The fatal problem of red flag laws

Started: 8 9 2019

Finished: 9 18 2019


I was doing research tonight on the subject of “Red Flag Laws” and while I agree with the general idea there is a fatal flaw in them.




“Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun”

“By Kimberly Eiten”

“November 5, 2018 at 11:00 pm”

Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun


This is not only a sad situation for that family but also a potential ‘red flag’ for gun owners and users.


The general idea of these laws is mentioned here:


“Red Flag Laws Are they coming for YOUR guns?!”

“Posted on June 17, 2019”


“Red Flag bills allow police or family members to petition a state court to remove firearms from a person who presents a danger to themselves or others. At the initial hearing, the petition and evidence are presented supporting the claims the individual in question (the “Respondent”) is a threat. These hearings may be conducted “ex parte,” meaning the respondent is not present to defend himself or herself. If the order is granted, police will execute the order removing firearms with no notice to the Respondent.”

“If the initial hearing is ex parte, the court schedules another hearing to take place within a few weeks for the Respondent to attend and present evidence to refute the claims. If the Respondent is successful in their defense, the temporary order will be dismissed and the firearms returned. However, if the judge rules against the Respondent, the order will be extended by a period of up to one year.”

“Red Flag” laws have also attracted the attention of federal lawmakers. Last year, on March 8, 2018, an unsuccessful bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate, led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), that would have created a federal process for Red Flag firearm removal.”

“On January 3, 2019, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced S. 7, entitled the “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019.” The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. Sen. Rubio’s bill would provide grant money to states that enact extreme risk protection order legislation that meets certain federally mandated minimum standard requirements.”

“Bipartisan Support”

“In a rare display of bipartisanship, Senate Judiciary Committee members from both parties seemed to offer their support for the growing movement among states to pass extreme risk protection orders. Chairman Sen. Graham, (R-SC) indicated he believed these laws to be beneficial, “even if you just stop one” death.”

“So, why all the bipartisan support for a traditionally left-leaning position?”

“Powerful people in the Republican party have come out in support of Red Flag laws, making it easier for the rank and file members of the party to accept some versions of these laws, especially since Red Flag laws do not impose new regulations on firearms themselves, but address the issue of mental health.”

“Shortly after the Parkland shooting, President Donald Trump expressed support for Red Flag laws. The Trump Administration formed the Federal Commission on School Safety last year following Parkland, and it too, endorsed Red Flag laws.”

More recently, during his confirmation hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, now-U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that Red Flag laws are “the single most important thing we can do in the gun control area to stop these mass shootings from happening in the first place.”

“But perhaps more telling are the polls that show a vast majority of Americans support Red Flag laws. A recent poll by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune indicate 72% of Texans favor such legislation. A poll conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety claims nearly 90% of Americans support passing Red Flag legislation, “including more than 80% of Republicans and gun-owning households.”

“Elected lawmakers are paying attention.”


“Red Flag Laws and the Second Amendment”


“We all recognize that the Second Amendment does not create an absolute right to possess firearms that cannot be restricted under any circumstances. Convicted felons and persons adjudicated mentally incompetent are prohibited from possessing firearms, for example. But in these cases, the individual rights were taken away only after due process of law—a criminal trial or a mental-competency proceeding.”


“Red Flag laws allow the individual’s firearms to be confiscated without knowledge there was a petition filed against them and without the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations. Isn’t that a clear case of violation of due process rights? “


“Not necessarily.”


“Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution contain a due process clause that acts as a safeguard from the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government. Procedural due process is meant to protect an individual from being deprived of life, liberty, or property unjustly or as the result of a mistake by allowing the person to contest the basis upon which the government seeks to deprive them of a protected interest. The individual must be afforded notice and a hearing before an impartial court is to confront and cross-exam his or her accusers.”


“However, the Supreme Court has said that due process requirements depend upon the circumstances. The Supreme Court noted in Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 320 (1985) that due process:”


“is a flexible concept—[and] the process required by the clause with respect to termination of a protected interest will vary depending upon the importance attached to the interest and the particular circumstances under which the deprivation may occur.”

Red Flag Laws: Are they coming for YOUR guns?!


Here is why I support such a law & I also recognize the dangers of it.

As a person with anger issues I have been tempted on playing out my resentments and anger against various persons over many years. And I have thankfully not done so by keeping firearms out of my home since 1996. This may sound odd but I have found that having no firearms of any sort to being a safer alternative than being locked up in a mental institution or jail cell.


I support EVIDENCE driven complaints done by a concerned Family member or some one who is trusted. To keep guns OUT of the hands of the leftist, mentally ill or those who have a agenda stemming from racist or left leaning ideals. These warnings, complaints SHOULD be investigated and considered in the courts against those who have POTENTIAL to be a hazard to the public.


I DONOT support some left leaning / progressive neighbor who ‘feels’ threatened by a neighbor who has guns, a gun collection, a gun safe, a knife collection or other items that are considered weapons. And that is EXACTLY what we as Americans may be threatened with as these red flag laws come about.


The systems that are in place can be / will be used against those of us who are trying to keep our Freedoms. And for those who stand up against the Police or other Law enforcers will pay the cost with injury and death to the gun owner and to the Police or those who are following court orders.

%d bloggers like this: