An FBI agent walks outside of Club Q, the site of a weekend mass shooting, Monday, Nov. 21, 2022, in Colorado Springs, Colo. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Alex McCourt, Johns Hopkins University

The killing of five patrons in a Colorado LGBTQ bar on Nov. 19, 2022, is the latest mass shooting to garner headlines in the U.S.

Police have said they have yet to determine a motive. But one thing that has emerged is that the suspect had a history of violent plans, having allegedly threatened to attack his mother with a homemade bomb more than a year before the attack at Club Q.

It has led to questions over why that earlier alleged incident did not trigger Colorado’s “red flag” law – something that may have prevented him from acquiring the AR-15-style semi-automatic weapon that police say was used in the Club Q attack. The Conversation asked Alex McCourt, an expert on gun laws at Johns Hopkins University, to explain how red flag laws are supposed to work – and why they weren’t triggered in this case.

What are red flag laws?

Red flag laws – also know as extreme risk protection orders – allow for judges to make a ruling that results in firearms being taken away temporarily from a person who is deemed to be at high risk of harming themselves or others. They also prevent that person from purchasing guns for a set period of time.

They are aimed at protecting against the actions of individuals who have made violent threats or may be going through some sort of crisis.

The way they work is that specific people can petition a court to issue an order when someone is deemed to be behaving dangerously or making violent threats.

The categories of individuals who can petition in this way vary from state to state. But all the states that have enacted such laws – 19 plus the District of Columbia – include law enforcement officers among those who can petition the court to have a red flag order imposed.

Household and family members are also commonly listed. And in Maryland, Hawaii and the District of Columbia, health care officials can petition the court should they be concerned over the behavior of a patient. In California, Hawaii and New York, teachers or school administrators are included in the list of people who can petition the court.

Typically, if the court finds there is sufficient evidence of risk of violence, a judge will issue an ex parte – or temporary – order. These cover a very short period until a hearing can take place. At that subsequent hearing the potential subject of the order can provide an argument that they aren’t dangerous.

If the court decides there is indeed a risk, it will deliver a longer-term order. In most cases it covers a period of up to a year. The subject of the gun ban may be able to petition for the order to be ended early, should they be able to prove, for example, that their moment of mental crisis is over or that they have sought sufficient treatment. The petitioner can also ask for the order to be renewed at the end of the year.

Map: The Conversation, CC-BY-ND Source: Newsweek Get the data Created with Datawrapper

Does research show that red flag laws work?

The first thing to note is that the laws are relatively new – most have come in over the past decade. So researchers are still evaluating the data. But studies have shown that they can be effective in preventing mass shooting events and possibly suicides.

Research from 2019 found that, among a group of cases in which guns were removed from individuals who made threats of mass shootings in California, none of the individuals went on to carry out mass shootings. A 2022 study evaluated extreme risk protection orders in six states. It found that all the states being observed were issuing orders on the basis of mass shooting threats – 20% of these cases involved threats toward schools and 15% toward intimate partners or family members.

Though these laws are relatively new, research analyzing the legislation suggests that they may help prevent suicide.

So there is enough evidence to say they can be used to prevent deaths. But these measures are so new, we need to know more about how well they are being implemented by states. So far, research suggests that public awareness of extreme risk protection orders is low and that efforts to educate the public and facilitate filing of petitions might help.

How well are red flag laws implemented across states?

Connecticut and Indiana both had early versions of red flags laws, in place in 1999 and 2006 respectively, but the policy was really developed after the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012. Since that incident – in which 20 children and six adults were killed by a gunman – a further 17 states and Washington, D.C., have added extreme risk protection orders to their statutes. Most have come in since the Parkland school shooting of 2018.

One of the areas in which more research is needed is on implementation of red flag laws. There appears to be wide variation – both state by state, but also within states that have laws in place.

Spotty implementation might be the result of a combination of factors. As they are quite new, there is a knowledge gap – that is, would-be petitioners might not know that a red flag order is an option, or how to go about filing for an order.

