Due Process

Lindsey Graham's Dishonest Defense of 'Red Flag' Laws

"The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact," the senator says, while glossing over the due process issues raised by gun confiscation orders.

|

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who plans to introduce a bill that would provide grants to encourage the passage and enforcement of so-called "red flag" laws, recently defended such statutes against the complaint that they suspend people's Second Amendment rights without due process. His arguments were more than a little misleading.

"There are plenty of judicial proceedings every day in America where somebody is adjudged to be a danger to themselves and others and they're put into a mental health facility," Graham told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum. "That goes on all the time, so that process would apply to gun ownership…We have judicial hearings all over America every day, dealing with people who become a danger to themselves and others, and this is just an extension of that concept."

Graham did not mention that the standards for involuntary psychiatric treatment are notably stricter than the standards for taking away people's guns under red flag laws. Under Florida's Baker Act, for example, the state has to show by clear and convincing evidence "a substantial likelihood" that a candidate for commitment, because of "mental illness," will "in the near future…inflict serious bodily harm on self or others, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm."

Florida's red flag law, by contrast, authorizes a judge to issue a final gun confiscation order, which lasts up to a year (and can be extended), when there is clear and convincing evidence that "the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others." No psychiatric diagnosis is required, "significant danger" is undefined, the purported threat need not be imminent, and the judge "may consider any relevant evidence." Those permissive standards help explain why Florida judges issue final "risk protection orders" 95 percent of the time.

"Nobody's going to lose their gun unless they have their day in court," Graham assured MacCallum. That is simply not true. All 17 states with red flag laws (and the District of Columbia) allow judges to issue preliminary gun confiscation orders without giving the respondent a chance to rebut the claims against him. The maximum length of such ex parte orders ranges from a week in Nevada to six months (for "good cause") in Maryland. Fourteen days is the most common limit.

Those limits are not necessarily followed in practice. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms.

In some states, the standard for ex parte orders is minimal. New York requires "probable cause" to believe the respondent is "likely to cause serious harm" to himself or others. Other states are stricter. Vermont requires showing by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the respondent poses "an immediate and extreme risk." The experience in Florida and Maryland suggests that judges almost always agree to issue ex parte orders.

An honest defense of red flag laws would grapple with these issues. But Graham prefers to pretend they do not exist. Dismissing critics of red flag laws as "libertarians," he told MacCallum "the Second Amendment is not a suicide pact," which is the sort of thing politicians say when they find constitutional rights inconvenient.

NEXT: Are Hookahs More Dangerous Than Cigarettes, or Does Misleading University Publicity Generate Inaccurate Reporting?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. fuck lindsey graham with a literal vagina as I believe he’d find that far more distasteful than ass play.

    “Conservatives are progressives driving the speed limit.”
    -Lysander Spooner

    1. Didn’t Lysander live before there were speed limits? I call bullshit on that quote.

      1. Yeah, that doesn’t sound much like Lysander Spooner to me, even setting that aside.

      2. The correct Lysander Spooner quote is: “Fuck the USPS”

      3. ah you are correct it is actually a James T. Kirk quote.

    2. Another knee jerk reaction, with an unconstitutional add on. As always, guns are not the problem, the unsteady, crooked, and ill people are. Sadly, politicians prefer to make themselves look good rather than provide solutions which actually WORK!!! Approximately 350 MILLION guns are privately owned, which is more than the total number of citizens living in the U.S. Yeah, good luck with that one.

    3. Many of the people are depressed about the problems of essay writing. Well, don’t worry about that because we are providing this service at a very reasonable price. Visit our website payforessay

  2. “Nobody’s going to lose their gun unless they have their day in court,” Graham assured MacCallum. That is simply not true.

    Hmm. Perhaps if Graham, considered by many a danger to others, lost *his* gun …?

    1. You would have to pry his mauve Ruger LCR from his lavender-scented, well-manicured hand.

      1. Does anyone else think Lindsey Graham is really just Varys with a toupe?

        1. Varys cared about the people/country. Pretty sure you mean Graham is Littlefinger with a shave.

  3. There is no good faith argument that begins “X is not a suicide pact…”

    1. +100

    2. I would actually grant the Senator that point – it is a suicide pact, for tyrants and morons.

    3. There is no good faith argument that begins “X is not a suicide pact…”

      Beyond stupid melodramatic teenagers, are actual suicide pacts a thing? Seems like it would be hard to enforce.

    4. Absolutely.

      Arguments of the form, “X is not a suicide pact” actually tend to argue that X IS a suicide pact, and as such should be broken.

      1. Refresh my memory, was this another example of OWH’s “wit & wisdom”?

      2. I’ve been trying to broker one between Chemjeff and Buttplug for some time now.

  4. All gun control laws are unconstitutional violations of the US Constitution.

    2nd Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    1. Equally relevant in the case of red flag laws

      5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

      1. That is an excellent point. A legally owned gun (put aside the constitutionality of basic gun laws based on felony convictions, etc.) is a person’s property. So without due process, the gov’t can just come in and take the gun(s) without compensating the individual?

        1. The just compensation part is if it’s taken for public use, ie eminent domain. Not sure a gun would qualify with the intent of the takings clause, but I’m sure the SCOTUS will find a way to take our rights away if there are any possible ways… you know, for the children.

          1. I should say SCOTUS will find a way to justify taking our rights away…

          2. The 5th Amendment does not differentiate between personal property and land as private property.

            The Founders would be shocked that Americans were even discussing allowing government to take American’s Arms.

            Not that order of the Bill of Rights means something definitive but the People’s right to keep and bear Arms was listed second only to a list of essential human rights, like the right of worship and ahead of the prohibition on quartering troops in times of peace.

        2. That is why asset forfeiture is such bullshit.

          No Due Process and the government needs to pay $1000+ in just compensation if they seize $1000 in cash from someone. The government does not want to, so they convinced enough Americans of this theft scheme known as Asset Forfeiture.

    2. Sorry, but politicians flagrantly ignore the Constitution at their whim. To most politicians, the Constitution doesn’t exist. It is PAST TIME that we make our rulers (the Congress) aware that WE are the rulers, NOT them. This would take some incisive actions, but it can be done. Almost every pol has forgotten that THEY are the servants, and WE are the kings!!!

  5. I told y’all Republicans are gonna start ditching gun rights. This is an outgrowth of the new national conservatism, which puts nation above individual rights.

    1. Poor Chipper cannot tell the difference between a Republican and a RINO.

      1. The guy has been a leader in the Republican party for 2 decades now and has been in Congress for 3 decades. He sits on some of the most important committees: Appropriations, Foreign Relations, Budget and Judiciary. But he isn’t a Republican, he’s a RINO?

        1. The Congressional GOP sucks. They have sucked for a very long time. This is not news. The only virtue they have is that the Democrats manage to suck even worse on every issue.

          1. The threat of democrats being a constant as the greater evil keeps RINOs in business.

            1. +10

          2. Ok, I agree with 95% of that, but if Graham is the rule and not the exception then in the words of Dennie Green “they are who we thought they were”.

            *every is a little hyperbolic but I excuse that as I have been known to dipped my toes from time to time in the pond hyperbole.

            1. The MSM focuses on the RINOs not the Republicans who are fiscal conservatives and stand up for their principles and the GOP principles.

              If you can believe, the MSM Propagandists use RINOs to say “see, so-and-so Republican is for reasonable gun control”.

        2. I wouldn’t exactly call McCain’s handpuppet a ‘leader’. You do have to wonder who is making Lindsay’s lips move these days.

          1. My Democratic friends assure me it is the Russians!!

        3. More than anything else, Lindsey Graham is an opportunist.
          He was a budget hawk when budget hawk-ism was cool.
          He was a neocon when neocon-ism was cool.
          He was a NeverTrumper when NeverTrumperism was cool.
          And now he is a Trumper when Trumpism is cool.

          1. IOW, a typical politician. They all have brown noses….

        4. Seems to me most all the Republicans in Congress could be called “RINO’s”, since they gave up on the idea of a smaller federal government decades ago.

          1. In light of that definition, who specifically would you call a Republican these days?

            1. I can refer you to the GOP platform.

              I would say anyone who goes by the Republican platform fundamentals is a Republican. Otherwise, they can be a RINO, Lefty, Conservative, Libertarian…

              1. So, nobody.

              2. Donald Trump?

            2. Rand Paul (probably).

              1. I would probably agree.

                Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative and votes and advocates for far smaller government.

        5. If politicians are not following the fundamentals of the GOP platform, how are they Republicans? Republicans are members of the Republican Party. That is where that name came from in the USA.
          re·pub·li·can
          /rəˈpəbləkən/
          1. (of a form of government, constitution, etc.) belonging to, or characteristic of a republic.
          advocating or supporting republican government.
          2. a member or supporter of the Republican Party.

          Republicans and conservatives can be different.

      2. He’s not a True Republican.

        1. I see what you did there, laddie! (Says the True Scotsman)

          1. He’s in it for the skirts.

        2. When you have a group that has standards defining that group, then people who dont follow those standards are not part of that group.

          It’s why there is a term RINO. LINO too.

          1. IOW, there are people who aren’t Scotsmen.

            1. +100

      3. David French is on board. LOL

        1. Who?

    2. I don’t think it’s so much a matter of putting nation above individual rights. I think it’s a matter of putting party over individual rights. Republicans have ditched gun owners in the past if they thought it would cost them in an upcoming election.

      1. The last major federal gun control initiative was the assault weapons ban. That was done by the Democratic Congress under Clinton. The Republicans allowed it to expire under Bush.

        When have Republicans ditched gun owners? I am trying to remember an example and can’t come up with one. I would be curious to hear what I am forgetting.

        1. Give Newt credit for figuring out that he could win back the House on the promise of letting the ban sunset.

        2. Bob Dole and the GOP Senators could have stopped the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban but chose to “compromise” instead.

          1. They failed to filibuster. That is a fair point, but that was over 25 years ago. None of the people who did it are in office anymore and most are not even alive.

            1. I haven’t seen much of anything to persuade me that today’s Republicans are courageous lions.

              Don’t mistake me; they’re still far better on the issue than Democrats. But we’re not their highest priority.

              1. I think they are total cowards. I just think they are more afraid of gun owners than they are of gun controllers.

          2. Bob Dole was a Rino among Rinos. He had this habit of sneaking into Washington during recesses, and holding “unanimous voice votes” with the Democratic leadership. One of those was the vote that put the Brady Bill beyond the reach of a filibuster. Another was the ’94 AWB.

            Freshmen Republicans actually discussed hiring a PI to keep track of him, so they’d know to rush back to Washington if he were caught heading that way, and get to the floor in time to make a quorum call.

            I always thought that, if the Republican party were at all serious, Dole would have been found floating face down in the Potomac after the second time he pulled that trick. (Maybe a broken kneecap would have sufficed for the first time.)

            Back when Dole ran for President, he actually threatened the NRA that, if they opposed his nomination, he’d devote his time to making sure every possible gun control law was brought to a vote, and if possible passed. So they sat out that election.

            A real POS, Dole.

        3. I used to live in a district in Virginia represented by a Republican who supported gun control and took money from what was then called Handgun Control Inc.

          1. Republicans from blue areas are in many ways worse than the Democrats from there.

            1. The problem is the open primary system here in South Carolina. And the state’s GOP leadership are determined to keep it, because they rely on the crossover votes to keep conservatives from getting control of the party here.

    3. It’s an outgrowth of Lindsey Graham running out of the capacity to pretend to be a conservative.

      Usually he only pretends to be a conservative around election time, but he kept it up unusually long after Trump was elected. Must have exceeded his duty cycle.

      1. Perhaps the current content patch allowed him to acquire an item for one of his trinket slots that extends the duration of his ‘conservative camouflage’ ability by 50%.

        1. Pocketsquare of Puissance

          “This item, when equipped, allows the wearer to maintain convincing illusions for 1 turn per year of congressional service”

    4. I’m definitely not surprised. I don’t trust any of them. I knew Graham would be one of the first to snap. The man doesn’t even pretend to have principles.

  6. So if I wait until a red flag law is passed and then try to get it enforced against a woman seeking an abortion (harm to self or others) do you think I could harness the spin to run a generator?

    1. The spin will likely burn the generator out.

  7. Please, please, please, someone show me a link citing statistical evidence that these “red flag” laws in these seventeen States have had ANY net positive result. And, yes, I am aware of some “negative” results.

    1. I have never seen any statistical evidence that shows any gun control laws have a positive effect other than reducing the number of suicides by a small amount.

