Discussion What are your thoughts on red flag laws?

[TAW122]

Note: This is just a discussion about red flag laws, pros and cons, and also no offense to anyone who isn't in the US.

As a firearms owner and supporter of the 2A (2nd amendment - the right to bear arms) as well as the US Constitution, I'd say that I'm against the concept of red flag laws, which are laws that allow the government and law enforcement to temporarily restrict an individual citizen from owning or possessing firearms. On paper, it sounds good as it is to prevent would be criminals from carrying out a nefarious assault, but in practice, it has been anything but smooth at all. I am against it for the simple fact that it violates due process (5th amendment - due process) by assuming the person to be guilty of being a danger to him/herself or the public and then the burden of proof would be up to defendant (the one accused and has his/her weapons seized) to prove his/her competence and innocence. This legal process is neither quick nor cheap, the time and money invested into mounting a legal defense, including obtaining an attorney, going to a court hearing, and then, hoping the judge will rule favorably in the case of the defendant. So in essence, guilty until proven innocent and proving innocence is a costly and lengthy battle.

In addition to this, the legalese in such laws include a danger to "oneself" or others clause, which means that even if the person (pro-lifers wanting to preserve life at all costs) was not a threat to the public, but only to him/herself, then the law can still preemptively violate said person's constitutional rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th respectively). 1st amendment because of speech, 2nd amendment (firearms), 4th (illegal search and seizure from an unconstitutional warrant), and 5th (due to presumption of guilt until proof of innocence).

Here are a few examples of what I mean in these articles:

Maryland's 'Red Flag' Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun

A 60-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland's new 'red flag' law in Ferndale Monday morning.

baltimore.cbslocal.com

‘You’re not taking that!’ Family turmoil preceded fatal police shooting in Maryland’s only red flag death

It was dark and rainy when Cpl. Jessica Hooper and Officer Gary Zawodny arrived a little after 5 a.m. at a home in Ferndale. The Anne Arundel County police officers were serving an extreme risk pro…

www.capitalgazette.com

A look at Red Flag laws and the battle over one in Colorado

Red Flag gun laws allow temporary confiscation of firearms if a gun owner displays dangerous or threatening behavior. The laws have been adopted in 19 states and the District of Columbia, but in Colorado, there's been fierce controversy

www.cbsnews.com

On the contrary, yes I understand the arguments from people who are living outside of the US, mainly in other countries and other parts of the world may disagree and/or not comprehend to why the US would cling onto a right that is centuries old and perhaps antiquated in the eyes of the modern society. Simple reasons are that the US is unique in that sense and was founded and gained independence from a foreign power (Britain in the 18th century) through the use of firearms as well as ensuring the government is kept in check by having that right (debatable nowadays since people also claim that in modern day that if the gov't wants to subjugate it's citizens they have way more firepower and means to do so that the average citizen does, but of course that's another topic altogether). Then also the fact that in the US one cannot simply rely on law enforcement to take care of things and in times of unrest, when there is no social or public order and chaos, one only has him/herself and his/her tools (firearms and what not) to defend him/herself. Finally, as part of tradition and what makes the US unique, firearm ownership and culture. Anyways, I digress and back to red flag laws.

The problem with red flag laws like these are that they presume guilt and assume that the person is a danger to him/herself without first going through a trial or hearing to determine guilt and basis for it. All it takes is someone to reasonably believe that another is a danger to him/herself or others (includes the public) and then he/she can get law enforcement to then obtain an court order to have said person's firearms (temporarily) seized. This opens up a lot of potential for abuse. Imagine having an argument or altercation with someone and that someone decides to retaliate by claiming you are a danger to yourself or others, and then a judge orders removal of firearms from said person, all without having a preliminary hearing. Now imagine, a couple who had an argument with his/her significant other (SO) and the SO claims that he/she is a danger to him/herself out of spite, retaliation, and then preemptively, that person will (temporarily) lose his/her firearms until it can be proven that he/she is not a danger to him/herself or others. Keep in mind that this is just for one case. In the future, others could make new claims and a legal firearms owner would always have to be fighting spurious claims, so this has a lot of potential for abuse. (California however, does have a law (See Chapter 5. Offenses 18200) that makes it a misdemeanor to file a gun violence restraining order knowing the information is false, or with the intent to harrass.)

Sure, some proponents of red flag laws can claim that it saves lives, both the defendant, others, and what not, but it is very easy to abuse and heavily infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens by presuming guilt without due process, only for the person to prove innocence from guilt. Furthermore, the threshold for this is still too low because people can just make up bogus stories or claims and then a judge signs an order to have target person's firearms seized. It would have been better if there was a high threshold for danger to self or others, such as real evidence to prove that said person is really a danger to oneself or others, which includes audio, video recording, writings, emails, texts, electronic communication, etc. otherwise strong evidence to prove it.

Therefore, I find red flag laws and the way they are implemented (designed) as well as how they are executed (enforced) to be problematic as it violates a lot of civil rights (mainly due process) of the person and has a lot of potential for misuse, abuse, with little recourse for the accused. Luckily, I live in a state that does not (yet) have a red flag law, though at times there were bills introduced in the state legislature to enact red flag laws, but thankfully they either died out or never passed.

 

[thereandgone]

Total nonsense. Don't care what anyone's opinion is--the law of the land is 100% clear on this. And before anyone tries to talk about standing militias/armies like they have to be officially sanctioned, a militia can be any individual able-bodied man. But in the end might makes right and the people who make/enforce the laws know this, which is why they can remain open for business. Unfortunately we the governed bear most of the blame in this because we never push back, largely because those in power have got us convinced (minus those on this site) that death is the worst possible fate.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

Slightly OT so apologies, but I AM in a gun forum now despite being in the UK (I joined to get advice on my house safe, I figured gun owners would be good on that sort of thing).
As a UK resident it was a shock to me staying in the mountains of Wyoming, the amount of firearms on the ranch. However, I really enjoyed blasting the crap out of stuff in the boondocks.
Anyway, sorry, not on topic, I'll leave you to your debate.

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

On the contrary, yes I understand the arguments from people who are living outside of the US, mainly in other countries and other parts of the world may disagree and/or not comprehend to why the US would cling onto a right that is centuries old and perhaps antiquated in the eyes of the modern society. Simple reasons are that the US is unique in that sense and was founded and gained independence from a foreign power (Britain in the 18th century) through the use of firearms as well as ensuring the government is kept in check by having that right

With Trump in office, trying to use the military against citizens, and trying to become a dictator, the right to bear arms no longer seems antiquated.

 

[Fragile]

Not from the US, but since I live in a shit country where the only people who have real access to firearms are the criminals who mug you in the street with impunity or the terrorist guerrillas that freely kidnaps children from their towns and indoctrinates them, I find it really hard to argue against any kind of law that takes away your means of protection and self-defense, specially in the US where this is a constitutional right.

I can kinda see the point to these laws in extreme cases where it's clear that someone is a danger to others, however, that's highly subjective and as you said, easily exploitable by some people with ulterior motives.

This is a really complicated topic and people almost always have very strong emotional reactions to anything pro-gun related, objectivity is also not the strong suit of either side on this conversation, so it's really hard to reach a common ground.

However, this may be a completely wrong foreign perspective, but I've noticed that your country is slowly turning away from personal freedom, so laws like this are very likely to pass in the near future since there are plenty of people (pro-lifers being one of the most vocal) supporting them and falsely convincing everyone that this is the way most people think.

 

[netrezven]

i'm for these red flags. In my country there are lots of restrictions and simply it's very hard to own a gun legally, a little bit easier for hunting shotgun. What can i say, people here are crazy and stupid as f**k. That's one of the few things government did right. If everyone could have guns here, we will already be in a warzone. I have frineds that wear guns legally and i never understood them. They are simply afraid of everything and can't handle complex situations.
I never go to a places where i need to hold a gun. I simply think forward. If i have to be armed, then i should be miles away relaxing in the pool, instead of being shot.
I was forced to wear it a few times and i made it clear that i won't use it and will play death for sure. I was also in a situation where one of mine had pulled his gun out in some kind of a ghetto, we were surronded by very aggresive and drunk suff. I talked with them, lied too much, but we got what we wanted.
I really hate gas guns, many idiots wear them as they are easy to get. And what - you point a gas gun, but how can the other side knows what you are pointing, and they will react and shot you for real.
I've used in thе shooting gallery many guns, many guns, and i don't love them. Really hate on Glock and small callibers. If i would use one it will be a revolver and ak with optics, or some 3d printed design i came up.

 

[TAW122]

@GoodPersonEffed True, though realistically, I think if the government really wants to physically take each firearm away from law abiding citizens without due process, not only would it be very unconstitutional, yes, there will be lots of people who will actively resist the government (even if they lose their lives protecting the Constitution and their rights). I'm not encouraging violence or anything, just making a speculation here. Hopefully that would never be a reality and that there are people in power who will keep each other in check as well as the citizenry.

@Fragile I don't think you are off base at all. I've noticed that the US is indeed eroding it's freedom day by day, week by week. Your claim is not unfounded at all, and it's a scary reality that the US citizens that care about Constitutional rights and individual freedom are hoping to avoid. No one can predict the future, but I do believe there will be significant resistance before all of that is ever passed or even gets passed to begin with. I believe there are people in government that aren't on board with unconstitutional laws, at the federal, state, and local levels (including Sheriffs who won't enforce unconstitutional laws).

@netrezven Interesting point of view and no offense taken, you explained your point very well. Another country's culture and attitude towards firearms and it's people are certainly factors in whether gun violence is prevalent or not.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I am completely against it and it is a blatant infringement on the rights of the citizenry.

With Trump in office, trying to use the military against citizens, and trying to become a dictator, the right to bear arms no longer seems antiquated.

It never was.

 

[myopybyproxy]

People who want to hurt people will find a way to hurt people. They can purchase illegal weapons or build their own. People who want to die will find a way to do so. They will use other methods or see previous.

Limiting citizens' access to legally obtained firearms when government is already far too greedy and controlling is a recipe for totalitarianism, facism and what have you.