrested nor locked up because I’ve broken no laws, she poisoned my dog. And all this happened long before political talk of any gun control/red flag laws.(2016)
    I can only imagine what I’ll be in for once my state passes a “red flag law”.
    This is the type of scum we’re dealing with.

    MOLON LABE

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      This is the kind of person that needs to actually fear gun owners and not just hate them.

    2. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      The possibility of a neighbor becoming combative is a good reason to fly “under the radar” until you figure them out. There are those of us living in Indian Country (i.e. liberal states) who develop a defensive “gray man” mentality. My neighbors are so close by that if I fart they’d complain … so I modify my external behavior to conform.
      In my former life this was called OPSEC. After thirty-some years experiencing it and watching the contemporary socio-cultural and political environment deteriorate at home, it just makes sense. The mindset comes from being surrounded, outnumbered, shot at, rocketed, and mortared in another life.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, but most don’t have 30 years of experience. They read the Constitution and think they should be good to go. If our government is nothing but a threat to our freedom, let’s cut it loose and be on our way.

  6. avatar Dennis says:

    In today’s dangerously divided country, any attempt to let “concerned citizens” drop a dime is just begging for abuse! Remember the days of presumed innocence and due process?

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      In certain environments, those “concerned citizens” usually end up becoming activists convinced the activities and property of others they don’t agree with compels them to violate law in the name of common sense and public safety. I’ve run off corporate activists here in NJ over public utility snooping when one of their drones tried convincing me to add a power monitoring device in my home on behalf of the power companies.
      I told her to get lost.
      If power usage in NJ was a real issue during summertime, the biggest energy-wasting consumers like supermarkets and department stores should be willing to adjust their consumption, not the “Little Guy”. Phucking with the domestic consumers by mandating remotely operated thermostats isn’t good business, but you can’t tell these modern-day Red Guard idiots anything because the KNOW IT ALL.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        Hahaha, I had one of those “power regulating” devices in my home in St Pete, FL. They were only SUPPOSED to be able to shut down items (like my AC) for a MAX of 20 minutes per hour. I was dealing with high temps in my home and could not understand why, I timed how long they were shutting down my AC per hour, 40 minutes!!! WTF? I called them to have the device removed (it was early July), and explained they are violating the terms of the “limiter” agreement, was told they were VERY busy and the soonest they could get a tech out for removal was November. I told them to swing a truck by my house to pick up the device, I’ll have it out in the driveway in 30 minutes, and hung up. I got a call back in under 30 seconds, I was scheduled for the following morning.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Another tiresome war story. In 1977-78, I was in USAF, and we of course had to be on the leading edge of “energy saving” initiatives, because nobody else was paying the least attention. Pretty simple, really, all our offices had to have the thermostats set to the “very uncomfortable” position, in south Texas. We were a very disciplined group, we took off the cover, bent the needle, replaced the cover, and then set it even higher than ordered. Every week or two, someone would come by without notice and check the setting, then be on their way without noticing the icicles hanging from our desks. Same shit happened for those living in base housing, and when it didn’t save energy, the A/C for base housing was shut off completely, in midsummer in south Texas, for people instructing students how to fly jets. They got no sleep, could not safely fly, so it fell to those of us who were not living in base housing to do the instructing, because we set our thermostats where we were comfortable, and slept fine. Do not give up all your decisions to government, whether health care, housing, personal defense, national defense, or anything else. Because government is a idiot.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I’m waiting for a person to start red flagging all the pols who pass red flag legislation if/when they start saying things they shouldn’t. As an exmaple I’m surprised Maxine Waters wasn’t red flagged for her “make a crowd” remark.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The ruling class will never subject their own to the abuse they inflict on the country class.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        No? Find a crazy liberal NYC judge and someone who feels threatened in a safe space and red flag Trump.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          You think that Trump is from the ruling class? That’s cute. The reason why they hate him is because he’s not.

        2. avatar MADDMAXX says:

          C’mon Karl, do you really think Trump is packing? The point of red flag is to disarm potentially “supposed” dangerous people.. So that would mean taking the nuclear codes from Trump, placing the entire military under control of the VP, taking all weapons from his detail and removing all firearms from the Marine Guard… In spite of your apparent faith and confidence in the Federal Judiciary NO judge on this planet has that much power or is actually STUPID enough to try (although I could be remiss on that 2nd one) anyway dream on dreamer watch the House make fools of themselves and piss away any hope of taking the White House and IN FACT losing the House and seats in the Senate… What WILL they do with 4 more years of Trump?

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    The only good red flag law is No red flag law as it is a violation of of Americans civil rights.