      1. Neither have I.
        And, if one age-adjusts the suicide data, most of that disappears as well.

      2. Being gun laws apply to the lawful, it’s not a surprise.

    2. “But… DO SOMETHING,” shrieked the masses.

  8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-mayor-says-she-will-not-allow-federal-shelter-for-unaccompanied-migrant-children/2019/08/13/bcded7d2-be01-11e9-a5c6-1e74f7ec4a93_story.html

    D.C. mayor says she will not accept federal shelter for unaccompanied migrant children

    Because it is your job to suffer for their principles. I hope they build it next door to reason headquarters.

    1. Maybe a bunch of illegals will move in next to Nick’s place and start shifting in his yard.

      1. Nick would start a prog re-education camp, while investing in Medicaid and SNAP stocks.

  9. Red flags are for communists.

    1. Traitors to the Constitution attempting to implement clearly unconstitutional laws that violate the 2A are Communists as far as I am concerned.

  10. “Bipartisan”
    When both sides gang up on you.

      1. Spitroasting?

        1. “I’m really sorry I tried to spitroast your mom, Lana.”

  11. Since when do republicans and democrats care about due process.
    Fuck both parties with a Bowie knife.

    1. The more important question is; since when does giving someone “due process” automatically make depriving them of their rights okay?

      1. We do’ed the process, or something like that.

        1. Our obsession with due process causes the issue of right and wrong to be lost.

          1. Now do “rule of law.”

            1. Sure. You don’t support prosecutors ignoring the law unless you are willing to live with prosecutors doing the same for laws you don’t like and selectively prosecuting in ways you won’t like.

              This stuff isn’t hard. You just a fucking intellectual child who can’t understand anything more subtle than “I Want”

              1. +10

  12. “We violate constitutional rights all the time. What’s the problem?”

  13. I guess some in the GOP want to “do something” to prove they care about mass shootings, even if they know that their proposals won’t stop mass shootings.

  14. The kavanaughization of the U.S. Here’s how it plays out: Graham violently threatened me with a weapon fifteen years ago at a campaign function. I don’t remember the hotel or witnesses. I don’t remember the date or month. There is no police report. He is a danger and should not have weapons, please apply red flag.

  15. Red flag laws will be coupled with national registration. How else do you know the individual has a gun. Also, I’m sure the government knows this will allow people’s friends, neighbors, ect to rat out people who have a gun not registered.

  16. Last I heard, red flag or Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are the only untenable positions taken by President Trump. It’s unpopular because most judges aren’t qualified to determine one’s mental health and property is taken before the accused is indicted.

    That said, politicians who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws. Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be a landmark of their careers. But not to worry. Red Flag laws will be overturned soon enough.

    The Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It’s especially important because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

    These laws were created to dilute the power licensed to the psychiatric community and transfer it to unqualified persons the democrats can influence, e.g., local judges and disgruntled aunts. These confiscation laws are still being trumpeted by democrats because their usual gun control arguments have been lopsided, illogical losers.

    Democrats and weak minded Republicans are victims of the bum’s rush. They’ve been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Generally, since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent.

    Additionally, shooting incidents involving students have been declining since the ’90s. During that time, citizens were buying a record number of firearms. In 2018, more than 26 million firearms were purchased, a number exceeded only by 27.5 million in 2016 when purchasers were mortified that Hillary might be elected.

    Further, a December 2018 Gallup Poll revealed that gun control is last on a list of what Americans cite as the most important problem facing the U.S. Seems government is the most important problem and immigration is second most important. Obviously, the socialist-democrats are pushing a solution in search of a problem.

    Unarguably, our government cannot be trusted with the 2nd Amendment, just as our founders warned us. The primary problem with this nationwide hysteria to enforce red flag laws is none are crafted with sufficient protections for the accused. Apparently, we’ve been deluding ourselves that the U.S. judiciary would rather let ten guilty parties go free than convict one innocent person.

    Additionally, these laws generally place enormous responsibility and pressure on police officers and judges to dispense pretrial punishment, just in case an owner might be mentally afflicted. This kind of punishment is overly severe to be based on amateur opinions afforded by all the red flag laws enacted thus far. I have no doubt that the Supreme Court will strike these laws down but in the meantime, many firearms owners will suffer needlessly. Lawsuits are sure to follow.

