A lot of the vitriol aimed at the idea of Red Flag Laws, especially when the animus is directed at staunch 2nd amendment supporters like myself for considering them, assumes that under any proposed Red Flag Law, rights could be suspended and weapons seized based on hearsay.
If this were exclusively the case, I would be the most vociferous foe of any and all Red Flag Laws. To violate someone’s unalienable rights predicated only upon hearsay would indeed be an unconstitutional conflagration of tyranny and despotism. I would fight a red flag law based on hearsay tooth and nail.
It should be understood that when I say I might consider and support a Red Flag Law, there are some heavy requirements placed upon that possibility.
Firstly, and most importantly, I would never support a federal Red Flag Law. This is a form of law, like protective and restraining orders, which should only be enacted at the state level.
Secondly, I would only support a Red Flag Law that bases itself on probable cause of premeditation. The law would have to specifically define this form of probable cause to ensure a clear danger actually exists, much in the same way involuntary admission to a medical facility must accompany statements of clear evidence that the subject is a “danger to themselves and others.”
Thirdly, the only people that should be able to trigger a red flag should be family, cohabitants, and people in “positions of trust.” If the language of the law allows for reporting which can lead to “swatting” type incidents, I would oppose it.
Fourthly, anyone seeking to trigger a red flag should have to appear before a judge and demonstrate good cause for the red flag to go into effect. No anonymous tipping, no hotlines, no web pages. If the matter is serious enough to temporarily suspend rights then the complainant should be ready and willing to face a judge and make their case.
Finally, the subject of a red flag should be afforded a court appearance to contest the order within 24 hours. Any longer than that and I would consider it a breach of due process. If the red flag is overturned, the subject should be able to request false flag damages and the complainant should face the possibility of fines in the case of egregious misrepresentation.
It should be noted that most of the Red Flag Laws currently enacted in Democrat-controlled states do not meet my threshold of support. It should also be recognized that there is a distinct possibility that Democrats may be unwilling to moderate their demands to meet my threshold of support. Just because I choose to maintain my seat at the table doesn’t mean I can’t walk away at any point.
I honestly believe there is a path forward where Red Flag Laws could be crafted in a way sufficient to provide an early warning mechanism for would-be mass shootings and suicides but that involves clear safeguards to ensure it is not abused to harass law-abiding citizens.
I’m sure I will continue to face accusations of ideological impurity for my stance. But I will not walk away from the table and allow Democrats to exclusively set the narrative and write the laws as they see fit. There is a distinct possibility that these laws are going to be passed with or without our support, so I say let’s get involved in the process, signal a willingness to support them, and get language and concessions in the laws that ensure only criminal behavior is targeted and adds increased protection of the rights of the law-abiding.