  9. avatar Shire-man says:

    Quite literally everything is a weapon ergo it is impossible to keep weapons from dangerous people. Deciding a person is a danger or threat and then permitting that person to walk freely among the people he is a danger to is some Grade A grass-fed organic clown world bullshit anyone with an IQ over 40 can see.

    The real purpose of this nonsense is to further stigmatize gun owners at large.

    1. avatar Dan from Detroit says:

      When I was a young boy, my dad tried to explain that “things” are not dangerous, but dangerous people can use things dangerously.
      He then asked me to come up with a way that a small pillow could be used as a dangerous weapon. As a kid, I had no idea. So he smacked me in the face with it to stun me, knocked me down, and used it to pin me and (very briefly and instructionally) keep me from breathing freely.
      Lesson learned: A determined person can mess up your day no matter what they can/can’t get access to.
      So in detroit, when I’ve seen old men walking around with baseball bat or a single golf club – I figure they have been victims before. Maybe they can’t afford guns or have prior convictions that prevent them from getting one – but they’re still just as “dangerous” to armed thugs as armed thugs are to them.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Except! Criminal thugs will shoot you and steal your golf club. Because all those laws do not affect criminals.

  10. avatar Aven says:

    Why stop with guns with red flag laws. To make everyone safe, they should station someone outside stores that sell alcohol and take the cars from anyone that comes out of the store with alcohol. They might drive after drinking alcohol so they should take their cars from them for safekeeping.

    1. avatar Sam Hill says:

      You are a young person, qnd there is nothing wrong with that we all were at one time. The reason I said that is a lot of road houses (bars and liquor stores out in the country) were put out of business because cops hung out close by and stopped everyone coming out of the establishment. It didn’t do anything to lower the fatalities, but it did raise a lot of money for lawyers.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I personally witnessed police at a nightclub at 2:00 a.m. who stopped every patron they could as soon as a patron started his/her vehicle in the nightclub’s parking lot.

  11. avatar Greg says:

    Red Flags are clearly “Bills of Attainder;” clearly Unconstitutional.

  12. avatar TFred says:

    The concept of a “due process red flag law” is an oxymoron.

    It cannot exist, because the two premises are mutually exclusive.

    Don’t let anyone fool you into believing otherwise.

    PROOF: If this were not so, then they would simply use EXISTING laws – which actually incorporate due process – to do what they say they want to do.

  13. avatar Chris Sauer says:

    There is no need for any red flag law. Every state already has a process where law enforcement can take steps if an individual can be considered a danger to himself or others. RFL’s just bypass due process and an individuals rights.

    RFL’s also make it easy for anyone to make false claims against another without fear of retaliation.

  14. avatar Seizure doc says:

    Two points to add to the discussion. By most definitions of red flag laws, including the author’s, there are thousands of black males in Chicago who should be disarmed. It is not racism to note that nearly all of Chicago’s gun murders are committed by blacks against blacks. Just who is going to do that ? The fact is that when the law is applied to favored groups it will collapse of its own weight from discrimination law suits.
    I am an old white guy. Post something stupid on Twitter and a complaint could be made. But what if I suddenly become a trans gender old white whatever. Now I can claim I am being discriminated against and have great need to have a firearm.
    I have made this point before. We should fight this not by resisting at the ballot box but by fighting in the courts. Every liberal that says something stupid should get a red flag charge. We know that a red flag charge can be false with no apparent consequence to the accuser. Accuse all of them until they tire of it.

  15. avatar MADDMAXX says:

    The problem with any law passed by any level of government is the same. There has NEVER been a law/rule/regulation that relied on reason, everthing is all or nothing scorched earth mayhem because those elected to “represent” us are too lazy to take the time to consult legal precedence, the Constitution and just plain common sense before putting together a piece of legislation. during the Obamacare “debates” a prominent member of congress in a live television interview was asked if he thought parts of the new healthcare bill were Constitutional and he replied “we don’t worry about the Constitution, we just pass legislation and the courts can decide if it is Constitutional or not… That is the mindset of the majority of our “representatives?” who SWORE to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America… Most of them have no idea what is in that document…

  16. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Good or bad, butts should be thoroughly kicked if guns are “lost” or “misplaced” when they can be returned to owner. Any replacement should in kind or at the retail value of new.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    The problem with Red Flag Laws isn’t the absence of due process or the failure to provide necessary safeguards against abuse or misuse.

    The problem with Red Flag Laws is that they are administered by people with a savage agenda that has nothing to do with protecting people.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      In other words, we need to get cracking and have those abominations declared unconstitutional?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        No, we need to get cracking and put the human tools of oppression into prison, as they would be in any decent society.

