Stylized photo of a M&P 9 Shield EZ / Photo by Grace Boatright

Red Flag legislation is one of the most controversial gun control proposals in modern American politics. These proposals are more controversial than the blanket gun bans for one simple reason, these proposals are actually feasible.

House Resolution 2377 or the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act will allow for the seizure of firearms in all 50 states with no due process so long as an official can justify the seizure on the grounds of  “protection of the community.”

This proposed law would give family members and police the ability to seek a court order that would strip the subject of said court order of their gun rights for up to 14 days. These court orders would be obtained with ex parte proceedings, meaning that the individual having their firearms seized would be unable to defend themselves in these proceedings. This legislation would also grant the ability to extend the temporary seizure up to a period of 180 days.

H.R. 2377 was put forward by Georgia Democrat Lucy McBath. Note that Congresswoman McBath took her seat in Congress with major backing from the gun control lobby and gun control pontiff Michael Bloomberg. Prior to landing the seat on capitol hill, McBath served as the faith and outreach leader for Moms Demand Action(MDA) for roughly 5 years. Also, take note of the fact that McBath put this bill forward after meeting with several high-profile members of the gun control lobby and President Joe Biden.

The bill is extremely partisan and only managed to squeak through the House Judiciary Committee after a seven-hour hearing that ended in a one-sided vote.

While the bill has its supporters, it also has its detractors.

Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie said in an op-ed, “When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing and the worst that can happen is their guns will be taken away, few people find that it makes sense to fight Red Flag laws.” Rep. Massie would continue saying “Under Red Flag laws, initial firearms confiscations usually require just a ‘reasonable suspicion.’ Judges will initially confiscate a person’s guns on the basis of a written complaint. When hearings take place weeks or a month later, courts overturn a third of the initial orders. But since few defendants have legal representation, the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher.

By depriving individuals of their property and rights without having been charged, arraigned, or convicted of a crime, this bill violates Constitutional due process rights set out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment,” said Ohio Republican Jim Jordan.

Texas Republican Chip Roy also chimed in, saying “you have the opportunity to be heard after – after – your rights have been taken away.

This legislation is controversial, there is no doubt about that, but for many on the left this is a no-brainer and it is easy to see why. The debate over this legislation boils down to the old argument of safety vs. liberty, many on the left would rather be safe than free. The sad part is this, this legislation really isn’t going to protect anyone and no one will be safer as a result excluding a few exceptions. Security theater is just that after all, theater.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
1 month ago

Holy mackerel, save us from this argument again. Red flag states include a small band of ignorant, tyrannical governors shoving the U.S. to the brink of catastrophe. Red flag laws were created to transfer authority from licensed psychiatrists to unqualified persons more obedient to socialists, e.g., local judges and nosy neighbors.

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 legally arrested. In other words, take the man but leave the guns. Every state allows for the involuntary detention of dangerous individuals for psychiatric evaluation. The difference is red flag laws only confiscate arms, the obvious objective.

Criminal prosecution of accusers for malice or lying makes good press but it’s very difficult to prosecute and virtually impossible to prove. The judiciary almost always looks the other way. Due process requires reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury. Because public defenders offer little comfort to the accused, this becomes very expensive, very quickly.

I’ve often wondered how the police, teacher, classmate or aunt would know the rightful owners of which firearms. Seems law enforcement would risk serious lawsuits if they err on that point. Currently, that point is being litigated in Lori Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, currently accepted by the Supreme Court for conference review. Also submitted for Supreme Court review are Pena v. Cid, Mance v. Barr, and Culp v. Madigan. However, the major cost of these laws is the loss of trust between peaceable, lawful citizens and their elected officials.

Just for debate, I’ve wondered about the issue of an accused having firearms stored at another address. If they’re out of the city or state but easily accessible, the law is useless. Often, judges turn to the line of inheritance codified in state laws to determine the legal custodian of any property. Confiscation is anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

As an analogy, if someone sips too much wine during dinner at home, a crotchety old aunt might be empowered to call the police and have them impound every motorized vehicle from the homeowner — just in case he or she might decide to drive somewhere. Never mind who owns the vehicles.

Regardless, 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.

Rick Radford
Rick Radford
1 month ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

Thank you for the stats above. I will use them in my firearms training classes. It fits with other data I have been using as well. Out of 192 countries in the world the US ranks around 112 on the basis of number of crimes committed with a firearm per 100,000 people. If you remove the stats from all the BLUE states (ruined by dems and strictest anti self defense laws) ie Del, Ill, Ca, Or, Wa, NY, Pa, Ma, Mi, et al we drop down to around 189.
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT SAFETY, CRIME PREVENTION, REDUCING VIOLENCE! It has always been about control! Act accordingly, and get off your butts and get involved at whatever level you can. Phone calls, emails to your reps, work on campaigns, donate whatever you can do, just don’t sit by and let the b#@$#@#$ win. I have been in the 2A fight as an activist for 40+ years and would gladly accept some help from those of you sitting on the fence. Use your rights, or lose them.
Lets Go Brandon /;-))

Jeffrey Klein
1 month ago

Supreme Court just stopped a measure like this

Jim
Jim
1 month ago
Reply to  Jeffrey Klein

Let’s hope they squash this one as well.

Boaz
25 days ago
Reply to  Jeffrey Klein

Let’s hope so because the same people who support this bill support BLM and Antifa and do little about Black on Black killings NOTHING! They are heroes when signing their name for such bills but cowards in real life. I bet most have private security!

rottenrollin
rottenrollin
1 month ago

McBath is going to try to give the Second Amendment a bath.

Molon Labe, Marxist.

House Bill 2377 might more aptly be numbered House Bill 666.

The Second protects the rest.

And everyone is right: this is NOT a safety issue, this is a control issue.

Last edited 1 month ago by rottenrollin
Paul
Paul
1 month ago

None of these BS ideas they create are about saving lives, THE GOVERNMENT (Democrats) do not care about lives! They are just trying to reach the point where they can take total control over the American people. Again, The Dems could care less about who dies, it’s all a big lie when they claim to be trying to save lives!

John
John
1 month ago

Does anybody see that we have already lost our rights,our freedoms..that they are using this virus to dismantle our Constitution…they’ve already been getting away with illegal wars..so this is the next stop for them…to come up with a way to disarm the public without any resistance other than complaining at the end of an article such as this.We’re already finished..stick a fork in the nation..it’s dead and done.

trackback

[…] Read more at FullMagNews  […]

trackback

[…] Reproduced with permission. Original here. […]

Boaz
25 days ago

What would be the penalty be for the RATS when proven wrong?

You may also like