7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Laws
In this episode we discuss Red Flag Laws and why we need to oppose them.
Find our Representative
Join me on Parler Social Media! https://par.pw/download/
email me at email@example.com
Follow me on Telegram
subscribe to my newsletter
Check out our new apparel
Follow me on MeWe
Follow me on Gab
Follow me on Clouthub
Well, welcome to the live to shoot podcast. My name is Jeff dowel and I've been a licensed firearm dealer for the last 14 years in this podcast. We talk about all things related to the second amendment, as well as things going on in the political environment. And then I might throw in a sports story or something going on in my personal life. So today is Thursday and we are talking about red flag laws. Now this is Starting to pop up on the radar more and more. If you remember one of the executive orders that president Biden put out there was that the justice department would come with model legislation for states to use, to create red flag laws. We've also had the Senate bill two 92, introduce by Senator Rubio, which is. Disappointing to me that is around red flag laws and also representative carbo hall out of California, just reissued his red flag law legislation into the house. And both of those laws actually give grants to state to help them fund red flag laws if they put them in place. But exactly. You know, what is a red flag law and where did they come from? So right. Probably laws are actually called extreme risk protection orders, ERP, OES. And what are they? Well. The definition that the ran Corp use in a study, it did last April about the effectiveness of red flag laws. Their definition of extreme risk protection orders are laws that are permitting temporary. Risk-based farm, promote removal, such loss, seek the removal of firearms from individuals who may court deems unable to keep the weapon safely, but removal. Petitions can be filed only against individuals who already possess firearms. ERP OES in contrast can be served against anyone regardless of current gun ownership and can block the subject of the order from purchasing farms. However, available evidence suggests that both these types of laws are largely used in the same way, which is why they're both included in the ARPO definition. Now currently 19 states have enacted ERP owes with Connecticut being the first in 1999. Now there are a lot of problems with red flag laws, and that's what I want to talk about today. There was a really good article in, at fee.org by John Miller Moore, and he lines out what the problems are and I'm going to be pulling off most of this information from that article. I'll put a link into it in my in the show notes. So. Problem one, there's no evidence, red flag red flag. It is really hard to say red flag loss for me. Reduce gun violence. So Connecticut, like if we said it and acted the first one in 1999, followed by Indiana in 2005 and the EV, and this means, you know, social science, they've had plenty of time to evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. And where they find well, according to New York times recently reported that the extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive. According to the Rand study corporation on the effectiveness of gun measures, Washington post reports that California's red flag went basically unused for two years after it. Passage in 2006, 16 other states, such as Florida and Maryland have gone the other direction facing hundreds of farms from gun owners. Yet it's unclear if these actions actually stopped a shooting with additional states passing it, researchers are going to have more time to analyze the data, but at this point in time the amount of time where it's as ours use is not substantial across the state that have had red flag loss. They are typically used about a hundred times a year on average number two, Congress lacks the authority. This is a very good one. The founding fathers clearly numerated the powers of federal government and the constitution among the powers. Granted. In sec, article one, section eight are the power to coin money to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces and established post office. Regulating farms is not among the powers listed in constitution. And in fact, I can express the four bids, the federal government from doing so in the second amendment, the word, and let's just remember is the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Number three, we have federalism. Unlike the federal governments whose powers James Madison notice are few and defined states possess powers that are numerous and indefinite 17 states and the district Columbia have. Already done read bylaws. And many more states are in the process. This shows that the people and their representatives are fully capable of passing such laws. So if red flag foster team desirable, then it's appropriate to pursue such laws at the state level, but not but do they even pass constitutional muster? This is the one, this is the prop. This problem four is one for me, which is the biggest problem. Well, yeah. Biggest problem is referral Outlaws really have no impact, but this one is if they violate due process, the constitutes tissue man's mates that no one shall be deprived of life, Liberty, or property without due process. Seizure of property of individuals who've been convicted of no crime violates this provision gun control advocates claim that due process, if not violated because people whose farms are taken can appeal to courts, reclaim the property. However, As economist rain Williams has observed this backward process would imply the segment is a privilege in a right depriving individuals of a clearly established, constitutional guarantee in the of criminal charges. Our trial is an effort. Is a front to