  18. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    One thing people seam to forget is that a “red flag” violation, whatever that is, is not a search warrant. Them, “We have a complaint that you are a threat to yourself or others. You must come with us and surrender your firearms.” Me, “I’ll go with you if I have to, but I don’t have any firearms and you do not have permission to enter my home.” Fuck ‘um if they can’t take a joke.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      Have you seen it actually work that way? Or is the ‘Red Flag’ an excuse for a judge to issue the search warrant?

      1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        Geoff, I retired before all this red flag stuff broke out. However, when I was working and I had to serve an Injunction for Protection, which prohibits possession of firearms, I would ask the Respondent if he had a firearm. If he answered “No.” End of story. Have a nice day. If he answered “Yes.” Then me, after a deep sigh, “Do you have a friend or relative that can take possession of your firearms?” I was loathe to take someone’s weapons. If the Respondent had someone that could take the firearms I would wait. Understand, I didn’t do this every time. It was a judgment call. But, every time I did it I risked my freedom. It was a violation of state statute and federal code. As I said, fuck ‘um if they can’t take a joke.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I don’t think it works that way anymore. I think that now everyone is aware of the evils of noncompliance with our overlords, and would simply tell you something akin to “we don’t need no stinking warrant”, after you were handcuffed, and then would swear that no such conversation occurred, but no sweat, there were no guns in the house anyway. And you can kiss your $20,000 collection goodbye. It is going to have to get real.

  19. avatar George says:

    How about some language protecting the value of the property seized ? Many folks have a large part of their net worth invested in firearms and we know they will not be properly handled or stored as they should be. Maybe even go back on the initial complainant for the damage costs ?G

  20. avatar Aleric says:

    Yeah because the Leftist Anti Gunners would never pervert a law to advance their Agenda, just look at Chicago and NYC for the last 50 years until the SCOTUS forced them to comply.

  21. avatar Nanashi says:

    The only good red flag law is one that would exclusively target politicians and the NRA’s traitorous senior staff.

  22. avatar borg says:

    It is moronic that subjects of these red flag laws are denied the ownership rights of guns and yet they are free to drive a car especially since cars are statistically deadlier then guns.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      How about we knock this kind of bullshit off? I have enough problems with the other side twisting words and ideas in order to effectively lie to us, I don’t need for our side of the argument to do the same. Cars may well be used to commit suicide as often as guns, but they certainly are not used in as many murders. Intimating that deaths by firearms and deaths involving auto *accidents* are somehow equivalent is deliberately misleading.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        It’s not deliberately misleading when the antis focus specifically on numbers, which they do, to drive their arguments. Especially when they conflate suicide, accidents and murder to make their numbers as large as possible.

        Their argument may be specious but they don’t reserve that argument just for guns. That same argument is something they’ve used for salt, large sugary beverages, plastic straws, free speech and in defense of ridiculous regulations from the EPA, FDA, DEA etc.

        The point of the argument that “X kills more people”, assuming the argument is properly made, is that the Left will find numbers like this to ban everything eventually and while many people will fall for it on guns they will likely recognize the internal incongruity of this logic when it’s applied to something that they like because this forces them to think about the underlying logic of the Left, which is to control everything.

        It’s therefore not disingenuous but rather a way to illuminate that the Left and a “free country” are antithetical because if you elect Leftists you won’t have a free country. Someone might not care about guns since they don’t own any and may not even like them but eventually the “harm” done by something they DO like will become the target of the Left.

        For example, someone like Starbucks. Well, under Lefty logic, hidden calories and sugar are a major contributor to obesity. Obesity is a major cause of T2 diabetes, cancer, heart problems etc, all of which cause the death of many, many people each year. Ergo, ban Starbucks and require people to prove they spend a certain number of minutes per week at the gym. For the children.

        Sounds crazy, but this sort of thing has been proposed in some circles. Historically that’s how all the far-out stuff the Left currently champions starts, so it’s probably only a matter of time until these proposals are serious, “mainstreamed” and then on the edge of becoming law.

        The Left has also shown a serious appetite to turn on their former supporters when convenience dictates. So no matter how much a company virtue signals it’s only a matter of time until the Leftist crocodile eats them.

        1. avatar Dennis says:

          Again I say,,,,baby steps! It’s worked all throughout history. Remember the three basic tenets, dumb em down, make them dependent on the guvmint, then tell em you really don’t need those dangerous ol guns.

  23. avatar borg says:

    Red flag laws need to be amended to require government funded trials for the accused.

  24. avatar borg says:

    Red flag laws are unconstitutional under any form of scrutiny especially when a smart lawyer states something like the following. How can a state consider someone too dangerous to own guns and yet not dangerous enough to lock up?

