Extreme Risk Protection Orders (“red flag” laws) temporarily remove guns from people deemed “troubled.” They have passed in 17 states (red and blue) with bipartisan support. A proposed federal law provides funding and training incentives, but no mandate, for states to pass their own. Which BEST describes your view of a federal law?
The philosophy behind red-flag laws is to protect people by preemptively nullifying a personal right of someone who might be prone to abusing that right, possibly leading to the harm of someone else. The right being targeted by red-flag laws is the right to self defense by possession of firearms.
Using the same philosophy, how would a red-flag type law work if the targeted right is, instead, the freedom of speech? Let’s call it a Rude-flag Law.
So under the Rude-flag Law, it is reported by someone to authorities that a specific public speaker might deliver an address that could possibly cause enormous emotional distress to others who hear it and think it is very rude. The speaker is, with the consent of a judge, subsequently forbidden to express his/her ideas anywhere. Also, the first time the speaker learns he/she has been reported under the Rude-flag Law is when the arrest is made at the podium for violating the Rude-flag Law’s injunction.
It’s easy to see how a law with power like that could be abused, because something like that is already occurring on college campuses today.
A Rude-flag law would be bad for the First Amendment, as Red-flag laws are to the Second. ‘Tis all about perspective.
Have a good Thanksgiving, being thankful America is still relatively free, and has a President who desires to keep it that way. Pray for them both.
To quote Lysander Spooner, a 19th Century abolitionist, lawyer, essayist, and self-avowed anarchist: “TO BAN GUNS BECAUSE CRIMINALS USE THEM, IS TO TELL THE LAW-ABIDING THAT THEIR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THEIR OWN CONDUCT, BUT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE GUILTY AND THE LAWLESS.” Federal gun legislation has never stopped mass murder, nor have more gun control laws enacted by the States. “Red Flag” laws will not prevent terrorists and criminals from buying guns illegally, or stealing them. That’s a wholly separate issue from reporting a mentally unstable person to law enforcement because they may pose a threat to the safety of others. The latter involves “due process” and the courts which takes time. And, as recent history has shown, our legal system has failed miserably in preventing tragedies from happening. The FBI, for example, was warned about the Parkland, Florida high school shooter yet he dropped off the radar because the FBI was derelict in following through on the tip. So-called “Red Flag” legislation — either federal or State — will not be effective unless “due process” adjudication by a judge is accelerated and police are empowered to move quickly.
I entered L.E. January 3 1977,
and retired 25 years later.
My agency would calls advising us that someone was a “danger to themselves or someone else”.
An officer would be dispatched to look into the accusation.
The call would go something like this.
I would arrive and make contact with the person, I would explain my presence there and start up a “conversation”.
During this conversation I would be looking for any signs that would lead me to believe a threat existed.
Most of the time the person who called was there and would voluntarily would admit to calling and why.
Now, if I felt the person was a threat ( most of the time it would be more than obvious), the person would be placed
under a protective custody arrest, and restrained. Followed with transport to one of our hospitals, where they would be held for observation.
Before transporting, I would ask if they had any weapons in the house and explain that for their safe keeping, I could put them in our property room. Then when they were cleared by the doctor(s) they could come to our Station and claim them.
Or if they had someone (within a reasonable distance) I could call and ask if they could come and take custody of them.
In one case the person had a pretty hefty collection, I was not looking forward to logging them in. So I was relieved when I was able to turn them over to a neighbor.
While at the hospital, the person would be evaluated. If the doctor felt they need more professional help. They were sent somewhere. If it was determined that they should not have any firearms, then it was sent to the courts. The court would issue an order to seize the gun and dispose of them.
Family members can also take that time to petition the court.
If the person was cleared medically they could come and get their weapons or from whoever had them.
Bottom line: the mental state of the person was the issue and was addressed. Guns were a secondary concern, and only to safe gaurd them in the owner’s absence.
Red Flag Laws are nothing more than gun confiscation.
It does not address the mental issue of the person or any threat that’s present.
In another words, if a person’s life is truly in danger, they’re still in danger. It doesn’t take a firearm. That’s common sense.
Also It’ll be interesting to see if being “red flagged” unjustly, will have an adverse effects on any future firearms related actions by the individual.
However, that’s just my opinion.
Yours Aye
Today: “red flag laws,” Tomorrow: a red flag with a hammer and sickle. Chairman Mao ordered the murder of millions of unarmed Chinese, and buried them in trenches. The Second Amendment was added to our Founding Documents so that a similar evil will never happen in America. The words: “shall not be infringed” may be the only thing standing between us and communist tyranny.
It is a slippery slope to give the government agency that much power. What law will be next to strip more freedoms from the masses?
This poll is irrelevant. The correct answer is omitted. It VIOLATES due process. End of story. The Second Amendment is ancillary.
I’m unable to participate in this poll because I’m in agreement with Scott Chapin. The correct answer is not listed,
Reading Frans story below sounds like he is a very conscientious law enforcement officer. However there have been instances where the law has been abused. California is such a place where the police arrived to home owner’s home and removed all his legally owned guns because his wife had been prescribed medication that was considered anti depression medication. The medication was prescribed for something other than depression and he spent some time in court to get his guns back.
Fear (feigned or real) from one person turns another person into an automatic criminal based on only an accusation, immediately denying that person their 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th Amendment protected rights. Only after proving innocence in “hearings” can they then petition to have those rights restored. This is directly opposite to US jurisprudence which requires that GUILT be proven IN COURT with witnesses and evidence and the accuser met, BEFORE rights can be TAKEN.
As such there is NO ‘red flag law’ that is Constitutional, as each one violates the supremacy clause which requires that all laws be “pursuant to” the Constitution. These are not. Not even a little bit.
“Red flag” is a good description of these laws – not because they act on any ‘red flags’ (credible indicators) but because they usher in the first step in government’s ability to control people based threats and fear…like Mao did, and Lenin, and Pol Pot, and Khmer Rouge, and Castro and ALL the others. Their flags are red with the blood of the oppressed and murdered.
Address the due process issue and I’ll take the poll. Meaningless otherwise.
First you take our guns.Than you take our Bibles,Than you put us Believers in Christ in jail.Than you push on us solsolizims. Than you tell us we cannot buy food unless we take the mark,666.Do you really think all of us are blind.”only the unbelievers are.Anen.
Actually there should be a national law banning “red flag laws”. The constitution is suppose to overrule states. We are guaranteed due process.
I call into remembrance the ERA amendment.
“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
It has not been ratified and look at the mess we’re in! No more politically correct “Men and Women’ public restrooms . While I was in college in the late 1970’s the debate over ERA was big news. When the misguided were informed of the possible interpretation that restrooms could be made unisex they scoffed at the idea. The response? THEY would never do that! That’s disgusting. So think about it. The LEFT would love to call Christians unstable. That could be you or your neighbors. The ones that would step up to defend your rights. O but their guns were taken and you’re left on your own. Remember words are just words. The interpretation and who is making that interpretation is what matters. This is surely a LEFTIST idea. We must not fall for it. How about this instead? We remove from POWER those that are troubled! Many members of Congress.
Every good-intensioned law passed to protect some “ONE” becomes over-reaching to the point of abridging the rights of EVERYONE else. Do not pass the “Red Flag Laws which are solely for getting started on gun control. Once started, it cannot be reversed.
Having had personal experience with “a family member being institutionalized” for “observation” of mental instability when the true reason was pure greed regarding distribution of an estate where a will existed favoring the “disturbed” person, I see great danger of misuse of any red flag law which allows an accusation to override constitutional rights.
Oppose. Who determines what “troubled” means. Once a bill is passed it is only a matter of time before someone will determine that conservatives and/or Christians are “trouble or intolerant .”
Good intentions. But I question real motives.
If the person is a threat put the person in protective custody. Leave my property alone
When lawmakers call the NRA terrorists, we cannot trust them with the decisions on who is crazy. NEVER!
I am sick of left wing news, I am sick of the demonrats and RINOs, And I am sick of just plain sick of stupid and brainwashed people.
Red Flag Law is a door opener to gun control. In my 73 years I have seen every well-intentioned law become expanded to serve a politically controlling government. Look at the number of laws we have now compared to 1950. The world’s values have changed so the good laws of old have gone and numerous laws of special interests have all of the government attorneys buzzing around to see how to serve their lobbyists not the people.
The Fed govt has no constitutional authority to regulate firearms, period!
Although, I think red flag laws “could” be written to protect society, there is a greater danger that they would be used to harm innocent, law abiding citizens. I oppose red flag laws, until I see one written with the proper safeguards for legal, law abiding gun owners that are interested in protecting themselves and their families.
I have questions pertaining to who determines if a person is considered troubled? What are the rights of the “troubled” person? can they get help to resolve their “troubles”. What constitutes being considered “troubled”?
The Red Flag law would start a dangerous precedent. I believe it’s a covert step towards taking away our gun rights eventually. Why do we need a law for this? Everyone should be mindful of the world around us.
The answer is constitutional carry nationwide and a movement back to personal responsibility for your actions, and also the death penalty needs to be reinstated by the Supreme Court.
To be honest a lot of us in daily life could be looked at as troubled with all that everyday life throws at us. This is just a way for lawyers and legislators to take more rights away from us. The 2nd Amendment stand as is.
Red flag gun laws are one more example of an idea that sounds good on paper, but when you begin to apply them in the real world the risk of abuse is huge. There is no way to have perfect safety nor are there perfect answers. But time and time again, we have seen that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun – police officer or trained civilian. So the answer is not to take guns away from law abiding citizens. In some states, red flag laws allow courts to issue gun seizure orders based solely on a statement of fear but no other evidence. Couple that with a judge who has antigun views and you have a situation very dangerous to our civil liberties. Red flag gun laws are not the answer.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not understand?
While Red Flag laws sound reasonable, they are tantamount to the “thought police “ in George Orwell’s 1984. Perhaps an alternative would be to delay selling a firearm to such an individual until he can undergo more scrupulous examination of him, his family, coworkers etc. Even this would “infringe” on his right and be unconstitutional, but it would better preserve his rights.
We already have enough laws. We just need them enforced. Unfortunately the laws we have are not enforced.
For there to be any reason for red flag laws, there must also be VERY SEVERE penalties, for anyone and everyone, that does false reporting. Any any anonymous reports, should be tracked down, and the reporter should be treated as a false reporter.
Also any report, should be handled, as the one LEO described.
None of this will ever happen, as personal or public safety, is NOT their goal.
My wife as a psych provider takes petitioning patients very seriously. The have been firearms involved in a handful of cases over the last few years, but they were all “a risk to self or others” situations. Petitioning a patient is due process and the documentation she provides goes before a judge. It’s a serious thing to limit a person’s freedom, but again due process is observed.
As protector for my wife (she doesn’t yet carry though she works with potentially dangerous people), I have been harassed and threatened by a person with known behavioral issues. At the very least this person was negligently careless with firearms. At worst he could be intentionally or unintentionally harmful with firearms. That person had me duly concerned for my safety and legitimately scared my friends and wife. As a result I am in favor of red flag laws, but only with constitutionally guaranteed due process. Does that mean a midnight raid by law enforcement on this individual? No, there’s no due process there. There must be a process, maybe using existing petitioning processes as models, where review is done with the individual before any rights are denied or property lost. Is there risk here? Yes, but that’s the price of freedom.
Looking at the poll results, I wonder how many respondents have been on the receiving end of harassment and threats from individuals capable of harm?
With the liberal democrats seeking to deny religious liberties and rights to people, how long will it be before Christians are dubbed “troubled people”?
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment: No person shall be…be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law…
First and for-most keep the federal government out of it. Keep it local. Areas with a high concentration of individuals bent on restrictive legislation will find out that homocides will not be reduced. Bring back the Civil Defense. My father was a member. He was not accepted in the military and joined the CD in case his services were needed in the home land. One of my prized possessions is his Colt revolver. With the CD, trained and armed individuals could be called upon to assist our law enforcement as needed.
“shall not be infringed”. Plain language, but so many find it inconvenient.
The biggest problem with these laws is the potential for serious abuse. Who decides who might be a threat? Who decides how long a person might be deprived of a constitutional right? Essentially, these laws are giving the government, whether state or federal, a way of circumventing the 2nd Amendment. Even if a judge is involved in the decision, we see activist judges making horrible rulings almost daily. It’s an open door for abuse. There are ways of making changes in our society to reduce if not fully eliminate the likelihood of mass killings, ways of preventing the mental instability that leads to violence against society, and we refuse to bother exploring them. Instead we look for quicker and easier solutions intead of fixing a society that minimizes life and teaches violent solutions to someone who feels ostracized. As just an example, think back to the 1950s and how many mass killings occurred then? Why? What has changed and can those changes be fixed?
RED FLAG LAWS ARE TOTALLY UN CONSTITUTIONAL AND WILL EVENTUALLY BE DEEMED SO BY SCOTUS! YOU CANNOT TAKE SOMEONE’S RIGHTS AWAY BECAUSE YOU “FEEL” THEY MIGHT COMMIT A CRIME!!!
The government cant even run the post office in the black, what makes anyone think that they can legislate a gun law that would do anything to stop a crime. They cant even build a wall that keeps criminals out of our country
Anyone who has a grudge with you, or wants to destroy your reputation has a way to “do you in” with this law. You have no defense against these allegations. It could be a condoned form of Bullying.
There are enough gun laws on the books…if the current laws are enforced & the prosecutors would be NOT make ANY plea-deals along with an extra 15 year mandatory sentence for anyone using a gun for any crime (along with the court’s sentence), gun crime would be on the decline.
This would need to be implemented with a automatic death sentence for anyone using a gun in a crime that results in a death…no more room & board for life! I can guarantee that the perpetrator will never kill anyone else!!! Let the punishment fit the crime!!!
Who would deem a person “TROUBLED”???? Seems to me it would have to be a medical doctor or some professional physician.
I live in Hawaii. They will not issue a C.C. permit. It is very difficult to even get a permit to have a firearm at all. Awful state to live in. I’d leave if I wasn’t locked in with a small business, a house with a mortgage, and I’m 64. I can’t afford to start again some where more reasonable to live at this point in life. I do not recommend Hawaii to live for any conservative thinking person. Hawaii doesn’t have to have this Red Flag stuff, they just don’t let you have a firearm from the grit go.
Red Flag laws, ignore “due process” which along with the 2A are guaranteed by our “US Constitution”. These laws are not the answer only another way the leftist’s are using to disarm Americans. Yes they hit an emotional nerve and seem right to those who have not fully thought through the issues and the repercussions
This is the first poll question I’ve seen on this sight that was designed to elicit a certsin response. It is clearly slanted in favor of Red Flag laws. These laws not only violate the 2nd Amendment but several other Amendments that guarantee privacy, unlawful search and seizure, due process, etc.
Any laws taking away second amendment rights is strictly unconstitutional
Red flag laws are unconstitutional remove personal property by government force without representation
If a person is deemed a clear and present danger to himself or others, that person should be institutionalized. If you are not willing to take him off the streets, you shouldn’t be able to take away his other rights.
I OTH SUPPORT AND DISAGREE WITH RED FLAG LAWS!. THEY CAN BE EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN PREVENTING SOMEONE FROM DOING HARM TO OTHERS, THE PROBLEM IS THAT ANTI GUN OR MALICIOUS PEOPLE COULD COMPLAIN SIMPLY TO CAUSE A PERSON TO LOSE THEIR FIREARMS. MOREOVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO PROTECTION FOR THE FIREARMS OWNER TO OBJECT OR TO PROTECT HIS RIGHTFUL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ESPECIALLY IN HE CASDE OF A MALICIOUS COMPLAINT
The problem with Red Flag laws is they are abused by government and others. Anybody can make an unsubstantiated claim and your guns will be removed putting you and your family at risk. There are several examples of this happening already from disgruntled neighbors to political opponents.