The Intended ‘Unintended’ Consequences of the “Red Flag” Laws
In the past legislative cycle, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada, New York and Washington enacted or strengthened laws that allow law enforcement and courts to seize weapons from individuals. Currently, 17 states have “red flag” laws. Although each state define their respective law differently, they all lead to dangerous consequences.
The “Red Flag” laws create a modern day Crucible. As Colorado attorney and author Michael Sabbeth writes, Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GRVOs) and Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), generically known as ‘Red Flag’ laws, are such policies that luminously disclose their intent.”
Therefore, the laws’ “unintended consequences” are actually the intended consequences of liberal lawmakers. Sabbeth goes on to say:
Presently drafted Red Flag laws are a toxic stew of Constitutional abuses and wasp’s nest of procedural requirements that will predictably lead to violence without any societal benefit. Their defects have been persuasively presented in many insightful articles crafted by Second Amendment and gun violence data experts…
Additionally, he notes that “Uniquely frightening and not addressed sufficiently is enthusiasm with which legislators and advocates trash our Constitution and dismiss foreseeable harm.”
The red flag legislation assumes that its many component systems will work flawlessly: that petitioners will be honest and moral; that judges will act Constitutionally and without bias; that police executing search warrants will be restrained and disciplined; that homeowners will be reasonable under high-stress circumstances; that guns will be stored without theft or damage; and that firearms will be efficiently returned when appropriate. Prudent functioning of these components is unlikely. The legislators know this.
Take the law in Colorado, for example. If it becomes effective:
No person that has or is thought to have a firearm in its home can sleep securely because the breaking into the home by a criminal will be indistinguishable from the breaking home by the police. A homeowner with a firearm investigating the break-in will be shot. Some police will display discipline; some not. Although contrary to legislation and law, most search warrants, eagerly signed by judges, will vaguely describe the number and location of weapons in a dwelling. Note that a search warrant based on the allegation “He has lots of guns throughout the house.” gives legal license for police to search and destroy every cubic inch of a residence.
In conclusion, “Implementing accountability is difficult, perhaps impossible. Eroding the rights and privileges of law-abiding people is easy.”
Continue Reading: The Honorable Hunter