The Statistics of Red Flag Laws

[Kevin5098]

When "red flag" laws fail to produce the desired effect, the progressives will want more laws. We need to take a stand at the state and federal level. IMO there is no such thing as "common sense" gun control laws. Gun control laws don't make sense. My guns are already controlled - by ME. I am opposed to any and all legislation that in any way infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. As Henry Stamper said "Never give an inch!"

 

[GEM]

Let's stick to discussing empirical evidence, precise legal problems and incidents as compared to just complaining about them.

 

[The Liberal]

Yes, and the categories of prohibited persons keep expanding. Soon, even if you yourself are the most upstanding citizen, if you have a "prohibited person" in your household (such as a spouse or child), the taint will rub off on you, and you too will find yourself prohibited.

The antigunners are approaching this from both ends: they are vilifying the guns (such as by the current crusade against "assault weapons"), but at the same time they are vilifying the gun owners (through ""red flag" laws and other disqualifications). If they can't ban guns, they will ban gun ownership; if they can't ban ownership, they will ban guns. They have this all figured out.

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.

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?

 

[The Liberal]

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.

 

[10mm Mike]

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.

Do they? It sure sounds like the red flag laws being discussed here don't. And petitioning a court AFTER your property has been stolen is NOT due process. And while not necessarily part of due process, there should be an automatic penalty for people that file these red flag accusations on someone and the accused is found to be just fine.

 

[CapnMac]

Red Flag laws also have due process.

Really? Read the Florida statute?
The legal presumption is that the person being "red flagged" represents a clear and present danger to themselves or to others. That person is not called up on the phone and asked to come discuss this with legal council present.
No, the "flagged" person finds out when LE coems to their door with a warrant to seize all the waepons.

Oh, and the "flagged" person might be identified as a "source" for firearms, so, if your nephew has been spouting off about shooting up his school, they could come seize the uncle's guns with no prior notice.

And no prior notice is considered important as the grabbers do not want to the grabee to stash any for safekeeping.

 

[Tommygunn]

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.

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?

Gun owners mostly ARE responsible. But in a nation of 300++ million there will be bad apples. And some states are trying to impose such onerous storage laws on people that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to access the gun, even to the point of loading it, that it becomes effectively useless for self defense in a fast developing crisis.

 

[The Liberal]

Gun owners mostly ARE responsible. But in a nation of 300++ million there will be bad apples. And some states are trying to impose such onerous storage laws on people that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to access the gun, even to the point of loading it, that it becomes effectively useless for self defense in a fast developing crisis.

As opposed to being accessible to a prohibited person?

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

The prohibited person can still get a weapon, like the shooter in Illinois. That is why I am dead set against any new "common sense gun laws" because the ones already on the books aren't working. The Progressives that have taken over the Colorado government are in the process of passing a "Red Flag" statute and it reads to me like my neighbor can turn me in without any evidence that I am a threat to anyone. Will I be able to sue the person who reports me for defamation or harassment? Will the police take care of my collection or will they just pile them up in the back of a squad car? Can I hold them responsible for damage that they may do to some of my finer collectible rifles? I am guessing probably not.

 

[Tommygunn]

As opposed to being accessible to a prohibited person?

Non-prohibited persons still have their 2A rights. They also have the right to defend themselves. Balancing rights/responsibility between people has only proven to be an equation ending in crushing individual rights.
Prohibited people will arm themselves as they choose ignoring the laws as convenient.
There are ways of securing firearms that allow their owners quick access and will keep out children and "prohibited" persons who have no criminal intent. Those with criminal intent can ultimately defeat these devices, or obtain a gun on a black market.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

As opposed to being accessible to a prohibited person?

I had an older daughter that was Bi-Polar. She did not have access to any firearms but,illegally, was able to access enough prescription drugs to kill herself.
If someone wants something bad enough they will get it.

 

[IlikeSA]

So what happens when an anti-gun advocate gets red flagged? This person may not have any weapons, but law enforcement will surely check to make sure, and they better not resist. Will this cause them to step back?

 

[denton]

The point of my original post was that if Indiana's experience is typical, there is no detectable benefit from red flag laws.

Knowing what benefit comes to us if we give up a bit of freedom is essential before making a decision. It seems that there is zero actual benefit, so we get nothing in exchange.

Besides, Justice Scalia properly taught that certain policy decisions are off the table. It's a problem alright, but doing "something" is not enough. We have to find a path that is permissible and effective. Red flag laws aren't it.

 

[ROCK6]

When "red flag" laws fail to produce the desired effect, the progressives will want more laws.