But it is also true that there has been a fair amount of pushback from certain counties and sheriffs who have said that they won’t enforce these laws out of Second Amendment concerns. This appears to be the case more in rural areas. But that has not been systemically studied to date.

Any chance of a federal red state law?

There has been some discussion among advocates about trying to pass federal legislation. But to date, the main actions taken at the federal level are to make it easier for individual states to adopt red flag laws. The Biden administration has pushed for their adoption, and the Justice Department has issued model legislation that states can use.

Meanwhile, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed in June 2022 allows for the distribution of funds to states for crisis intervention programs, including the rollout of extreme risk protection orders.

What was in place in Colorado?

Colorado’s red flag law was enacted 2019. It allows for law enforcement and family or household members to file a petition to a court. If it is approved, a court can order that an individual’s guns be removed for up to one year.

A 2021 study of the first year of implementation of Colorado’s law found that in 85% of cases it was law enforcement that initiated proceedings, and in 15% of cases it was household or family members that petitioned.

There has been slower uptake in Colorado than in some other states. But there have been some questions over whether that is over the timing of the law – it was implemented just before COVID-19 pandemic began, so for a large chunk of the first year it has been in operation, people were under stay-at-home orders.

Nonetheless, the study found there were a significant number of sheriffs and counties that said they would not enforce the law. There is no real legal basis for them to do this; it is more of a symbolic or political stance. But it does have implications for red flag laws, as law enforcement officers may not have the training or inclination to pursue red flag orders.

Why was it not triggered in this case?

There hasn’t been an awful lot of detail released on why a red flag order was not imposed on the Colorado shooter. Early reporting suggests that this appears to be a classic example of someone who made a threat, in this case threatening his mother with a homemade bomb – and as such would qualify for an order. But there is reportedly no public record indicating that law enforcement or any family member acted on that threat and petitioned the court.

Experts can only speculate about why this might be the case. But one point of note is that it occurred in a county where the sheriff has expressed opposition to Colorado’s law and has previously said that his officers will not petition for an order except under “exigent circumstances.”The Conversation


Alex McCourt, Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

[ED: The above article mistakenly describes ex parte orders issued by a judge as “temporary.” This is incorrect. An ex parte order one that is “granted without waiting for a response from the other side.” In other words, the gun owner who is the target of an ex parte red flag confiscation order does not have an opportunity to respond before the order is issued.]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Wow. So many words and nothing to say.

    The concept of a red flag law is wonderful. I really wish we had “precog” experts that could see into the future and accurately predict when a mass shooting would occur. That’s mostly fantasy and it is why this article is so heavy with phrases like “research suggests that” and why actual sheriffs call BS on this.

    “Why Meadow Died” explains why the Parkland shooter was able to do what he did. He was red-flagged left and right, but the school systematically suppressed his misdeeds to keep his criminal record clean and make the school’s stats look good. Despite being dangerously evil, his clean record got him a spot with ROTC where he learned to shoot. Then he bought himself a rifle. ROTC should have known and rejected him, but they were told the opposite.

    In Sandy Hook, that deranged child didn’t have a gun of his own. He obtained his firearms by murdering his mother and taking what she had been safeguarding. Red Flag laws wouldn’t work there either because his mother was only naive, not evil.

    Finally, how many episodes of COPS do you see where a traffic stop leads to “Felon in position of a firearm, and pounds of drugs, while high themselves” etc.? Where’s the red flag on those perps?

    • “The concept of a red flag law is wonderful”

      in a rational nation, yes. but we don’t live in a rational nation, we live in a subverted nation where any opportunity to exercise power over the population is seized and exercised to the hilt by hostile infiltrators.

    • Colorado guy didn’t need to be red flagged when the DA could have pressed charges for the two felonies from the bomb threat. The DA should be brought up on manslaughter because of that, but we no longer hold politicians accountable in this country.

      It’s why the Trumps and Hunter Biden are still walking around.

      • what crimes have Trump done ??
        let your TDS flow.
        we all can see that you avoided far more dangerous and real criminals.

