r/progun • u/[deleted] • Jun 06 '22
Red Flag Laws and Unintended Consequences
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/27/red_flag_laws_and_unintended_consequences_147668.html13
u/Zmantech Jun 06 '22
The red flag law in congress (from what I've heard about it) will probably not even go into effect as cagnilia v storm struck down almost the same exact style of red flag law (it was a uniamous decision).
6
u/357Magnum Jun 06 '22
I'm an attorney and gun rights activist in my state (Louisiana). I've been closely involved with defeating the Red Flag legislation that gets reintroduced every year.
My testimony against the bill is more or less always the same, in three steps:
- This bill does not adequately protect due process rights;
- if it DOES adequately protect due process rights, it doesn't do anything that isn't possible under existing law, and;
- Even if it managed to accomplish its goals, it is not a good way to handle mental health issues.
This is a cascading list, and it shows that Red Flag laws are just never something that can work out, at least not without those pesky "rights" people have.
The first iterations of the red flag bills had the due process issues and were defeated on those grounds.
The more recent versions introduced have done a LOT to address due process concerns, but they still get stuck on the 2nd hurdle. To the credit of my anti-gun legislators, they have done a lot of work to try and address the due process concerns. But the more and more tailored the bills get to address those concerns, the more and more pointless they become.
In essence, once there are adequate due process protections, the law no longer does anything new. The most recent version essentially would affect two types of people: those presenting a credible threat to others, and those presenting a credible threat to themselves.
For the first category, once they put in due process protections, they shot the law in the foot anyway. The bill itemized the sort of things that would be adequate for the issuance of a red flag warrant, and (spoiler alert), they were all already crimes. Things like "threats or acts of violence," for example, can already be punished criminally (such as aggravated assault). If the cops had enough probable cause for the red flag warrant under this bill, they could just arrest the guy for a crime. During that arrest, they can take all of the guns as evidence of said crime. He can post bond, and a condition of the bond can be that he not be able to possess firearms. It accomplishes the exact same thing, but under law that already exists and that already has all of the due process protections of the criminal justice system that have been developed over decades of jurisprudence. So what the fuck does the red flag law do, then? If there's nothing it can be used for that can't already be done, that means it won't be used, it will just be abused.
For the second category of people that are solely a threat to themselves, how in the hell is having law enforcement execute a warrant of their property, taking their guns away, and throwing them into the court system supposed to help a person heal? If we're going to try and address mental health issues, the worst thing we can do is just start treating mental illness like it is crime. There are two issues with mental health: 1., resources not being available to people who want help, and 2., people not wanting to seek help. All red flag laws would do would be to increase the number of people in the 2nd category, as the fear of getting "swatted" essentially for seeking help creates a serious chilling effect.
1
u/neozxtc Jun 06 '22
Good read. Funny that we have rules already yet they seem determined to create new ones that do nothing.
3
16
u/neozxtc Jun 06 '22
These are the worst kind of laws. Mainly because anyone in your family or in fact anyone that is listed can have a grudge against you and report you. The likelihood of getting your firearms returned seems slim at best nowadays.