Red Flags Fly Over Head in Tianeman Square, China / Victoria Reay via (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/) Flickr

The U.S. Department of Justice has revealed its new model Red Flag Law legislation, the model legislation is supposed to serve as a blueprint for states who want to pick up the highly controversial law.

From Guns.com: 

“Today we continue to deliver on our promise to help save lives while protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans,” said recently appointed U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland in a statement along with the rollout. “We welcome the opportunity to work with communities in the weeks and months ahead in our shared commitment to end gun violence.”

Going past what many existing state laws allow, the model legislation enables not only law enforcement or a family member to request such a gun seizure order, but also a “dating or intimate partner,” health care provider, or school official. It allows for ex parte orders, which famously “gets the guns first” without the subject of the order even knowing it has been filed, and makes the burden of restoring their Second Amendment rights an adversarial process.

Further, it requires the law enforcement agency carrying out the search and seizure order to report it to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, as well as any known state background check system, effectively suspending the subject’s right to keep and bear arms.

What it does not include is any form of counseling or mental health treatment, although the nature of such orders is to keep an individual “at crisis” from legally accessing or possessing guns. It is also vague about penalties or punishments for those filing false or harassing orders, leaving that up to the states to decide.

Some of the major issues that have been pointed out by those in the firearms community include:

-no recourse for those who have been “red-flagged” when it comes to getting their firearms back

-anyone truly facing a crisis would not be given any sort of help, they would only have their firearms taken

-no solid punishment for those making false reports

-suspending a person’s right to bear arms with an emergency order might leave them without their civil liberties for a long time if not forever

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Trish
Trish
1 month ago

Start with taking the guns from the criminals. Fill our jails and prisons with actual criminals, and take their guns, and leave ours alone.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago
Reply to  Trish

It should be easy for an Executive Branch as big as ours 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.

Richard Wayne Dupree
1 month ago

We all know that they can’t take fire arms away from criminals, this effort will create major backlash and it will end creating more division across the country and will be another classic failure. The left keeps over playing their hand, will they ever get it, protecting our family is the priority

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

Red flag laws transfer powers from licensed psychiatrists to unqualified persons more obedient to democrats, e.g., local judges and crotchety old aunts. Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury.

Nobody wants criminals to have firearms but to be taken seriously, if the accused is a danger to himself (not against the law) or others, he should be arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. The line of inheritance codified in state laws determines the legal custodian of any property.

Gun violence is the go-to-term for grabbers and confiscators. It’s brilliant for public relations and incendiary to owners of firearms. Nobody says, “That gun is violent.” Literate persons say, “That person is violent.” Violence is a quality that applies to people and actions, not objects. The term is wrong in many ways, but psychologically, it is powerful.

Although use of the term is clever, democrats cannot grasp the fact that criminals don’t ask government’s permission to use or even possess a firearm. Nevertheless, “gun violence” has become a mainstay of the democrat flimflam because it narrows the focus to fit the objective. The objective of course is to disarm the American public. Think about it. Have you ever heard the term “gun gentleness” used by a politician or anyone else?

No? Then ask yourself why the democrat party doesn’t focus on just violence instead of gun violence. Fact is they’re after guns, not violence. They couldn’t care less about the entire field of violence because it commingles criminals with peaceable, lawful citizens and deflects from their intended focus on peaceable, lawful citizens.

Robert Taylor (DAV)
Robert Taylor (DAV)
1 month ago

Where in this law does it say a person can have a partial citizenship? While a law may have a part-time loss of citizens rights when that person has done what social justice has determined he must pay for a crime or (?) when the debt has been paid he cannot be refused his normal citizenship rights and yes that includes the 2nd.

michael mulcahy
michael mulcahy
1 month ago

my five favorite words are ” go away , leave me alone” you liberals ever gonna get it? put the criminals in jail and forget trying to take our guns away. there are millions of us who own handguns and never used them unlawfully. Bring Trump back .

Richard
Richard
1 month ago

Enforce existing laws. Don’t deal away using a gun during a crime. If a gun is used in commission of a crime, it should carry a 10 year minimum sentence. If a murder is commited (with or without a gun) it should carry a MANDATORY death penalty to be administered within a year of sentencing. Crime will never be eliminated by babying the criminal.

You may also like