The Statistics of Red Flag Laws

[Sniper66]

Red flagging has been going on for a long while, even without so-called "red flag" laws. A couple of stories...I'm a retired psychologist and in the course of my career, I performed dozens of evaluations to determine dangerousness to self and others. I provided therapy for clients whose guns were taken from them. The decision to do so could be based on diagnosis, behavior, or, simply, circumstance. The judge has sole discretion and sometimes runs contrary to the recommendations of mental health professionals. Therapy is court ordered and usually a waste of time.
I once conducted an evaluation on a man whose only crime was making an illegal u-turn. The police pulled him over and saw in the seat of his car a shiny nickel-plated .357 revolver. It was legally owned and he broke no laws having it in his car. Using the presence of the pistol as probable cause, they searched his car and found a box with $16,000 cash in it. They assumed he must be involved in drugs with the pistol and a large amount of cash, so detained him and confiscated everything. Keep in mind he never broke any law except the traffic violation. I won't discuss the reasons he had the money and gun, but it was all perfectly legal and private, which is why I won't share it here. The rest of this info I've shared is public record. He was adjudicated as not dangerous, released, and all his property returned to him. But, he spent time in jail and subjected to interrogation by police and forced to go through a psych eval, which I provided. This was done to an innocent man without reds flag laws. Imagine what will happen with red flags.

 

[denton]

With a little nudge from a friend here on THR, I've revised my original article on the statistics of "red flag" laws. I think it's a little better on a couple of points. If you're going to disseminate it, this is the version to use. The bottom line is that Indiana's experiment with a red flag law provided absolutely no detectable reduction in their suicide rate. In my opinion, red flag laws are a canard that lets the government say that it is "doing something about the problem", when, in fact it is ignoring the real and more difficult root causes.

Sniper66's post is very sobering.

I have an unstable ex-SIL, and got to watch the process he went through. It ended up as it ought to have: He pleaded guilty and became a prohibited person. That's the way the system needs to work.

 

[10mm Mike]

The bottom line is that Indiana's experiment with a red flag law provided absolutely no detectable reduction in their suicide rate.

I'm not surprised, and I doubt that there is data to the contrary no matter where red flag laws were tried. However, I'd caution you on making this a focal point of your argument. Because if there were ever evidence to the contrary (whether the data was real or fake), you would essentially be conceding your position due to the statistical results - reduced suicides via bad law. I think most (if not all) people want to prevent suicide, but doing so by violating people's rights is NOT the right way to do it... EVER.

Plus, one could argue that people have a right to commit suicide and it is not the state's place to prevent them from doing that, especially by violating enumerated rights in order to do so. Whether or not we would agree with the "right to commit suicide" is irrelevant, because by arguing from the above perspective we could be alienating potential allies that may otherwise not care about guns & the 2nd A.

I have an unstable ex-SIL, and got to watch the process he went through. It ended up as it ought to have: He pleaded guilty and became a prohibited person. That's the way the system needs to work.

What's a SIL?

 

[denton]

Son In Law

 

[paulsj]

Within 10 years this will be in almost every state. Everyone needs to apply operational security rules. If anyone asks do you own a gun the answer is no. For those of you with kids, you need to explain this to them. It is no one's business except your own. Of course, this is all theoretical on my part since all my guns were lost in that horrible boating accident.

Like UBC this will be widely adapted in not so distant future because people vote based on emotions and not for results or based on whether something or someone will work out producing viable results. If they used logic or base their wants based on evidence of results people like Bernie Saunders would never get elected into public office. I used Saunders simply because he almost beat HRC for nomination using same techniques as when he won election to be mayor of Burlington Vt ie selling ideas to young and inexperienced.

 

[DoubleMag]

Now when, and that's when-not if, when the red flag laws fail , will they be removed or revoked? Or, will they be re-studied, re-shaped, to a better new red flag law. We got it wrong in practice but right in idea. A new study (costing 10s of million$) is needed. Is there going to be a sunset clause? And if so, it would be because data proved it ineffective; yet ''fear'' of not having the law will become the evidence to keep it, despite said evidence...

The only true moniker here is actually red flag; historical meaning means a notice quick hanky; or perhaps, the flag of communism.

I know which it really is.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Isn’t that appropriate though? If you’re not willing to remove a prohibited person from your home/weapons, I reckon you ought to secure your weapons to such an extent that the prohibited person doesn’t have access to them. They are, after all, your responsibility.

So, hypothetically, your brother is going through a nasty divorce. He got caught cheating, let's say. Shouldn't have gone to that strip club, maybe. Wife kicks him out of the house. Asks to sleep on your couch. Unbeknownst to you, wifey's attorney has had her swear out a restraining order to make her cheating hubby, your brother, look worse to the court. Whoops! He's now a "prohibited person".

"11 h. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?"

He did nothing illegal, yet he's prohibited. And you're letting him be around your weapons.
Currently there is a rough guess of 4,000 federal crimes. It's a complicated thing trying to get an accurate count. After all the American Bar Association's Task Force on the Federalization of Crime stated, "So large is the present body of federal criminal law that there is no conveniently accessible, complete list of federal crimes."
Well, one of the problems might be the same group started with the realization "The first difficulty is that federal law contains no general definition of the term "crime.""
Then there's state laws, the number of which vary from state to state. It's pretty easy to become a "prohibited person". And once the person becomes prohibited, I'm sure they don't go around announcing it to everyone. So someone was became a felon from a single mistake decades earlier gets in a car with a CC license holder who is carrying and gets pulled over for some reason or other.... Person A doesn't know the driver is carrying, or has a gun in the glove box, console, or wherever, and person B, the driver, doesn't know that the passenger did something dumb years ago.

It seems a lot of gun owners are very concerned about their rights, but not about their personal responsibilities that come with those rights. Why shouldn’t society be able to remove weapons from individuals in crisis on an emergent basis?

Society in the person of a judge, upon hearing expert testimony about the person in question, who that expert has examined adequately is one thing, responding to non experts armed with nothing but their opinions and prejudices is another. Who is to say that that person C, the complainant, is not just pissed off at person D, the gun owner. Or, has some kind of personal issue. Heck, there are people who think just owning a gun makes a person a nutcase in the first place.

 

[FlSwampRat]

Now when, and that's when-not if, when the red flag laws fail , will they be removed or revoked?

It's extremely rare that a law, once passed, is ever decided to be obsolete and removed when compared to the number of new laws cranked out every year. Unless it is deemed unconstitutional, they'll just decide to ignore the malfunctioning legal attempt at whatever the law's goal was.
If you don't believe in eternal life, just look at a government program.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I understand your reasoning for this, I really do. I don’t like people to know about my stuff and I certainly don’t show it off. But, if you are too fearful to get out and train or use your weapon then we have already lost. Please do not herald this as good advice. If we are all to do this then we might as well go ahead and turn all of our stuff over. A tool that cannot he used is not a tool. What you are proposing is exactly what they want as AlexanderA said so eloquently.

I agree with this in that, if gun owners all scurry under the rocks and pretend we don't exist, instead of actively being involved in the community, promoting gun safety and gun sports like target shooting and hunting, the anti second amendment contingent has won.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

For that matter, consider the following: you’re a gun owner with dementia, or some other condition. Your family has come to the well-informed opinion that you cannot safely possess or use firearms, but you refuse to give them up and refuse all contact with your gun-grabbing liberal spawn, who you then disown. Are you operating on well- reasoned principles and logic, or paranoia?

Red Flag laws also have due process. There is nothing stopping someone from challenging the removal. It’s a legal challenge, not a physical one, and yes, governments ought to be accountable for their actions and work within the context of the law...but fighting against removing guns from dangerous people is a losing proposition.

You can make up hypothetical situations all day long to justify your anti 2nd amendment point of view, but until you come up with solid, actual incidents, based on facts, and not based on creative, fictional stories, you are simply wrong. I can show you many, many factual accounts of where gun laws, already in place, failed. Why did they fail, because these gun laws were ignored by government entities who were negligent or incompetent.

Factual cases, all the time, where current gun laws did not stop a crime. So, again, why more laws? Why not simply enforce the current laws?

 

[Tilos]

You can make up hypothetical situations all day long to justify your anti 2nd amendment point of view, but until you come up with solid, actual incidents, based on facts, and not based on creative, fictional stories, you are simply wrong. I can show you many, many factual accounts of where gun laws, already in place, failed. Why did they fail, because these gun laws were ignored by government entities who were negligent or incompetent.

Factual cases, all the time, where current gun laws did not stop a crime. So, again, why more laws? Why not simply enforce the current laws?

Yes...
Nothing hypothetical about this report showing 25% had obtained the gun from a family member or friend, or as a gift , I'm guessing being straw purchases.

Guns being used by criminals are being tracked back to "girlfriend" straw purchases who are rarely charged.
If charged and convicted, receive 1 year probation or less.
You can search for official statistics on that if you have any concerns about it being true or not.
Another example of current laws not being used to charge anyone, and new laws being written for similar offenses.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwicoaTLwfrgAhWJ_J4KHYtJD-8QFjACegQIBBAC&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3K8_isoNfJ2TTx_gRw4dSf
The introduction of any new gun control law is proof none of the old laws have worked.
jmo

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

Yes...
Nothing hypothetical about this report showing 25% bought or stolen from friends/family, with the "bought" I'm guessing being straw purchases.

Guns being used by criminals are being tracked back to "girlfriend" straw purchases who are rarely charged.
If charged and convicted, receive 1 year probation or less.
You can search for official statistics on that if you have any concerns about it being true or not.
Another example of current laws not being used to charge anyone, and new laws being written for similar offenses.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=2ahUKEwicoaTLwfrgAhWJ_J4KHYtJD-8QFjACegQIBBAC&url=https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3K8_isoNfJ2TTx_gRw4dSf
jmo

And what does this have to do with red flag laws?

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
frearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it of the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
frearm dealer.

You were talking about red flag laws based on someone reporting a gun owning individual as being incompetent to own a firearm. As for charging friends or family members who knowingly provide a firearm to a criminal, there are laws or precedent in place to prosecute those individuals. Simply because you think (I'm guessing this is what you are thinking) that those responsible for straw purchases are not locked away longer and/or revoked of their second amendment rights as an injustice, that is an issue for the courts to decide.

 

[Tilos]

And what does this have to do with red flag laws?

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a
frearm during their offense. Among these, more than
half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the
scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it of the street
or from the underground market (43%). Most of
the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family
member or friend, or as a gift Seven percent had
purchased it under their own name from a licensed
firearm dealer.

You were talking about red flag laws based on someone reporting a gun owning individual as being incompetent to own a firearm. As for charging friends or family members who knowingly provide a firearm to a criminal, there are laws or precedent in place to prosecute those individuals. Simply because you think (I'm guessing this is what you are thinking) that those responsible for straw purchases are not locked away longer and/or revoked of their second amendment rights as an injustice, that is an issue for the courts to decide.

"And what does this have to do with red flag laws?"
Apparently nothing, according to you...
Just posting how it easy is to find actual FACTS about gun use in crimes and where they come from, as apposed to some Lib posting up hypothetical situations.
A simple search will show many cases/articles about the enforcement of Red Flag laws (The Risk Protection Act in Florida) going sideways.
Florida's had this law and have used it for quite a while now, search them out, and read the horror stories.
you said:
"As for charging friends or family members who knowingly provide a firearm to a criminal, there are laws or precedent in place to prosecute those individuals. Simply because you think (I'm guessing this is what you are thinking) that those responsible for straw purchases are not locked away longer and/or revoked of their second amendment rights as an injustice, that is an issue for the courts to decide."

my take:
Yes there are laws but rarely enforced, search for the statistics and you'll see some "girlfriends" have bought more than one gun for more than one criminal and when traced back to them they claim the straw guns have been stolen from them.
Girlfriends show up in guns store with the thug in tow to point out the guns "she's" interested in, sometimes the thug actually handle the guns.
She comes back, alone, sometimes within minutes, with cash in hand to fill out the paper work, and buy the gun of choice.

Once tracked down, "girlfriend" cops the "it was stolen" excuse, and unless they confess, there is no way for them to be charged.
The reason for my posting: "The introduction of any new gun control law is proof none of the old laws have worked."
Continue to talk about hypothetical situations or what should or should not happen when Red Flag type laws are enforced... or search for and read actual cases, facts that are published and easy to find...

Just follow the links already posted in this thread and read stuff like this:
“These are individuals who are often exercising their first amendment rights online, who are protecting constitutionally protected speech online,” she said. “Maybe it was odious, maybe people didn’t like it but they were hit with the risk protection order because of it.”
That could be someone (you or me) posting on a gun forum.
scary I know,
your call
take the last word if you see the need to,
I'm done here,

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Show of hands: Who thinks this gal oughta be red-flagged, at least in terms of being allowed to purchase/possess?

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/...rBrknPWCtGfWKz4EJUF7MBEN4tz6Kgx4YCWF0JtNYeuKM

Anti-gunners always act like every gun owner is a murderer in the making. They see a gun and act like we’ll draw and start shooting at even the slightest provocation as if we’re all unhinged people who want to slaughter anyone and everyone.

An anti-gun activist in the Connecticut State Capitol showed us why they do that. The technical term is “projection.”

State Capitol police expelled an unnamed gun-control advocate from a public hearing Monday after someone photographed her sending a text message in which she imagined shooting NRA members and a legislator opposed to gun control.
…

“If I had a gun, I’d blow away Sampson and a large group of NRA,” read the text, photographed before it was finished.
…

The text was sent to the women’s daughter, not a lawmaker or NRA member, Lee said. She does not own a firearm.

 

[paulsj]

After either Nevada or Florida tragic mass shootings Donnie said take guns first then worry about due process and legal ramifications. Reason given was extra time taken could cost innocent lives. In not to distant future "Red Flag Laws" will be coming to your neck of the woods. We should focus on positive ie we will now have to love and respect everone. MAPA!

 

[denton]

The "red flag" law that was proposed in the Utah legislature didn't make it very far. A lot of us stood up and told the legislature that it's a very bad idea.

The legislature also soundly defeated a proposal to punish firearms owners who loan a firearm to someone who then uses it to commit a crime.

Until recently, we had a member of the House of Representatives who carried concealed on the House floor. How cool is that?

 

[luzyfuerza]

Here's what the Giffords Law Center says about Red Flag laws in each state, as well as the provisions of a model law that they believe should be enacted in each state:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-...an-have-a-gun/extreme-risk-protection-orders/

The only evidence provided that these laws reduce violence are anecdotes, plus three citations to studies which they describe as evidence that red flag laws affect suicide rates. The rates of improvement appear to be small, however. One of these studies addresses Indiana's experience, and is refuted by Denton's analysis above.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

"And what does this have to do with red flag laws?"
Apparently nothing, according to you...
Just posting how it easy is to find actual FACTS about gun use in crimes and where they come from, as apposed to some Lib posting up hypothetical situations.
A simple search will show many cases/articles about the enforcement of Red Flag laws (The Risk Protection Act in Florida) going sideways.
Florida's had this law and have used it for quite a while now, search them out, and read the horror stories.
you said:
"As for charging friends or family members who knowingly provide a firearm to a criminal, there are laws or precedent in place to prosecute those individuals. Simply because you think (I'm guessing this is what you are thinking) that those responsible for straw purchases are not locked away longer and/or revoked of their second amendment rights as an injustice, that is an issue for the courts to decide."

my take:
Yes there are laws but rarely enforced, search for the statistics and you'll see some "girlfriends" have bought more than one gun for more than one criminal and when traced back to them they claim the straw guns have been stolen from them.
Girlfriends show up in guns store with the thug in tow to point out the guns "she's" interested in, sometimes the thug actually handle the guns.
She comes back, alone, sometimes within minutes, with cash in hand to fill out the paper work, and buy the gun of choice.

Once tracked down, "girlfriend" cops the "it was stolen" excuse, and unless they confess, there is no way for them to be charged.
The reason for my posting: "The introduction of any new gun control law is proof none of the old laws have worked."
Continue to talk about hypothetical situations or what should or should not happen when Red Flag type laws are enforced... or search for and read actual cases, facts that are published and easy to find...

Just follow the links already posted in this thread and read stuff like this:
“These are individuals who are often exercising their first amendment rights online, who are protecting constitutionally protected speech online,” she said. “Maybe it was odious, maybe people didn’t like it but they were hit with the risk protection order because of it.”
That could be someone (you or me) posting on a gun forum.
scary I know,
your call
take the last word if you see the need to,
I'm done here,

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm referring to red flag laws, that is, where someone can report another person as incompetent to own a firearm. You are talking about people who knowingly purchase fire arms for someone who, for whatever reason, cannot purchase a firearm legally, in other words, straw purchases. Again, if a person is caught purchasing a firearm for a criminal, then that person can be prosecuted by law or precedent. I'm sure a judge can take that person's second amendment right away if that judge thinks it necessary.

 

[Tilos]

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I'm referring to red flag laws, that is, where someone can report another person as incompetent to own a firearm. You are talking about people who knowingly purchase fire arms for someone who, for whatever reason, cannot purchase a firearm legally, in other words, straw purchases. Again, if a person is caught purchasing a firearm for a criminal, then that person can be prosecuted by law or precedent. I'm sure a judge can take that person's second amendment right away if that judge thinks it necessary.

I know what the subject of this thread is...
I'm just providing links to published facts, that happen to be about straw buyers as a reference, there are the same facts published about red flag laws without dreaming up hypothetical cases and speculating about what the application of red flag laws would be like other posters have done here.
I suggest you re-read the post you quoted.