That’s why they’re called “progressives”! In the not too distant future with more wide-spread Red Flag laws, and no desired effects, the next excuse will be firearms registration. It will be much easier for the government to execute Red Flag laws when they know what and where said firearm-threats are located.

I can hear the future campaign speeches: “what are you afraid of with registering your firearms if you’re not a threat to society? We need to support our Law Enforcement Community in keeping our communities safe by removing those and their firearms when they make threats to others or the community.” Sounds pretty benign, doesn’t it…who would be against a “safer community”?

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.

I think that’s a bit naïve. You’re presuming Red Flag laws have merit when in some states the evidence is a mere accusation. Is anybody comfortable getting their property seized and their Constitutional rights suspended at a mere accusation without evidence other than a Facebook statement or some third-party’s “feelings”. Should we suspend voting rights (right before an election of course) because of possible hate-speech and suspend those rights until the individual proves their innocence? How far are we willing to threaten personal liberties for perceived safety?

I don’t think anyone here is against the removal of firearms from “dangerous people”, but we do have a system where due process is used after law enforcement has enough evidence to indict or arrest someone. Even then, the State should provide the burden of proof to strip away one’s Constitutional Rights, not for the defendant to prove they never intended to harm or threat others. When we lower the bar for probable cause of a potential future crime, we become a society of “minority report”.

Even individuals with serious mental illness have protections until the State can adjudicate their state of condition. Once our government is allowed to assume, without criminal evidence, when a citizen is a threat to society and that individual now has the burden to prove their own innocence against the government, we have arrived at the socialist utopian state. It’s a dangerous and slippery slope.

Red Flag laws open a door to abusing gun-owners, plain and simple. Even CA is having significant problems enforcing their Red Flag laws that have been in place for a few years. It’s simply another burden on the law-abiding with zero evidence of effectiveness. Even with Red Flags already in place, and clear evidence of actual and proven violence, Law Enforcement has not prevented those individuals from harming others (Aurora, IL for example).

ROCK6

 

[Spats McGee]

Yes, and the categories of prohibited persons keep expanding. Soon, even if you yourself are the most upstanding citizen, if you have a "prohibited person" in your household (such as a spouse or child), the taint will rub off on you, and you too will find yourself prohibited.

The antigunners are approaching this from both ends: they are vilifying the guns (such as by the current crusade against "assault weapons"), but at the same time they are vilifying the gun owners (through ""red flag" laws and other disqualifications). If they can't ban guns, they will ban gun ownership; if they can't ban ownership, they will ban guns. They have this all figured out.

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.

Isn't what appropriate? Expanding the definition of prohibited persons? Or banning guns? Or some other thing between the two?

One who has a prohibited person living in the home certainly should secure guns so as not to allow access. That said: (1) the gov't and other members of society have limited rights to control (a) who lives in my home; or (b) how I store my personal property in my home.

Also, I thought the topic of this thread was Red Flag Laws. It's already a federal crime for prohibited persons to possess firearms or ammunition. It's already a crime in every state of which I am aware for felons to possess firearms. Red Flag Laws are aimed at folks for whom possession is not yet a crime.

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?

We are concerned about our rights. Why shouldn't we be? They are, after all, rights. We're not required to roll over and give them up.

And I disagree that gun owners are not concerned about our personal responsibilities. The best estimates I've seen put lawful gun owners at about 100 million, with somewhere north of 250 million firearms. They invest a great deal of time, energy and money in training, safes, locks, etc.

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?

This sure does operate on a lot of underlying presumptions. What if the family's opinion isn't really that well informed? What if it's really just a will contest that someone decides to start a little before the gun owner dies? You know, so that the other sibling can't just swoop in and take all the guns.

There are already processes by which the family can take the firearms. A civil commitment comes to mind. That way the family member with dementia has an opportunity to contest the removal before it actually occurs. Is it really necessary to send the police to seize a dementia patient's firearms today?

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.

I don't think anyone here is "fighting against removing guns from dangerous people," and I think it's disingenuous to characterize what's been said here and in other threads that way. What we're fighting against is having SWAT teams barge into houses of folks who have not even been accused of a crime. What we're fighting against is having the government seize someone's property, in the absence of any criminal allegations. RFLs are just screaming to be abused, and they will be. Divorce lawyers will use them & the police to "keep someone from hiding assets." Ex-husband and ex-wife disputes will result in the police kicking in someone's door.

Gun owners mostly ARE responsible. But in a nation of 300++ million there will be bad apples. And some states are trying to impose such onerous storage laws on people that it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to access the gun, even to the point of loading it, that it becomes effectively useless for self defense in a fast developing crisis.

As opposed to being accessible to a prohibited person?