      • The “Trump” comment/implication being unfounded but enjoyed by half the population should reveal again that gun control laws are just that- laws. Laws only provide for punishment. Your particular imbalance and mental disorder should put you in a 48 -72 hour ‘hold for observation’ situation. The half of the population that shares your thought and anger distortions makes 2A viable-the tyrants you support use you to enable them to go unchecked while in office. Too many weak links in the chain. The skill of actual thinking and thought processes are gone, replaced by “feelings” and the new age policy that even losers and no-shows get trophies. Now we see the result of people acting as then treated as subjects, for you it is all sunshine and lolipops, peace love and dope. Charge a DA for a crime of…???
        My Rights keep YOU at arm’s length and you get one warning (maybe). My Rights allow me to stop a threat, real or perceived, and you just cancelled “perceived”. If the president is a criminal in your eyes and not afforded Due Process, provided evidence or a jury then you are the enemy. It is not politicians but you that are accountable for your actions and education. Your party of choice is just one large lying sociopath that does not stand behind the Constitution but ignores it while you have never even looked at it. That is made obvious by your display of mob mentality. If you are not stopped people get hurt. If you want to be patriotic don’t vote. The shooters all had pronounced guilt and grew up without parental care and guidance so they take away children and leave parents without children. Shooters are punishing you.
        Gays and Lesbians keep demanding extra Rights and protections from those that they wish to force their lifestyle on (especially children) They are aware of their mistakes and have claimed victim-hood in advance. They don’t see the future they create it. So go poke your finger on the chest of a Hells Angel and tell him he ain’t so tough. I dare you. Outlaws provide punishments but one way to stay healthy- Keep your mouth shut.

  2. No matter how much conversation is had on the matter, I’m against these so-called “Red Flag” ERPO laws. Even if they were fine-tuned to adequately protect as intended, human nature hath shewn that they would be abused, and overhandedly applied.

    If someone says something that a reasonable person would perceive as suspicious, then by all means keep an eye on them. But unless and until that person commits (or begins the process of) a criminal act, then a criminal act warranting a response has not yet been committed. Period.

    We now have, in 2022 after decades of decline, a society in which Pharma is pushed on the masses. Faith-based morality and the idea of a Divine presence is mocked. Instant gratification and sexual deviancy is encouraged. The larger societal fabric of protection (courts, LE), consequences (prison, fines), and restitution is fraying and even being turned on its head. Young people today no longer have a moral compass guiding them to True North, so they wander confused.

    …and the Talking Heads ignore the causes as they continue to tell us the answer must lie in more control over us.

    • Defining a “reasonable” or “normal” person is very difficult. People being people can and do harbor all sorts of biases which can open many doors leading to gross abuse. Be they a sheriff, police officer, psychologist etc. When due process is eliminated or put off to a future date the misuse and abuse of power and authority is only limited to one’s imagination. Anyone can say anything about anyone at any time.

  3. Yeah I’d also say this article says nothing important. The perp in the happy bar shooting has a politician grampa with clout. Republican with serious Trump connections. THIS lunatic should’ve been locked up…

    • Careful. You mention any ties to conservatives even familial or tangental and people are gonna freak out and cry democrat false flag. Threatens their world view to acknowledge crazy people can exist on BOTH sides of the cultural and political spectrum.

    • Opinion based on opinion without facts and no understanding of what is required to have and keep a Constitutional Republic. The party you blame is not the party of control or rule at gunpoint. You have no access to evidence nor the power to investigate or grant subpoenas and have jumped into the role of judge. Never taught and never learned and barely grasp that you are not qualified to do anything except watch your ass or kiss it goodbye. Your favored leaders are the origins of massacres and mass killings throughout history. For the good of the People they say. You do not recognize your enemies until they point them out to you. Perhaps thinking it through will save you but your veiled comments indicate your bias and threats against your fellow lunatic. My words others will read but you won’t, you already know.The fact you hate Trump and homosexuals and abhor lunatics leaves you out of touch with everything. There is right or wrong and you cannot recognize either. In between is not an option. Right or wrong, choose one. Politics is not a guide. Who is lying? A liar cannot tell.

