On April 11, 2023, Governor Bill Lee called for the Tennessee
Legislature to respond to the public’s emotional response to the
Covenant School murders by enacting a law to make sure mentally ill
people do not have access to firearms. He did not use the term “Red
Flag” but that is the correct label for the kind of law that Governor
Lee described as a “new protective order”.
Tennessee’s
Legislature has a super majority of Republicans. Many of those
Republicans have campaigned as strong Second Amendment supporters and
continue to claim that they are. Many of them have told their
constituents that they would never support a “Red Flag” law. Some may
have answered candidate surveys or signed pledges assuring the voters
that they would never support a “Red Flag” law in Tennessee. Now
Republican Governor Lee calls on them to violate those promises and
assurances and to pass a “Red Flag” law.
A “Red Flag” law is
sometimes referred to as an “extreme risk protection order”.
Independent of the label that someone places on it to conceal its
purpose, a Red Flag law is a type of gun control law and is normally a
type of law that the progressive left seeks to enact.
A “Red
Flag” law is a scheme that allows almost anyone to claim that a specific
individual posses a firearm and that they person is also some degree of
risk of harm to themself or others. In some “Red Flag” systems a
court has the authority to issue an order to direct law enforcement to
seize the individual’s firearms and to notify the relevant government
authorities that the individual is banned from purchasing firearms.
Generally, the initial seizure order is issued “ex parte” which means
that the individual is not notified that the “Red Flag” seizure order is
being requested, that a court is considering whether to issue it, or
even that it has been issued until law enforcement comes to execute the
order and seize the individual’s firearms.
The individual has no “due process” options to oppose the initial ex
parte hearing or order. The individual has no opportunity to be
represented by an attorney at the initial ex parte hearing. The
individual has no right to have an attorney appointed for them before
their constitutionally protected rights are trampled. Depending on
the order, it can be in effect for weeks, months or even years.
In
many of these “Red Flag” schemes, the individual does have the ability
to engage an attorney after the ex parte order has been issued and
typically after the firearms have been seized to challenge the order.
However, that may require that the person expend substantial amounts,
likely thousands of dollars if not tens of thousands of dollars – to
hire an experienced private attorney to represent the individual. It
may require that the individual hire a qualified doctor as a “trial
expert” to assess the individual and testify concerning the individual’s
mental health status – something that itself could cost several
thousand dollars. In some instances, the burden is on the individual to
prove that they are not a risk or that they are not mentally or
emotionally unstable. The fact is it could easily cost the individual
tens of thousands of dollars to attempt to protect their
constitutionally protected rights and frequently they are not entitled
to be reimbursed their legal expenses if they win. Further, there is
generally no adverse consequences on the person or persons who initiated
the “Red Flag” seizure process if the court later finds that the order
should not have been granted.
If the ex parte order is issued it is not
necessarily limited to just taking firearms away from the individual’s
possession. In doing that, it could have other negative complications
if the person’s job involves carrying a firearm such as a law
enforcement officer, an armed guard, private security, potentially
airline pilots, etc. Further, it does not limit the capacity of the
individual to get possession of other things such as knives or other
items that could be used to inflict serious bodily injury or death.
Quite
simply, the Red Flag scheme is not intended to deal with the risk –
which would be an individual that has a probable propensity to engage in
immediate violence due to mental or emotional health issues. The “Red
Flag” scheme could care less about that risk because its purpose is not
to address the risk, it is to implement gun control.
Governor Bill Lee called on the Tennessee Legislature to respond to
the Covenant shooting and the emotional
responses to that event. He calls for the Legislature to enact
something in the next few weeks. Essentially, he calls for a quick
emotional response that has the clear agenda of infringing the
constitutionally protected rights of some individuals.
One significant concern with Governor Bill Lee’s response to this
situation, particularly following the incidents involving the expulsion
of certain Democrat House members who broke House rules to demand more
gun control, is that he is calling for “something” to be done now.
Nothing in his statements indicate that he has considered the potential
constitutional limits on what options may exist.
The question
that needs consideration is whether the Governor or the Legislature even
has the constitutional authority now to enact a Red Flag category of
law. Certainly, some states have done so but in most of those
instances, those states did so before the United States Supreme Court
imposed a new standard for the scope of constitutionally permissible
authority for any government entity to enact
or retain laws that impact rights protected by the Second Amendment. That standard changed in June 2022.
In
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022),
the United States Supreme Court stated that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments together guarantee individuals not only the right to “keep”
firearms in their homes, but also the right to “bear arms” in public,
meaning the ability of “ordinary, law-abiding citizens” to carry
constitutionally protected arms “for self-defense outside the home,”
free from infringement by either federal or state governments.
Id. at 2122, 2134.
The Supreme Court held that, “when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects
that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply
posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the
government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm
regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a
court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second
Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” Bruen at 2126. The only
appropriate inquiry, according to the Supreme Court is what the “public
understanding of the right to keep and bear arms” was during the
ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791. Bruen at 2137–38.
Although the Supreme Court’s decision in
Bruen is less than a
year old, it is already having major changes across the nation as many
laws which previously had been approved by federal appellate courts as
“constitutional” are being struck down now as unconstitutional.
Take
for example the issue of an order of protection (such as Governor Lee
referenced) that contains a prohibition on the individual possessing or
purchasing firearms. That issue came before a federal district court
in November 2022 in the matter of
United States of America v. Litsson Antonio Perez-Gallan.
In
Perez-Gallan
an individual who had an ex parte order of protection issued against
him in Kentucky was stopped in New Mexico and found to be in possession
of a firearm. Federal law provides in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) that an
individual who has an order of protection against them cannot purchase
or possess a firearm. The court noted that the United States Supreme
Court had in
Bruen put the burden on the government to prove
that any restriction or infringement on an individual’s right to keep or
bear arms (which includes purchasing) was part of the “nation’s
historical tradition” as of 1791. In looking at this issue, the court
in
Perez-Gallan concluded:
… Bruen’s mandate is that a gun regulation’s constitutionality hinge solely on the historical inquiry. According to Bruen, that can be this Court’s only consideration. The Court concedes, therefore, that a court reading Bruen strictly could have arguably stopped after Section IV of this Opinion.
That said, this Court embraces Bruen’s
charge. Thus, after sifting through the history above, this Court finds
that the Government did not prove that § 922(g)(8) aligns with this
Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation and declines the
Government’s invitation to insert its own public policy concerns rather
than following Bruen. As a result, the Court holds that § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional under Bruen’s framework.
The court in
Perez-Gallan thus found that orders of protection – what Governor Lee proposed on April 11, 2023 – are unconstitutional under
Bruen to the extent that such laws have the consequence of prohibiting an individual from purchasing or possessing firearms.
In
another recent decision, a court in New York state was called upon to
consider whether New York’s “Red Flag” law violated the Second Amendment
under the
Bruen standards. In
G.W. v C.N.,
2022 NY Slip Op 22392 [78 Misc 3d 289] (December 22, 2022). In that
case, the New York court declared the state’s Red Flag law – what
Governor Lee proposed on April 11, 2023 – to be unconstitutional.
The question presented is whether
CPLR article 63-A sufficiently protects a New York citizen’s due process
rights when, as here, the state denies a fundamental right, to wit: by
infringing on that citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This court holds that CPLR article 63-A does not sufficiently protect a citizen’s rights and therefore is unconstitutional.
Prior
to addressing the constitutionality of CPLR article 63-A (Extreme Risk
Protection Orders), the court has looked for guidance from the Supreme
Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US —, 142 S Ct 2111 [2022]). In Bruen,
the Court recognized that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect
an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” (Bruen, 597 US at —, 142 S Ct at 2125.) Further, in following the lead of District of Columbia v Heller (554 US 570 [2008]), the Bruen Court
reiterated that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an
individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that
conduct[, and t]o justify [a firearm regulation] . . . the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Bruen, 597 US at —, 142 S Ct at 2126.)
Also,
it is of import for the present discussion to review the United States
Supreme Court’s interpretation of the value of the Second Amendment. In McDonald v Chicago[*2]
(561 US 742, 780 [2010]), the United States Supreme Court declared that
the Second Amendment is not a “second-class right, subject to an
entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights
guarantees.” Most recently, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen, the Supreme Court reaffirmed McDonald.
Here, the Court stressed that “[t]he constitutional right to bear arms
in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an
entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights
guarantees.’ ” (Bruen, 597 US at —, 142 S Ct at 2156, quoting McDonald at 780.)
***
While
some may advocate that “the ends justify the means” in support of
article 63-A, where those means violate a fundamental right under our
Bill of Rights to achieve their ends, then the law, on its face, cannot
stand.
The standard imposed on government authority by the Supreme Court in Bruen, places the burden on the government to demonstrate before it violates a constitutionally protected right
(otherwise the Federal Civil Rights Acts are relevant) that the
proposed law was either part of the nation’s historical tradition as of
1791 or that it is a close analogy to a law that existed at that time.
Governor Lee called for the Legislature to react to the emotional
response of some citizens after the Covenant murders and more
particularly after the expulsion of two Democrat House members who
demanded gun control. Nothing in
Bruen authorized knee-jerk
emotional responses to murders or the calls of progressive Democrats and
their mobs to justify government infringement of a right protected by
the Constitution.
The Supreme Court made clear that in order for a government to have constitutional authority to enact any law that
might remotely impact a right protected by the Second Amendment, the
government bears the constitutional burden as a condition precedent to
enacting such a law to clearly demonstrate that the law or restriction
satisfies the constitutional threshold standard set forth in
Bruen.
Failing
to clearly satisfy that condition precedent exposes the state and
public actors to charges that they have engaged in Federal Civil Rights
violations – which is what has
recently happened
to another law champion by Governor Bill Lee and where the state
admitted that provisions of his 2021 permitless carry law violated the
Second Amendment, violated the Fourteenth Amendment, constituted Federal
Civil Rights violations and required the state (taxpayers) to reimburse
attorneys fees to the victims of those civil rights violations.
This is not a time to follow a call to passing something, anything
now to show the “mob” that Tennessee Government responds to emotional
calls for gun control. Now is the time to determine first what
constitutionally permissible options exist, if any, to deal with the
risks on society by those who have serious mental health issues and how
those mental health risks can be addressed without violating the
constitutional rights of anyone.