  25. avatar UpInArms says:

    “Red flag laws” and “due process” are two mutually exclusive concepts. It is not possible to have a red-flag law that honors and respects due process as laid out in the Constitution. If due process is rigorously followed, the red-flag law is completely gutted and toothless, and it would be less effective than laws that are already on the books (most of which are also in violation of due process, but, hey, there they are.)

    So, what would be the point of even trying? It’s just common sense, ya know.

  26. avatar M1Lou says:

    I won’t lie. Since the last few incidents I haven’t been going shooting. I live in an apartment complex right outside of DC in Virginia. I have to use an elevator to get to my vehicle, which means I am carrying soft gun cases and a range bag on the elevator. I haven’t had any bad experiences, just a few weird ones. One guy was excited to see another gun owner. He wasn’t a white dude either. (Check mate racist intersectional commies) Other encounters were people with a look of fear. Then the weirdest one, some lady who stared at my rifle case with bug eyes the whole time. I am not sure if she was waiting for my rifle to jump out of the case or what? With a red flag law in NOVA, I would be fairly nervous even going to the range due to potential loss of my guns, my job, and thousands of dollars of my money because some gun hater red flags me and I get the SWAT team rolling me up in the parking garage.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      You’re not imagining things. I loaded my car in the garage last week because I didn t want someone driving by my house to see the gun bag parade and drop a dime on me.
      Who wants to get pulled over and harassed?

    2. avatar MDW59 says:

      M1LOU, a golf travel bag might serve the purpose of moving of discretely moving your equipment to your car. Available wheeled and hold a fair number of items.

  27. avatar Dale says:

    Witch, Witch, Gun, Gun, AR-15, AR-15. The red flag law will just turn good people into law breakers by the non-gun owning neighbor that are ignorant of gun, and do not forget if you have an x-spouse that hates you. With the fake news and DemocRATS saying things like AR-15 is a 50cal. and is heavy as 9 moving boxes. An AR-15 is a fully auto, assault weapon. DemocRATS and fake news does not care about the truth. They want feeling to be the truth, not facts. Real Facts hurt their feelings, and they cry over seeing a policeperson just eating lunch at a dinner.
    Or do they just want the to take your rights away so they can take control of the country?
    Just look at the world history of other countries, taking guns and later, the people were taken away and killed by the millions. The 1st amendment was to have a voice and to be heard by all. The 2nd Amendment was to protect the 1st and all other amendments after.
    We have to get out the facts more and more, and more facts so people will finely listen. It works if you can get one to just sit and listen. That I know is hard to do. Just keep fighting the best we can, Vote right, speak the truth, and protect the US Constitution. GOD BLESS THE USA.

  28. avatar strych9 says:

    Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who is dangerous? Make the call!

  29. avatar borg says:

    It occurred to me that an abusive husband could red flag his wife to render her defenseless.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And vice versa.

  30. avatar Minuteman says:

    Screw red flag laws. Simple Simon says if you murder someone with a gun your dangerous. Once convicted of this crime you are executed after one appeal . This will take place within 6 months of conviction. You can kiss my red ass you murderers. That’s a true red flag law.

  31. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    If you are such a dangerously mentally ill person then you should be locked up. Not just have your guns be taken. The problem is Libertarian and Liberal gun owners were the ones who supported not locking up the mentally. They and the ACLU who they supported worked to stop any intervention to help mentally sick people.

    “These tragedies were rare before the 1970s, when efforts to destroy the state mental hospital systems began to empty out the existing hospitals and make it difficult to involuntarily commit those with serious mental illnesses BEFORE they started murdering people.”

    http://claytonecramer.blogspot.com/2018/02/to-my-representative-you-do-same.html

    If more gun people were like Mr Cramer we would have a safer world. There was a time in america when the mentally ill were forced to get treatment. And we didn’t have so many people defecating and urinating in public. We didn’t have homeless tent cities. We didn’t have third world diseases in west coast cities.

  32. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    wonder if anyone will follow and research and see if these people use other weapons after their guns are taken
    because there are LOTS of other things that can be used to kill and injure besides guns…but they only seem interested in taking the guns…hmmm
    same for the domestic violence seizures…

  33. avatar JMR says:

    A good red flag law would be one where if any politician mentions any encroachment on any right, they are red flagged and thrown in jail for violating their oath of office.

    All others are trash.

  34. avatar Donttreadonme says:

    The title of this article is ridiculous. There is no such thing as a good red flag law. People should not be punished for what they might do, that goes against the very principle what this country was founded on.

    Not to mention that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around, that is exactly what red flag laws do.

  35. avatar GS650G says:

    Does Swearer think they will stop with a specially crafted RFL? OF course not. It opens the door a little more for the enhanced version where voter registries are polled and the losing party is deemed so upset they need to be disarmed. If they are not democrats.

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