That's partially a false dichotomy, The Liberal. I say "partially" because there was some discussion of prohibited persons early. But many of the storage laws that some states are trying to impose have nothing to do with whether a gun owner lives with a prohibited person. So there are more options other than "securing a gun" and "leaving it accessible to a prohibited person." There are many people out there who own guns, but do not live with prohibited persons. Some of them, I'm sure, live alone. The question then becomes "if someone does not live with a prohibited person, how much do you think society can require them to spend to secure their guns?" For someone who lives alone, a thief would have to break into the house to steal their gun to use in a crime. If the gun owner is then to be charged with failing to store a gun, has that gun owner not been twice victimized?

 

[AlexanderA]

In regard to safe storage laws, let's remember that the Heller case addressed this issue directly. The D.C. requirement that guns be secured, disassembled, unloaded, and otherwise made inoperable was held to be unconstitutional, since that would mean that they could not be used for immediate self defense. This was not dicta in the case, but a core holding. I think it will be a challenge for the drafters of these new "safe storage" laws to get around that!

 

[Sniper66]

In regard to safe storage laws, let's remember that the Heller case addressed this issue directly. The D.C. requirement that guns be secured, disassembled, unloaded, and otherwise made inoperable was held to be unconstitutional, since that would mean that they could not be used for immediate self defense. This was not dicta in the case, but a core holding. I think it will be a challenge for the drafters of these new "safe storage" laws to get around that!

Good clarification. Thank you.

 

[luzyfuerza]

It looks like the red flag law proposed in this year's Utah legislative session (HB 209) that spurred Denton's original data collection effort hasn't advanced.

Suits me just fine.

 

[paulsj]

I wish that we could follow the OP's example and focus on providing and discussing more examples of concrete evidence regarding the effectiveness of red flag laws.

I haven't done any work in this area, but perhaps other members here have....?

From perspective of those who want to decrease gun violence in society what matters is reducing number of guns in circulation. Whether "Red Flag Laws" are effective or not is irrelevant.

 

[hso]

there is no detectable benefit from red flag laws.

As pointed out, the analysis of a state Red Flag law that has been in place long enough to see some clear effect shows no benefit from the legislation. This is the sort of information that we need to provide to our legislators.

More importantly might be how to get this information out to news sources and "influencers" who can spread such analysis. It is all well and good to present this information to legislators, but many (if not most) of them have positions picked to help them get reelected. We need the people that elect the politicians to learn these lessons so they can influence the positions of the politicians.

Hand wringing, hiding, or bluster does us no good.

I intend to spread the analysis over social media and in comments sections of news sources carrying reports on Red Flag laws.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

When "red flag" laws fail to produce the desired effect, the progressives will want more laws. We need to take a stand at the state and federal level. IMO there is no such thing as "common sense" gun control laws. Gun control laws don't make sense. My guns are already controlled - by ME. I am opposed to any and all legislation that in any way infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. As Henry Stamper said "Never give an inch!"

Hank Stamper, Loved the character, grate Movie and Book! "Sometimes a Great Notion".

“Alarm, when used for anything less than a fire or an air attack, is certain to muddle the mind, unsettle the senses, and, in most cases, more than double the danger.”
― Ken Kesey, Sometimes a Great Notion

 

[CapnMac]

If "Red Flag" laws were actually meant to act as the language portends, then the confiscations teams ought remove all dishwashing soap, fuel gasses, cleaning materials with ammonia and/or chlorine, fertilizer, cutlery, rope, tools, and all prescription meds from the target domicile.

All of the above things can be combined, statistically, to show as much harm as "firearms" in general.

The fact that only one source of harm is forcibly taken from those only under the same roof as those thought, imagined, or believed to be an immediate and present danger to themselves or others tells us all we need to know about the actual intent of the legislation.

 

[Jared Campbell]

Oregon has a law like this, and I am a veteran with PTSD, and not worried about it all. I will never my guns over to anyone for any reason without a gunfight!

 

[milemaker13]

It is very difficult to prove a negative... as in " prove you did not touch that book" as opposed to " prove he did touch that book".
Get it?
How, after being 'red flagged' does one prove they did not have harmful intentions of some kind or another?

 

[ROCK6]

How, after being 'red flagged' does one prove they did not have harmful intentions of some kind or another?

This is the crux after suffering from a Red Flag confiscation. You need to prove you're mentally competent, prove you're innocent of a crime you never committed, and that you are no threat to society. The whole intent isn't about safety of you, the public, or preventing crime...once your firearms are confiscated by the state, it will bankrupt you to get them back. It's all about disarmament, control, and societal behavior subjugation. The bar for initiating a Red Flag confiscation is low (and undefined), but the burden of proof for the real victim will unattainable.

ROCK6