Red Flag Laws: Insincerity on Steroids

A lot of folks laughed (including the GOC team) when President Trump tweeted about the possibility of CNN’s Chris Cuomo falling victim to red flag laws after his viral explosive “Fredo” rant:

Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!

It might be funny but it’s also true – and the President should pay attention to the truth of his own words. People have lost their gun rights for behavior far less sinister than a millionaire anchorman coming unglued and threatening to *&%$# throw someone down the stairs just for being called “Fredo” (that’s the less-than-bright brother from the Godfather’s Corleone family).

Pay attention, people – this could absolutely happen. Why? Because red flag laws – or “extreme risk prevention orders” allow law enforcement, family members, ex-whatevers, co-workers, teachers, etc., to request for the temporary removal of firearms from anyone they think could be a danger to themselves or others.  And think about it – coming “unglued” is highly subjective because your definition of unglued might be far different than your hyper-sensitive neighbor’s.

So now that red flag laws have been catapulted to the top of the issue heap courtesy of the tragic shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Congress and the President are being pressured to “do something” which in the political realm means to pass a bunch of emotionally driven anti-gun legislation.   Right now, 15 states have various versions of red flag laws and they go from bad to worse: if you live in Colorado, anyone – even someone living out of state – can make a simple phone call to the police and file a petition to have your firearms removed. There is no hearing  – the judge can solely rely on a statement of concern.

This should scare the lighting daylights out of every gun owner out there.

In their article ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are the Wrong Solution to Mass Shootings, Thomas Massie and John Lott write “Little certainty is needed. Initial confiscations often require just a “reasonable suspicion,” which is little more than a guess or a hunch. When hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. These laws make no provisions to cover legal costs, and many people facing these charges do not retain counsel.”

In their desire to “do something”, the media, the left – and even some extremely ill-advised conservatives – think red flag laws are a “reasonable” compromise and thus, the magic pill to cure gun violence.

Are red flag supporters truly squeezing their eyes shut to the unprecedented and precious protections that due process offers us? The guaranteed right which ensures that we will be safeguarded from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law? Do they not care that this provides us notice of charges filed, opportunity for hearing, confrontation and cross-examination, discovery of facts, basis of decision, and availability of counsel? Those seem pretty dang important and we certainly aren’t willing to give ONE of them up. (5th and 14th Amendments).

Neither are we willing to toss out the Sixth Amendment which guarantees the right to know who our accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against us.

Red flag laws are the most insincere form of gun control ever pushed on our nation – first, because they offer zero help for those the Left claims are “in crisis” and second, because the actions of a minuscule  percentage of our population are once again, driving policy.

1 Comment

  1. Edgar Murillo on January 11, 2020 at 6:57 am

    Red flag laws are unconstitional