    Since we’re dealing with mentally troubled persons, any law should include diagnoses by licensed psychiatrists, one chosen from each side, before taking personal property and an indictment. Doubtlessly, we all know of judges and law officers who are far from qualified for such professional undertakings. I also doubt that they’d volunteer to diagnose mental illness if their jobs depended on doing it correctly.

    This movement makes it clear that democrats want control without responsibility. I used to wonder why democrats saturate media outlets with soothing pleas for conversation instead of acting on their clear and ultimate goal of total confiscation. I assumed they stopped short of the extreme because they know firearms owners won’t tolerate confiscation without unimaginable fury.

    Passage of this act will stimulate the already confused democrats to report owners and at least temporarily terminate their 2nd Amendment rights. And firearms owners will never again trust their government. But this law and the effects on peaceable, lawful owners is part of a common democrat flimflam. Eventually they’ll again get around to universal background checks that are impossible to manage without universal registration.

    They need a universal firearm registry because it fundamentally transforms 140 million owners into dependents. Once they know who the owners are, they’ll choose which of them are allowed to be licensed. It’s the consummate entitlement. The democrat party cannot survive without more than half the nation being dependent on the government. Democrats trade entitlements for votes. It’s the heart of their strategy.

    Justice demands that the accused be afforded at least a modicum of professional analysis and an official opinion by two or more psychiatrists. Democrats screech in the streets if denied a full measure of due process but close their eyes on the subject of self-defense by firearm. These laws open the doors to scorned partners, angry neighbors, children seeking a parent’s wealth and arrogant judges.

    The natural next step for any Nazified government was to codify empowerment of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, faculty, employers, co-workers and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence. We’ll see an irrational rush to besmirch owners very much like the frenzied feeding during the Kavanaugh confirmation.

    And you can count on democrats finding new restrictions that violate due process. Soon they’ll want to choose an upper age limit for people to be “allowed by the government” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. It makes me wonder about the motive for Red Flag ERPO laws.

    1. Hey Ken

      “a new contender has emerged”

    2. “Last I heard, red flag or Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are the only untenable positions taken by President Trump. ”

      He also ordered the BATF to adopt an indefensible interpretation of the law regulating machine guns so as to accomplish the bump stock ban. The difference there is that the NRA was OK with throwing bump stock owners under the bus, so they signed off on it.

      Here he’s backing a gun control measure the NRA can’t get on board with, without hemorrhaging members. If he doesn’t back down on this one, he could be a one term President; He can’t afford to piss off any of his supporters.

  17. Ok….time for a partial defense of what the Senator is saying.

    I do not think the Senator is talking about wholesale confiscation of guns from the populace. That is just not in the cards. What the Senator is saying is there is a problem with mentally/emotionally disturbed people with guns who then go on to kill others.

    Red Flag laws do not thrill me. I wish they were not even necessary. In this very limited instance, I think they are prudent. The downside risk (mass murder) to society is greater than the downside risk of a single (or group) mentally/emotionally disturbed person losing their gun for a temporary period of time.

    The real debate is what protections do we want to have upfront. This is where the rubber meets the road. I have been persuaded by a number of comments here at Reason that we should not adopt a ‘confiscate first, litigate later’ approach. I originally thought this way, and then said, “Nope” – that pesky 5th amendment and property is the one that did it for me.

    I am firmly convinced that if we go down this path, we need to ‘litigate first, confiscate later’. To me, that puts the onus on the accuser to prove their case – which is where it should be. I also think that false and malicious accusations done out of malice (like an angry ex-spouse) need to be punished severely, to deter people from doing that.

    The ideological purists will never agree to Red Flag; I think in this instance, they are wrong. There are ways we can design a judicial process to maximally protect our individual rights and achieve the aim of separating mentally/emotionally disturbed individuals from guns (until they recover).

    1. If a mentally disturbed person wants to kill you, there are a million ways to do it.

      I don’t worry about anyone trying to kill me because I carry at least one pistol. Their chances of pulling a weapon and not getting killed by me are very low.

      Most people are chicken shits, so once they some people defend themselves and kill would-be attackers the reality sets in that its a suicide mission.

      Of course, mass shooters are emboldened because of all the places and states that restrict carrying weapons for defense.

