TAW122
Emissary of the right to die.
- Aug 30, 2018
- 6,707
Note: This is just a discussion about red flag laws, pros and cons, and also no offense to anyone who isn't in the US.
As a firearms owner and supporter of the 2A (2nd amendment - the right to bear arms) as well as the US Constitution, I'd say that I'm against the concept of red flag laws, which are laws that allow the government and law enforcement to temporarily restrict an individual citizen from owning or possessing firearms. On paper, it sounds good as it is to prevent would be criminals from carrying out a nefarious assault, but in practice, it has been anything but smooth at all. I am against it for the simple fact that it violates due process (5th amendment - due process) by assuming the person to be guilty of being a danger to him/herself or the public and then the burden of proof would be up to defendant (the one accused and has his/her weapons seized) to prove his/her competence and innocence. This legal process is neither quick nor cheap, the time and money invested into mounting a legal defense, including obtaining an attorney, going to a court hearing, and then, hoping the judge will rule favorably in the case of the defendant. So in essence, guilty until proven innocent and proving innocence is a costly and lengthy battle.
In addition to this, the legalese in such laws include a danger to "oneself" or others clause, which means that even if the person (pro-lifers wanting to preserve life at all costs) was not a threat to the public, but only to him/herself, then the law can still preemptively violate said person's constitutional rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th respectively). 1st amendment because of speech, 2nd amendment (firearms), 4th (illegal search and seizure from an unconstitutional warrant), and 5th (due to presumption of guilt until proof of innocence).
Here are a few examples of what I mean in these articles:
On the contrary, yes I understand the arguments from people who are living outside of the US, mainly in other countries and other parts of the world may disagree and/or not comprehend to why the US would cling onto a right that is centuries old and perhaps antiquated in the eyes of the modern society. Simple reasons are that the US is unique in that sense and was founded and gained independence from a foreign power (Britain in the 18th century) through the use of firearms as well as ensuring the government is kept in check by having that right (debatable nowadays since people also claim that in modern day that if the gov't wants to subjugate it's citizens they have way more firepower and means to do so that the average citizen does, but of course that's another topic altogether). Then also the fact that in the US one cannot simply rely on law enforcement to take care of things and in times of unrest, when there is no social or public order and chaos, one only has him/herself and his/her tools (firearms and what not) to defend him/herself. Finally, as part of tradition and what makes the US unique, firearm ownership and culture. Anyways, I digress and back to red flag laws.
The problem with red flag laws like these are that they presume guilt and assume that the person is a danger to him/herself without first going through a trial or hearing to determine guilt and basis for it. All it takes is someone to reasonably believe that another is a danger to him/herself or others (includes the public) and then he/she can get law enforcement to then obtain an court order to have said person's firearms (temporarily) seized. This opens up a lot of potential for abuse. Imagine having an argument or altercation with someone and that someone decides to retaliate by claiming you are a danger to yourself or others, and then a judge orders removal of firearms from said person, all without having a preliminary hearing. Now imagine, a couple who had an argument with his/her significant other (SO) and the SO claims that he/she is a danger to him/herself out of spite, retaliation, and then preemptively, that person will (temporarily) lose his/her firearms until it can be proven that he/she is not a danger to him/herself or others. Keep in mind that this is just for one case. In the future, others could make new claims and a legal firearms owner would always have to be fighting spurious claims, so this has a lot of potential for abuse. (California however, does have a law (See Chapter 5. Offenses 18200) that makes it a misdemeanor to file a gun violence restraining order knowing the information is false, or with the intent to harrass.)
Sure, some proponents of red flag laws can claim that it saves lives, both the defendant, others, and what not, but it is very easy to abuse and heavily infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens by presuming guilt without due process, only for the person to prove innocence from guilt. Furthermore, the threshold for this is still too low because people can just make up bogus stories or claims and then a judge signs an order to have target person's firearms seized. It would have been better if there was a high threshold for danger to self or others, such as real evidence to prove that said person is really a danger to oneself or others, which includes audio, video recording, writings, emails, texts, electronic communication, etc. otherwise strong evidence to prove it.
Therefore, I find red flag laws and the way they are implemented (designed) as well as how they are executed (enforced) to be problematic as it violates a lot of civil rights (mainly due process) of the person and has a lot of potential for misuse, abuse, with little recourse for the accused. Luckily, I live in a state that does not (yet) have a red flag law, though at times there were bills introduced in the state legislature to enact red flag laws, but thankfully they either died out or never passed.