  4. “found that all the states being observed were issuing orders on the basis of mass shooting threats – 20% of these cases involved threats toward schools and 15% toward intimate partners or family members.”

    there’s that John Hopkins slant again…

    “and 15% toward intimate partners or family members.”

    these would not have been ‘mass shooting’… they were either single or two individuals when the data is explored from the linked nih study.

    “A 2021 study of the first year of implementation of Colorado’s law found that in 85% of cases it was law enforcement that initiated proceedings, and in 15% of cases it was household or family members that petitioned”

    thats true in numbers. what they are not telling you is there was no basis for over 85% of the total other than ‘we wanna do this I feel

    “Research from 2019 found that, among a group of cases in which guns were removed from individuals who made threats of mass shootings in California, none of the individuals went on to carry out mass shootings.”

    never mind that most of them did not have guns anyway and some of them died… and never mind it was someone else who said they were going to commit a mass shooting for all the rest except 2… the new ‘swatting’ is anonymously reporting that someone said they were going to conduct a mass shooting and instant knee jerk no due process red flag law backed gun confiscation.

    • 85% requests by police granted, 15% citizen requests were granted. So it seems police know more family details than families that request an order.

  5. Every state already had laws by which a mentally ill person could be detained and evaluated based merely on a report tot he police by ANYONE. the finding of that mental evaluation could trigger both federal and state bans on possession of firearms. In fact we have seen thos old traditional laws abused and misused and applied to people they never should have applied to. At the same time we have seen those laws not be applied to people they should have been such as Cho at V Tech and the Sutherland Springs church shooter. Now we are seeing the same with these tyrannical red flag laws; people use them to get even with a neighbor or an ex but the real problem children slip through time and time again.

  6. The tragedy is being politicized on the behalf of Gun Control democRats. And by all accounts the perp was another slow motion train wreck everyone was too busy to notice.

    Then there were those elsewhere murdered with a silent knife, perp remains on the run. So silent were the murders two in the same house slept through the carnage. Knife violence anyone?

      • Not so fast rant7…If you notice a baseball heading toward you do you drop what you are doing and react accordingly?
        The perp’s circle did not notice a slow motion train wreck simply because noticing a slow motion train wreck requires people who are willing, capable and not too busy to venture outside their comfort zone.

        1. the fact of observing or paying attention to something.
        “their silence did not escape my notice”

        2. notification or warning of something, especially to allow preparations to be made.
        “interest rates are subject to fluctuation without notice”

        • “requires people who are willing, capable and not too busy”

          none of that precludes noticing. it only means they did not respond.

          I think what you’re trying to get at is “habituation”. this guy was always freaky, so everyone around him just got used to it. they noticed it, but no longer saw it. like the homeless guy ranting outside the restaurant window, nobody pays attention to him until he puts a brick through it.

        • @rant7

          “this guy was always freaky, so everyone around him just got used to it.”

          and there it is. this is a defining trait of all mass shooters. they are ‘marginal’ at best in most or all aspects of life and are ‘freaky in some or all aspects and don’t progress beyond that. I posted about this in another article comments, a study I mentioned from the leading researchers on the subject of mass shooters outlined that all mass shooters have this type of thing as part of an undefined mental illness ‘trouble of the mind’.

          people just get used to it and consider it normal for the future mass shooter.

        • Forensic psychiatrists James L. Knoll IV, MD, and George D. Annas, MD, MPH, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse New York, both leading authorities on the mental health aspects of mass/school shooters, summed it up for the mental health community various studies on various aspects in terms of mass/school shooters…. Although mass shooters may not meet DSM-5 criteria for a recognized disorder, “they do have an ill-defined trouble of the mind for which the mental health field has no immediate, quick-acting ‘treatment,’”

  7. “Why Didn’t Colorado’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Prevent the Club Q Shooting?”

    because the purpose of the “red flag law” is not to intercept disturbed criminals, but to shut down and disarm citizens.

    seriously, this is not complicated. it’s just subversive warfare by hostile infiltrators, nothing more. or less.

    • rant7,

      Ha ha. I went and posted my comment below before reading any other comments. I pretty much expressed the same sentiment (except that it took me about 10 times as many words).

  8. Any body with enough bucks in their pockets can obtain a Semi-Auto Rifle within 24 hours legally or otherwise such is their general availability. So I fail to see exactly what effect ‘RED FLAGGING’ has on a determined and motivated operator. Red Flagging in that case has as much effect as a BAND-AID on a fractured skull.

    IN any case ‘Red Flagging’ is only a very limited and temorary measure

    • “So I fail to see exactly what effect ‘RED FLAGGING’ has on a determined and motivated operator.”

      because you fail to see the intent. the intent of the law is not to deter anyone, it’s to provide an excuse for an unregulated no-due-process-of-law intervention and confiscation at the drop of an anonymous hat.

  9. I suspect that the only people who get red flagged are the people who commit the horrific crime of owning politically incorrect, semiautomatic, black rifles.

  10. The far right sheriff should be fired for dereliction of duty and arrested and charges of accessory to murder be brought against him. It would send a loud and clear message to other Sheriffs who thumb their nose at the laws as they are not privileged characters who can arrest other people for breaking laws but remain above the law themselves.

    • “The far right sheriff should be fired for dereliction of duty and arrested and charges of accessory to murder be brought against him“

      Correct, at least voluntary manslaughter, because the sheriff knew his failure to execute the laws passed by the state legislature could possibly lead to the death of another.

      Of course, there will be no justice for the 5 dead and 25 wounded, the sheriff will pay no consequence for his intentional politically motivated dereliction of duty.

    • Nope. You on the all left don’t believe in prosecuting government officials that allow sanctuary cities and open borders where illegal aliens go on to commit manslaughter or even murder.

      At least the right to bear arms is an explicit right outlined in the U.S. Constitution. And in the minds of these Sheriffs, they are upholding that law against potential violations.

  11. Sorry Ed., An ex parte “red flag” TRO is a temporary order. Yes, they can be issued without notice, but that is precisely why they are only good for a short period of time. That is why it is called a “temporary” restraining order. Typically they are good for two or three weeks before a hearing must be held on a permanent order. This requires notice to the person of the application for a restraining order and an opportunity to be be heard, to be represented by counsel, to produce witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses against you.

    In this case, no one initiated a red flag proceeding. Moreover, what would have been the point? Red flag orders disarm the subject, but do not subject them to mental health evaluation or treatment. He did not have a bomb, and apparently didn’t own any firearms either. His mother declined to press charges, and so the DA dropped the case. Not surprising. None of us has a crystal ball.

    • “they are only good for a short period of time”

      yeah, but they search your house looking for … well, for whatever they can find ….

    • “Sorry Ed.,…”

      Gentlemen, you must sharpen your blades more carefully if you insist on splitting hairs this finely. An ex parte order is usually temporary in practice but not necessarily by definition.

      From Wex:

      “Ex parte means “from one party” in Latin.

      “In the legal context, ex parte is used in several manners around ethics and civil procedure.

      “Legal Ethics
      “In legal ethics, ex parte refers to improper contact with a party or a judge. Ethical rules typically forbid a lawyer from contacting the judge or the opposing party without the other party’s lawyer also being present. A breach of these rules is referred to as improper ex parte contact.

      “Civil Procedure
      “In civil procedure, ex parte is used to refer to motions for orders that can be granted without waiting for a response from the other side. Generally, these are orders that are only in place until further hearings can be held, such as a temporary restraining order.

      “Typically, a court will be hesitant to make an ex parte motion. This is because the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a right to due process, and ex parte motions–due to their exclusion of one party–risk violating the excluded party’s right to due process.”

  12. Silly author apparently thinks that government would use Red Flag laws to make society safer.

    Politicians and bureaucrats use Red Flag laws to suppress their political enemies. Nothing more and nothing less.

    The reason that government fails to apply Red Flag laws against the likes of the Colorado Springs Nightclub attacker is because allowing such an attack to happen advances a very important government agenda. And that agenda is ginning up support among the masses for civilian disarmament.

    No amount of collateral damage is too great in the evil pursuit of money and power and eliminating “others”. Embrace that simple truth and suddenly a LOT of recent events make a LOT more sense.

    • “allowing such an attack to happen advances a very important government agenda“

      OK, so you’re saying the shooter’s right wing politician grandfather exercised his influence to keep his grandson from being charged with an actual crime, so that a year later his grandson could become a mass shooter of same-sex couples at a nightclub in order to promote the government agenda?

      It is so easy to understand how Trump is able to grift millions of dollars from folks like you, how sad.

      • I might. but in a rational nation, drug addiction would be dealt with immediately and up-front, so “drug testing to own” would be redundant.

  13. I feel like we’re in bizarro land. First pearl clutching at gay antifa super soldiers exercising 2a by lawfully open carrying, now an article endorsing red flag laws. Is this like trumps “take the guns first, due process later”?

    • no, it’s more like “keep the audience engaged so they keep seeing the ads.”

      besides, the best way to understand your own view is to understand the opposition’s view.

      • “besides, the best way to understand your own view is to understand the opposition’s view“

        A wise statement, bravo!

        But of course, conservatives rarely take the time to understand the other perspectives to any issue, creationism versus evolution is an excellent example of this.

        • Miner49er,

          I have an incredibly strong background in Science and Mathematics. I grew up a non-believer. I even studied the basics of Psychology. My study of Biology, Physiology, and evolution revealed how absurd evolution is. My study of Physics, Cosmology, and Astronomy revealed how absurd the Big Bang theory is.

          Discovering the absurdity of evolution and Big Bang theories actually drove me to look for alternative explanations of life and our universe. That lead me to study the Historical, Archeological, and critical textual analysis of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. My final conclusion: Judeo-Christian Scriptures are credible which lead me to firmly believe in our Almighty Creator.

          And this should not be a surprise since Conservative positions are almost universally based upon verifiable facts, truth, and logic whereas Progressive positions are almost universally based upon whimsical emotion and exploitation of fundamental human Psychology.

          To your point: the reason that Conservatives largely reject Progressive positions is simply because adhering to timeless standards of Good and Truth are a higher priority than being on the latest Progressive bandwagon or indulging in destructive “pleasures”. And in case you did not notice, that process does involve considering the other side of controversies.

        • to Uncommon Sense.

          Sorry I cannot believe you when you say you are a product of higher education, because you have rejected the obvious conclusions of the various subjects you have claimed to have studied.

          You have totally rejected science and your rejection of the big bang theory simply proves you never attended even a day in an institution of higher learning.

          You attempt to put the Judeo-Christian religion on some sort of unique and higher plane is also ludicrous. Anyone who has studied history, especially religion from the historical viewpoint, knows that as religions progressed from the primitive to the more complex they simply copied each other, that is why the world’s great religions are so much more alike than they are different.

          The Judeo-Christian religion is actually a “Johnny come lately” on the scene and it is a mix of may various religions that came before it including the Ancient Greek and various Roman pagan religions, Egyptian Religion, Zoroastrian religion, and even the far eastern religions of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Taoism, just to briefly name a few.

          I might add that even if we grant you some leeway to appease your religious fanaticism that if indeed there was some higher intelligence that created the world we live in the history of the planet shows the creator rather than being a God was actually the incarnation of pure evil because the world could not function if it was not for the forces of evil and cruelty. The study of animal cruelty proves we are only a higher form of that cruelty.

          We often substitute the word “Mother Nature” when it would be too honest and horrific and embarrassing to attribute the vicious cruelty and evil of Mother Nature to the God that religious people worship. Again not willing to realize or admit that evil is the driving engine of the world and how it works.

          I might add that most of the worlds greatest minds, such as Einstein, Thomas Edison, Hawkins etc, etc. did not believe in an after life or any invisible God. The Founders of the U.S. were for all practical purposes atheist’s , and or agonistics themselves as they were Deists and Realists when it came to religion. Their writings prove it beyond all doubt.

          And if you were a product of higher education you would have read Thomas Paine’s book “The Age of Reason”which is a hilarious satire on the Christian Religion, as well as pointing out and proving that the human mistakes made when the Christian bible was written proved it was written by fallible men hell bent on hanging on to power by claiming their own propaganda and writings were not their own but attributing them to the Apostles who were illiterate fisherman.

          I might add Thomas Paine was a genius and a scientist who knew more about science 240 years ago than many people alive today know which obviously includes you at the top of the list. On his deathbed he refused to convert to Christianity simply stating to his fanatical religious live in girlfriend that “Man can never know God”. I think that really sums things up.

        • Dacian,

          Your reply is entirely predictable.

          I am not surprised that you despise God Almighty and incorrectly attribute various attributes to God. Of course that is standard Progressive True Believer modus-operandi: decide on an emotional basis that you despise someone and THEN demonize them.

          I will leave you with a simple GIGANTIC problem with the Big Bang “theory” when you eliminate God Almighty as the actual cause of the universe. Even our atheist scientists agree that our universe is finite and converges back in time to a starting point. Prior to that starting point there was nothing according to atheists. Newsflash: that word “nothing” is FAR more profound than you will admit. Nothing does not allow for the possibility of anything (the least of which is a “quantum fluctation”) because a possibility is something, not nothing.

          Thus the problem: something–anything–cannot come from nothing. Period. It doesn’t matter how complex the Big Bang “theory” is or how fantastic Quantum Physics is. The only way that our universe can come into existence is if something existed before our universe and created our universe. And since there is NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NONE, NADA evidence of anything other than God Almighty existing before the universe, it stands to reason that God Almighty is the most rational and plausible explanation of the universe.

          Of course you will reject all of that because it rains on your emotional parade and your quest to make yourself your own little god.

        • From personal experience, it’s usually the neo liberals or the left that refuse to engage in meaningful conversation to understand alternative viewpoints.

  14. I have a question. What happened to the prosecution of his individual after he was arrested for bomb threats? Was it because there was insufficient evidence to prosecute? Or because his family was locally connected?

    Maybe if we get the answer to that, we’ll start getting towards the answer of what happened to the ‘red flag’ issue

  15. A bunch of child molesters are no longer with us. If you are against this, you are pro child molestation.

  16. Sorry to burst the Red Flag Law but it is unconstitutional because alleged violators are not allowed due process before their items are taken. Supreme Court has ruled you must have a warrant before you can enter someone’s house and a warrant requires evidence that a potential crime has been committed. Red Flag does not include the same evidence as a warrant and is therefore unconstitutional. I think more emphasis needs to be placed on mental and emotional states of people then simply tying this to whether someone owns a firearm or not. Most mass shooters have been found to be mentally or emotionally unstable or repeat offenders of some kind. They have committed crimes even though people have been aware of multiple instances of problems. The direction of prevention needs to be of an entirely different nature to identify these folks and get them help before they go off on other people. Everyone is entitled to due process and there are other legal means of dealing with these people without taking their property before they have a right to defend themselves.

  17. red flag laws as written are stupid. they take a person’s property, illegally. no due process.
    they leave that person free to do whatever they were going to do.
    now their really pissed because the cops stole their gun.
    a person can cause way more destruction with a trip to home depot and a gas station then any scary black rifle.
    red flag laws should lock up the person not an inanimate object.

  18. Red Flag laws, that is a slippery slope. It might start out with a “He threatened to blow up the universe and is making the blomb right now.” To a “Your prescribed anti depressants, so you must be mentally unstable.”
    In the end it doesn’t matter because all .gov really wants is a nation of felons.
    Because once a felon, always a felon.
    We need more laws.

  19. The faster we can get a ‘red flag’ order challenge before the high court, the better, to kill it once and for all time…

Comments are closed.