civil liberties and an example shows why they don't work and why they've allied to violate due process. This was the FedEx shooter that we had recently last March, the police had confiscated the shotgun because the mother was concerned. He would commit suicide by cop. The authorities never filed from extreme risk protection order because if they released him, they would then have to return shotgun and they didn't want to. So he has never flagged, but they never returned his shotgun either. Red flag laws could lead to more violence in 2018, two Maryland police officers shot and killed a 61 year old man in his own house. After waking him up at 5:17 AM the officers who were not harmed, had been ordered to remove his guns from the home under the state's red flag laws, which had gone into effect in one month prior. So while red flag laws are designed to reduce violence as possible, they could do the opposite by creating confrontations between law enforcement and gun owners. Problem number six, it's not just the mental heal and grave threats who are flagged. In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others and practice. They can work quite differently in a 14 page analysis. The American civil liberties union wrote Allen explained that few people understand just how expansive the state rep law gloss. So it's is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for the law derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shooting, the law's reach goes far beyond any effort to address such extraordinary. And for this individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear Constable constitutional right to counsel. As written, you know, a person who is subject to an extreme risk protection order without having committed or threaded a crime as an act of violence samples of this far reaching ability of these laws is that an example of university of central Florida student who was hauled into proceedings and threatened with a risk protection order for saying stupid things on Reddit, following a mass shooting. Even though the student had no criminal history and didn't own a farm. The student is also possible today. There's a ticking time bomb and other man was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR 15. He had built individuals who find themselves in these proceedings have no clear, constitutional right to civil liberties libertarians point out. And then the big number seven, they they're basically pre-crime. As an observed rep, the laws are essentially a farmer. Pre-crime a theme explored in the 2002 Steven Spielberg minority report. And that's been a while since I've watched that movie In an article that appeared in salon, Travis done linked red ball, a gloss to science fiction movie, that scenario, the minority report in which he which pre-cognitive please try to stop crying before they're committed. Government can commit pre-print carbs before they occur. It may sound like science fi but the threat posed a similar view is quite real. If this sounds too far fetched, that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the department of justice to catch red flag using. Oh. Algorithm technology, the idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur may sound like it, but the threat is quite real. Compromising civil arteries and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur, or our policies more suited for dystopian, thrillers and police states than our free society. There aren't any studies that show that rates red flag laws affect murder rates. Also from the USA today. They outlined what happened in the FedEx shooting. They said the tragedy illustrates a fundamental truth about all of our loss. They're only as strong as societies will and capacity to implement, but to him, this is true at our current gun laws. We don't need more gun laws. We just need to make the current ones work. There are so many problems with our next system. And also another thing that I have preached on this podcast over and over again is that we need to prosecute violent crimes. Utilizing farms more severely than we do today, that will help prevent future gun crimes. And we're going after the criminals and not the innocent law abiding citizens as the current gun control laws always try and do there. They're always trying to prevent crime before it happens. And they're trying to only punish those who are obeyed abide by the law. Not those that have broken it. So this is just a quick scenario of red flag laws. This is something that we were going to have to keep our eye out because it's, it's starting to heat up. And I said, the order is out there for the justice department to create that model legislation and then pass that out the state. And then we've got two laws then on the books when the Senate and one, the house that says, okay, now we're going to, once this we've given you this model as solution where you just basically Put your name at the top and, and turn it in. Then we're going to give you grants and money for actually enacting these laws. So now the federal government is going to be paying the state to create laws that they want enforce that they can't do themselves. So it sounds like a common theme. Government's been using other proxies lately to get their dirty work done. And either with the cancel culture, gun control, mass mandates, vaccine passports, all those types of things. So keep this on our radar, be on the lookout for it. I'll put a link to this article in my show notes and. Again, continue to share this podcast. Get the word out. This is about action. Action. Action. We've got a contact, our Congressman. We've got to prevent this even at the state and local level. You've got to prevent these red flag laws from being put into place. So appreciate your listening and have a great rest of your week.