As a firearms owner and supporter of the 2A (2nd amendment - the right to bear arms) as well as the US Constitution, I'd say that I'm against the concept of red flag laws, which are laws that allow the government and law enforcement to temporarily restrict an individual citizen from owning or possessing firearms. On paper, it sounds good as it is to prevent would be criminals from carrying out a nefarious assault, but in practice, it has been anything but smooth at all. I am against it for the simple fact that it violates due process (5th amendment - due process) by assuming the person to be guilty of being a danger to him/herself or the public and then the burden of proof would be up to defendant (the one accused and has his/her weapons seized) to prove his/her competence and innocence. This legal process is neither quick nor cheap, the time and money invested into mounting a legal defense, including obtaining an attorney, going to a court hearing, and then, hoping the judge will rule favorably in the case of the defendant. So in essence, guilty until proven innocent and proving innocence is a costly and lengthy battle.
In addition to this, the legalese in such laws include a danger to "oneself" or others clause, which means that even if the person (pro-lifers wanting to preserve life at all costs) was not a threat to the public, but only to him/herself, then the law can still preemptively violate said person's constitutional rights (1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th respectively). 1st amendment because of speech, 2nd amendment (firearms), 4th (illegal search and seizure from an unconstitutional warrant), and 5th (due to presumption of guilt until proof of innocence).
Here are a few examples of what I mean in these articles:
Maryland's 'Red Flag' Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun
A 60-year-old man is dead after he was shot by an officer trying to enforce Maryland's new 'red flag' law in Ferndale Monday morning.
baltimore.cbslocal.com
‘You’re not taking that!’ Family turmoil preceded fatal police shooting in Maryland’s only red flag death
It was dark and rainy when Cpl. Jessica Hooper and Officer Gary Zawodny arrived a little after 5 a.m. at a home in Ferndale. The Anne Arundel County police officers were serving an extreme risk pro…
www.capitalgazette.com
A look at Red Flag laws and the battle over one in Colorado
Red Flag gun laws allow temporary confiscation of firearms if a gun owner displays dangerous or threatening behavior. The laws have been adopted in 19 states and the District of Columbia, but in Colorado, there's been fierce controversy
www.cbsnews.com
On the contrary, yes I understand the arguments from people who are living outside of the US, mainly in other countries and other parts of the world may disagree and/or not comprehend to why the US would cling onto a right that is centuries old and perhaps antiquated in the eyes of the modern society. Simple reasons are that the US is unique in that sense and was founded and gained independence from a foreign power (Britain in the 18th century) through the use of firearms as well as ensuring the government is kept in check by having that right (debatable nowadays since people also claim that in modern day that if the gov't wants to subjugate it's citizens they have way more firepower and means to do so that the average citizen does, but of course that's another topic altogether). Then also the fact that in the US one cannot simply rely on law enforcement to take care of things and in times of unrest, when there is no social or public order and chaos, one only has him/herself and his/her tools (firearms and what not) to defend him/herself. Finally, as part of tradition and what makes the US unique, firearm ownership and culture. Anyways, I digress and back to red flag laws.
The problem with red flag laws like these are that they presume guilt and assume that the person is a danger to him/herself without first going through a trial or hearing to determine guilt and basis for it. All it takes is someone to reasonably believe that another is a danger to him/herself or others (includes the public) and then he/she can get law enforcement to then obtain an court order to have said person's firearms (temporarily) seized. This opens up a lot of potential for abuse. Imagine having an argument or altercation with someone and that someone decides to retaliate by claiming you are a danger to yourself or others, and then a judge orders removal of firearms from said person, all without having a preliminary hearing. Now imagine, a couple who had an argument with his/her significant other (SO) and the SO claims that he/she is a danger to him/herself out of spite, retaliation, and then preemptively, that person will (temporarily) lose his/her firearms until it can be proven that he/she is not a danger to him/herself or others. Keep in mind that this is just for one case. In the future, others could make new claims and a legal firearms owner would always have to be fighting spurious claims, so this has a lot of potential for abuse. (California however, does have a law (See Chapter 5. Offenses 18200) that makes it a misdemeanor to file a gun violence restraining order knowing the information is false, or with the intent to harrass.)
Sure, some proponents of red flag laws can claim that it saves lives, both the defendant, others, and what not, but it is very easy to abuse and heavily infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens by presuming guilt without due process, only for the person to prove innocence from guilt. Furthermore, the threshold for this is still too low because people can just make up bogus stories or claims and then a judge signs an order to have target person's firearms seized. It would have been better if there was a high threshold for danger to self or others, such as real evidence to prove that said person is really a danger to oneself or others, which includes audio, video recording, writings, emails, texts, electronic communication, etc. otherwise strong evidence to prove it.
Therefore, I find red flag laws and the way they are implemented (designed) as well as how they are executed (enforced) to be problematic as it violates a lot of civil rights (mainly due process) of the person and has a lot of potential for misuse, abuse, with little recourse for the accused. Luckily, I live in a state that does not (yet) have a red flag law, though at times there were bills introduced in the state legislature to enact red flag laws, but thankfully they either died out or never passed.
Last edited: