The Fallacy of Red Flag Laws

I know I have harped on this a bit over the last week or so.  But it doesn't seem to help, and frankly, so called "red flag" laws are unconstitutional.  I feel sure they will eventually be found to be so.  But in the meantime, the destruction they will do to the fabric of this country could be immense.  I also believe that if President Trump signs these into law, he will likely not be re-elected.  I keep hearing from other gun rights people that in that event, they would sit out the election rather than vote for Trump or, horrors, the Democrat whoever that might be.

Today, at the American Thinker Marc A. Scaringi, Esq. has an analysis of one state's proposed "red flag" law, which can be found at The Fallacy of Red Flag Laws. If you live in Pennsylvania, you may be familiar with Scaringi from listening to his program on WHP, 580 AM in Harrisburg.

 Scaringi reports on a variety of bad things that can happen as a result of these laws, as well as the abuses to which such laws can be put by a host of people who have no way of knowing what goes on in your head:

Democrats are using the shootings in El Paso and Dayton to call for more gun control. Regrettably, Republican leaders are joining the call. From President Trump, to U.S. Senate Judiciary Chairman, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Republican leaders are calling for the enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Sadly, our political leaders are quick to give up our constitutional rights just to look like they're doing something to prevent the next mass shooting. Yet, even with more gun control, the shootings will continue; but our constitutional rights will be gone.

In response to the latest shootings, the president declared, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws...” Although these laws may be well-intentioned, they’ll be disastrous to our rights, subject to abuse, and ineffective in addressing the real problem.

...snip...

(By the way, you can rest uneasy because the definition of “family or household members” includes your ex-wives, ex-girlfriends and your mother-in-law! Any chance this bill, like its sister-law, the Protection From Abuse Act, will be abused in divorce, custody, or property dispute cases?)

Note that once again, in Pennsylvania, as elsewhere, the hearing is conducted ex parte meaning that if you are the subject of such a hearing, but these hearings go on behind your back.  You are not notified, nor do you get to offer evidence.  You supposedly have a chance to prove yourself innocent after 10 days, but as Scaringi points out, the judge is unlikely to change his mind.  And then there's the fact that proving yourself innocent is impossible.  That is why they should be to prove that you are a threat beyond a reasonable doubt.  After all, they are proposing to take away a constitutionally protected right, similar to denying you liberty by putting you in jail.

Of course, you should go read Scaringi's article.  On another issue, Representative Thomas Massie makes a good point about the constant push to ban this device, and that magazine, this type of weapon, or that type.  Go read Massie's answer to the question "who needs 100 rounds?" over at Bearing Arms. Massie is spot on here. While I don't personally own a 100 round magazine, I would be the last one to deny it to others. I also do not own a bump stock, and frankly, controlling a bump stock equipped rifle is difficult, but that doesn't mean no one needs them.

I had a discussion with a friend who started out with "Who needs a gun that fires 250 bullets a minute?"  Yes he put it exactly that way.  This is pure ignorance on a par with not knowing who the President is.  But he did let me explain the reasons for the Second Amendment, the fact that the militia has been, and still is, the whole body of the people.  If we ran the government according to the Constitution, every young man would join the army at age 18, spend two years receiving training, and then take home his rifle.  He would then attend training once a year, reporting with his rifle and a certain amount of ammunition.  We would not have a large standing army, and we would not be in constant wars around the world.  Our militia would defend the homeland.  That is the way it is supposed to work.  Too bad we are not following the Constitution.  Too bad we are not Switzerland.