      You know why Georgia does not have a bunch of armed robberies outside Atlanta? Because many average Georgians carry pistols and will blow your head off if you try to hurt someone else.

      1. Woman Repels Three Burglars in Atlanta, Kills One

        This little lady fought off 3 burglars and killed one in a suburb of Atlanta. reason only lets us put one link up but the actual surveillance video of the shootout is out there.

        Guns are the great equalizer. A little person can stop a huge thug from killing them with one bullet.

    2. The problem with the red flag laws is that they take away a civil liberty without remotely the amount of process that’s due something that extreme.

      I’d only agree to red flag laws if you were entitled to an adversarial process comparable to a felony trial, compete with a right to trial by jury. That’s what it takes to deprive someone of a civil liberty in a criminal context.

      1. Brett…That is where I am landing as well; adjudicate first, then confiscate. And require regular reviews.

        1. The problem is that the appropriate amount of due process basically renders the Red Flag law useless, as it’s supposed to be a tool to use some fake emergency power to get guns out of the hands of pre-criminals. The left knows this, and simply wants to skip over the inconvenient due process hurdle altogether. Lindsey Graham…probably doesn’t understand the concept. In any case, there is no point in supporting Red Flag laws as any meaningful ones will necessarily kick due process in the balls.

          1. Chipper…The Left can say whatever they want. They do anyway.

            But if the goal is to find a way to separate mentally/emotionally disturbed people from guns (who may then go on to use them to kill others), then we need to find a means of doing that in a way that is maximally protective of our 2A and 5A rights. This approach will not be perfect, and some will slip through the cracks. But it is workable.

    3. “I wish they were not even necessary.”

      Always beware that word “necessary”. It’s only ever used by tyrants in order to take your rights away.

      “I think they are prudent.”

      Bow down before your god. It demands sacrifice, from you and whomever else you can take from.

      “The downside risk (mass murder) to society…”

      There is zero evidence of this.

      “…is greater than the downside risk of a single (or group) mentally/emotionally disturbed person losing their gun for a temporary period of time.”

      Assuming efficiency, competence, truthfulness, and lack of evil from the State. Why would you do that?

      “The real debate is what protections do we want to have upfront.”

      Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

      “I am firmly convinced that if we go down this path…”

      Don’t lump me in with the evil that the State does. They do it all against my will. I do not consent.

      “The ideological purists will never agree to Red Flag”

      You meant to say the “logically consistent”. Maybe “students of history”? How about “anyone who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid”?

      “There are ways we can design a judicial process to maximally protect our individual rights…”

      Dred Scott. Korematsu. Plessy v. Ferguson. Wickard v. Filburn. Kelo. Miller. Penal-tax. Need I go on?

    4. “”I am firmly convinced that if we go down this path, we need to ‘litigate first, confiscate later’.””

      Sorry Atlas, if it’s going down, it’s going down how THEY want.
      If you submit to the idea, you submit knowing you will be at the mercy of their decisions. They will confiscate first, then litigate. If not now, then not long after the first person who is in the middle of litigation kills some people.

      1. not long after the first person who is in the middle of litigation kills some people.

        and it will happen without the use of a gun. Home Depot still rents trucks. Or a guy can buy a running beater that’s big enough to take out a goodly sized crowd.

        Or there are cans of gasoline, like were used in Japan, a very recent incident that somehow OUR press have sent down the rabbit hole because a bunch of people were mass murdered WITHOUT the use of a firearm cuz in Japan they don’t HAVE guns….

        As always it aint the arrow, its the Indian. It ain’t the hardware its the software.

        Two things about nearly all the mass shootings of the past fifty years….. first, the perp was known long before the awful deed by those who HAD the authority to take action but did not. Second, the guns he used were gotten either in full compliance with the laws, or in spite of them.

        So, some neighbour with a grudge reports Bill Jones, he gets his guns taken away, but is left free to roam about in pubic without a custodian. He rightly guesses who tagged him, and one night a certain house burns to the ground with the snitch inside it.
        So now we launch a campaign against matches and gasoline? Or was it propane he used?

        NO LAW will totally assure security for much of anyone.

        If a guy can’t be trusted roaming about in public with a gun, why is he then trusted to be roaming about in public without a competent custocian?

    5. The downside risk (mass murder) to society is greater than the downside risk of a single (or group) mentally/emotionally disturbed person losing their gun for a temporary period of time.

      Except that it’s not going to do anything to mitigate the risk to society and it’s not going to be a few “mentally/emotionally disturbed” people having their guns taken – it’s going to be anybody who gets reported as such by a cop or an ex-wife or a nosy neighbor with a grudge. And at some point the “it’s crazy to even have a gun” folks will worry a hole big enough to get a whole camel under that tent.

      1. Jerry…we simply disagree here on the nature of the downside risk.

        It is quite simple, actually. Which is worse?
        mass murder > temporary suspension of gun possession

        1. False dilemma.

  18. How much longer do gun absolutists figure most Americans are going to accept lousy laws pushed by an aggressive minority?

    How severe is the backlash going to be?

    1. But it’s been our betters who have promoted lousy gun laws for decades. You’re not bailing on them now are you?

      1. 🙂

  19. While libertarians and conservatives have been harping on the Constitution, the left has systematically shifted the culture in the anti-gun direction. People grow up from kindergarten to the PhD conditioned to believe guns are the cause of gun violence and to be terrified of firearms. Within two generations, Americans’ guns will be pried from their hands, cold and dead or otherwise.

    1. Where do you live? Outside the NE cities, the West Coast and maybe Chicago, gun ownership has been rising and very few people in the US between these leftist enclaves have been convinced that more laws are needed. I agree that the left is TRYING. But they are so locked in to their bubble chambers they really have no idea what non-leftists actually think.

      1. +100

  20. I am making 8 to 10 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 5 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily….

    >>>>>>>>> Click here and check That <<<<<<<<<<<<<

  21. Red flag laws really aren’t necessary. Several states have laws that allow the police or mental health authorities to evaluate anyone and confine them to a mental health facility away from their firearms for 72 hours without any due process if they believe the individual is a danger to themselves or others. After 72 hours, the individual is either released if they are no longer considered to be a danger to themselves or others or they are offered the choice of remaining in the facility either voluntarily or under a court order. No sane gun owner is going to choose the court order option because it will automatically adjudicate the individual as being mentally defective and under current US law (see BATF form 4473 question 11f) that will disqualify the individual from possessing any firearms now or in the future.

    So why don’t these laws work? The problem is in most cases the mental health facility will not accept a person unless they are medically cleared – especially if drugs or alcohol are involved. This typically requires the individual to be taken first to a hospital emergency room (ER) for a stay that can last hours or even days – and because ER facilities are not lockdown facilities and no one funds a 24/7 guard to watch them, they often slip out of the ER unnoticed.

    Current law allows the US government to require all hospitals that accept Medicare to treat anyone regardless of immigration status or ability to pay so if the federal government wants to fix something, they should use the same legal arguments to require all hospitals that accept Medicare to provide at least one ER examining room that can be locked down to securely detain any person who is on a mental health hold until they can be transferred to a mental health facility for evaluation

    It is also noted these laws are partially about “danger to self” and according to the CDC in 2016, 22018 people killed themselves with firearms and 22175 did it by other means and the proposed red flag laws that only confiscate firearms would not prevent an individual from employing “other means” – but confinement to a mental health facility or jail would.

    It is also likely under a red flag law that once an individual gets a hearing before a judge, he will likely send the individual to a mental health facility for an evaluation. So the only difference in outcomes between existing laws and red flag laws is the unnecessary confiscation of firearms with few details about how they will be returned.

  22. This is the same Lindsey Graham who helped author and pass the NDAA of 2012 power of the President, on his say so alone, to have the military arrest American citizens in America and imprison them indefinitely in military prison camps without charge or trial. Graham famously said “when they say I want my lawyer, you tell them shut up, you don’t get a lawyer!”

    Graham is as worthless and evil a politician as any ever produced in our nation.

    And as a military officer who was disarmed for civil, non-profane, non-defamatory public Facebook comments on a public Facebook page about a powerful Democrat (using the same kind of constitutional end-around laws) before winning on appeal thanks to the pro bono graciousness of Professor Volokh, I can tell you the obvious and that is these laws will be used to violate the rights of Americans all across the board. They will not make anybody safer, rather they will do precisely the opposite as they force law enforcement to wage war on innocent American citizens.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.