Key words in your post concerning straw buyers are "can be prosecuted by law", more often than not, never prosecuted.
Like this case:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=2016+mass+shooting+in+Newton+and+Hesston,+Kansas.&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&plvar=0&refig=780c21240e8e45eac28e3f4616e3b048&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=2016+mass+shooting+in+newton+and+hesston,+kansas.&sc=0-49&qs=n&sk=&cvid=780c21240e8e45eac28e3f4616e3b048
Sadly prosecutors ignore current laws, and elected officials write and propose new laws (red flag, etc) that don't affect the criminal element.
For any politician, their main focus is re-election and raising money for it, and people like Soros and Bloomberg are standing at the front of the line waiting to donate.
probably my last time to wander into this thread/forum.
Remember, we all are on the same side, I see no need to challenge/debate each other on these points.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I know what the subject of this thread is...
I'm just providing links to published facts, that happen to be about straw buyers as a reference, there are the same facts published about red flag laws without dreaming up hypothetical cases and speculating about what the application of red flag laws would be like other posters have done here.
I suggest you re-read the post you quoted.

Key words in your post concerning straw buyers are "can be prosecuted by law", more often than not, never prosecuted.
Like this case:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=2016+mass+shooting+in+Newton+and+Hesston,+Kansas.&form=EDNTHT&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&plvar=0&refig=780c21240e8e45eac28e3f4616e3b048&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=2016+mass+shooting+in+newton+and+hesston,+kansas.&sc=0-49&qs=n&sk=&cvid=780c21240e8e45eac28e3f4616e3b048
Sadly prosecutors ignore current laws, and elected officials write and propose new laws (red flag, etc) that don't affect the criminal element.
For any politician, their main focus is re-election and raising money for it, and people like Soros and Bloomberg are standing at the front of the line waiting to donate.
probably my last time to wander into this thread/forum.
Remember, we all are on the same side, I see no need to challenge/debate each other on these points.

You said that post #63 was your last word on the issue, now you are posting again? You are conflating two different things, comparing apples to oranges. Red Flag laws and how they are designed to work (report people as incompetent to own a firearm before that person has done anything illegal, in other words, little more than hearsay, which cannot be used as evidence against a person) and straw purchases of a firearm by a person who knowingly obtains a firearm, legally, to give it to another person who cannot, legally, obtain said firearm. If you are upset at prosecutors or DAs or judges who refuse to enforce the current laws and set precedent against straw purchases, then that is on those entities, not on you and me, otherwise known as, legal, law abiding citizens who own firearms.

 

[Tilos]

You said that post #63 was your last word on the issue, now you are posting again? You are conflating two different things, comparing apples to oranges. Red Flag laws and how they are designed to work (report people as incompetent to own a firearm before that person has done anything illegal, in other words, little more than hearsay, which cannot be used as evidence against a person) and straw purchases of a firearm by a person who knowingly obtains a firearm, legally, to give it to another person who cannot, legally, obtain said firearm. If you are upset at prosecutors or DAs or judges who refuse to enforce the current laws and set precedent against straw purchases, then that is on those entities, not on you and me, otherwise known as, legal, law abiding citizens who own firearms.

Ya, your right on that, I'm an a-hole
I said I was done with the guy I quoted...you not the thread.
Thanks for reading my stuff, if it's seems conflicting and confusing to you, just click on Tilos and click on ignore.
I'll be doing the same for you.
go find someone else's chain to yank,

 

[paulsj]

Now when, and that's when-not if, when the red flag laws fail , will they be removed or revoked? Or, will they be re-studied, re-shaped, to a better new red flag law. We got it wrong in practice but right in idea. A new study (costing 10s of million$) is needed. Is there going to be a sunset clause? And if so, it would be because data proved it ineffective; yet ''fear'' of not having the law will become the evidence to keep it, despite said evidence...

The only true moniker here is actually red flag; historical meaning means a notice quick hanky; or perhaps, the flag of communism.

I know which it really is.

If the laws don't work they will move onto profiling people to deny wright to buy guns & ammunition.

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

If the laws don't work they will move onto profiling people to deny wright to buy guns & ammunition.

They already are trying to do this. What do you think red flag laws do? They are a form of profiling.

If gun rights are civil rights, and all civil rights advocates eschew the notion of “criminal” profiling in other civil rights sectors, why should red flag laws be acceptable? That’s cranial chaos. It must really hurt...