April 2, 2023
Red Flag laws are not designed for anything but gun control
Following practically every mass public shooting, the gun control
advocates call for “reasonable” responses to “gun violence”. One of the
present favorite alleged solutions of the those who seek to ban guns in
society is the incrementalism that includes the opportunity to leverage
a tragedy by calling for “Red Flag” laws.
A “Red Flag” law is
nothing more than a gun confiscation order. That is its failure as a
solution to violence. But, that is the very reason why gun
abolitionists proffer it at every opportunity.
Those who advocate for
Red Flag laws will claim that it is a mechanism which allows families,
friends, co-workers, and even law enforcement to bring a complaint to
some category of judge. Typically, the complaint asserts that the
individual is an immediate risk of harm to himself/herself or to third
parties if they are allowed to have possession of a firearm. The
complaint seeks an ex parte order from the judge to direct law enforce
to go out and seize the individual’s firearms. That seizure can be
temporary or permanent. That order may or may not result in the
individual either temporarily or permanently being able to purchase a
firearm. It is important to note that usually the complaint is filed
and the order is issued with no notice or opportunity to be heard before
the order is issued and the firearms seized. A “Red Flag” law is not effective because it operates under a delusion
that the firearm is a necessary element to the person’s capacity for
violence or willingness to hurt themselves or others. Its a lie just
like Satan telling Eve everything would be ok if she just ate the apple.
Just like Satan’s lie, the Red Flag law lie is not designed to do what
the advocate claims, it has an ulterior goal. For Red Flag laws, the
lie is that it would stop or avert violence but the ulterior goal is to
have the government seize firearms. The problem with the Red Flag
law is the true goal of its advocate. The advocate’s true goal is gun
abolition and gun control. The goal is not in stopping, reducing or
preventing violence. It is not in interceding with someone who has a
mental or emotional crisis that makes that person an immediate risk of
harm to themselves or others. The Red Flag law literally ignores and
could care less about the risk which is not the gun but the person’s
mental or emotional situation. The real risk is ignored because the gun
control advocate’s objective is not to deal with the REAL problem. The
only goal is increased and ultimately total gun control. But
there are steps that are designed to deal with the risk – the individual
who poses an imminent risk of harm. There are already laws in
Tennessee and most other states which are designed specifically to deal
with the situation where an individual is an imminent risk of harm to
themselves or others.
Tennessee’s existing laws regarding “ emergency involuntary committals”
provide a means to deal with a situation where a person poses an
imminent risk of harm to himself/herself or to others. Under these
emergency orders, a petition can be filed with a judicial magistrate or judge. The petition has to be supported by a preliminary mental assessment by either doctors or other qualified individuals. If the court finds that the person does pose a risk of harm, the court can order
that the person be involuntarily held in a mental health facility for
up to perhaps 2 weeks for professional observation and assessment by
mental health professionals. The procedure focuses on the individual and
whether the individual is a risk. It takes the risk, the person, and
gets them help by having professional medical assessment and if
necessary treatment.
Emergency committal proceedings place the focus on the real risk –
the person. Red Flag laws do nothing but advance a gun control myth and
agenda. Red flag laws make progressives and some Republicans “feel good”
but leave the real risk – the individual – unsupervised and free to
pursue their agenda by any means of their selection.
Another problem with consideration of Red Flag laws is whether they
are even constitutional After the United States Supreme Court’s
decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in June
2022, there is a serious question of whether a Red Flag law would be an
intentional violation by the state and the proposing legislators of the
2nd Amendment, 14th Amendment and whether it would constitute a knowing
federal civil rights violation if enacted.
The Supreme Court clearly
placed an affirmative burden on the state to show that a law of that
type existed in 1791. Legislators who propose such laws but who are
unable to put forth clear and convincing proof that a Red Flag law or a
clear analogue was part of the “national historical tradition” in the
states as of 1791. Although the reported cases applying Bruen to mental
health issues have generally not advanced to the appellate level at
this point, at least one New York Court has already ruled in partial reliance on Bruen that New York’s Red Flag law violates the constitutional protections and thus declared to unconstitutional.
Contact Your Legislators!
It is critical that 2nd Amendment advocates, advocates for constitutional rights, "let them feel the heat" as President Reagan taught. When Tennessee's own Lt. Governor, Randy McNally, calls for a Red Flag law, a clearly unconstitutional proposal, it is time to make him and any other Legislators or members of Bill Lee's administration "feel the heat".
|
