I wrote yesterday about so-called “Red Flag laws”, and how they could be misused by people for various reasons. I hadn’t expected to be proved right so quickly, but . . .
If you go into the comments on any one of these Tweets, you’ll see quite a number of people also stating that if they see anybody with a gun (open or concealed) they will red flag that person.
These people don’t want red flag laws to prevent mass shooters. They just want to abuse them to harass law-abiding gun owners with the weight of the law.
Not just does this put people’s rights at risk, it also puts the lives of gun owners and law enforcement at risk.
I want to support some sort of mass shooter prevention law, but I’m not going to back anything that anti-gunners are gleeful to abuse to get me arrested and stripped of my rights because of my CCW pistol.
When you are more excited about how to use a law to intimidate law-abiding gun owners than you are about a law being able to stop an actual threat, you are part of the problem.
Their open desire to abuse this law for partisan gain instead of saving lives is why we can’t even begin to discuss doing something helpful.
There’s more at the link.
To save you the trouble of wading through page after page of responses, I culled a few from the linked Twitter feed. The first word or two in each citation is a link to the Tweet concerned.
“Arguing against red flags laws is a red flag.”
“I think the real red flag is anyone in favor of open/conceal carry laws. If you want to carry, join law enforcement. Otherwise keep your gun at home.”
“No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service. Please add No Guns.”
“At the risk of hyperbole, I think young white men who own assault rifles with large capacity magazines, body armor, who engage in discourse on 8chan and who express white nationalist views are mentally disturbed. They should be rounded up and kept sedated for public safety.”
“Spread the plot. See someone carrying? Report they are intimidating people with their guns. It’s exactly why they carry if they aren’t cops ON duty.”
“It’s a huge red flag! It is literally white supremacy walking. All it does is intimidate everyone around the gun brandisher (including other white people). Imagine any other race dressed in their traditional garments wearing guns openly. 2 steps out the door someone calls police.”
Not a word about whether the open-carrying man referenced in the original Tweet is acting legally (which he almost certainly is – open carry is legal in a number of states). Legality doesn’t matter to these people. Only the perceptions of the observer matter – and if that observer feels threatened, then by all means invoke police protection, and Red Flag laws, and anything else that can be used against someone who’s legally armed. Their rights don’t matter compared to the observer’s “right” not to be offended, or upset, or scared.
Yep. That’s why Red Flag laws will probably be mis-used more often (likely much more often) than they’re properly used . . . and that’s why so many gun owners are opposed to them.
And there has already been a shooting in MD over a red flag. LEOs killed a homeowner who refused to turn over his guns.
no gun no service? that would be an interesting policy 🙂
I'm wondering how long until a swat team loses a stack at someone's door. What sort of fallout will that entail? The police should have been leading the response to kill these laws. I see nothing good, and a whole lot of bad, resulting from this sort of stupidity.
"Interesting times", indeed!
Their entire a priori intent is to misuse the laws, and bring in LEOs as cannon fodder in their campaign of "lawfare" for enforced disarmament.
Like Deputy Chief Dwayne T. Robinson in Die Hard, if they try that, they're going to need some new SWAT teams and more FBI guys.
What they'll get is a bloodbath.
And it will end with their blood.
There's a diminishingly bad down side to that, but I'm getting very near to the point I'm willing to overlook it for the common good of the republic.
I'd love to see some of the cops I have known, who carry off-duty, if some asshat tried to "red-flag" them. I have a feeling that the would-be red-flagger would find life very interesting for quite a while…getting ticketed for going 32 in a 30 MPH zone, getting pulled over for license checks every time they try to drive somewhere, and so on.
Craig Pirrong uses some Bayes Theorem to look at red flag laws' costs v benefits: