I am very concerned about knee-jerk “red flag laws,” a/k/a ERPOs, or Extreme Risk Protection Orders. All the suggested ones I’ve seen so far are so poorly written they’re dangerous. I explained why here last month. A couple of entries ago, I shared a link in which pro-Second Amendment attorneys gave pretty much unanimous advice that if police came to serve such an order on one of us, the best advice was to not resist and seek legal redress.
I shared a link in which pro-Second Amendment attorneys gave pretty much unanimous advice that if police came to serve such an order on one of us, the best advice was to not resist and seek legal redress.
If you read the comments in the latter, you’ll see that it resulted in a crap storm. Now, as the guy who’s been writing this blog for a decade, it may be time for me to explain some things.
Opposing views are encouraged here. They nourish meaningful dialogue. The folks who called me a boob and all that are still welcome to comment here. As the moderator, I only have to remove about one reader comment every two or three months, and that’s usually for viciously attacking another commenter. (I post this stuff, so I’m fair game. Guests in my house are welcome to disagree, but not to make nasty personal attacks on each other.) On rare occasions I have to delete for F-bombs, and a VERY few times I’ve had to because the guy who wrote the comment was simply bat-feces crazy. And I can still count on my fingers the number of people I’ve banned here in over a decade and have some digits left over.
I’ve already had to delete multiple comments and ban multiple posters in the “If the Police Come for Your Guns” comment thread.
First, if you write the suggestion that people should murder the families of police to intimidate them, you are not wanted here. The kind of person who says that is the kind of person who needs to have their weapons confiscated.
Second, if you pound your chest and claim you’ll shoot people you KNOW are police serving a warrant that you don’t like because your interpretation of the law is different from the judge’s, you’re a damn fool and anyone stupid enough to follow your advice would get killed like you will in a gunfight you could have avoided, a gunfight in which your loved ones are in the line of fire. That’s why all those lawyers in that link said to work it out in court.
Third – and this is mainly for the first-time, drive-by commenters who heard about my blog on someone else’s, got pissed, and obviously never read what I wrote, nor the link therein – understand that when you literally don’t know what you’re talking about, what you say is meaningless.
Fourth, think context. We’re not talking about Red Dawn here, or a reincarnation of some real-life Johnny Tremaine fighting the redcoats. We have been talking about potential abuse of poorly written red flag laws, to wit, some snowflake, stalker, or harasser making a false complaint that results in a warrant. You will probably have a damn good idea who that is, and if you follow the advice of the lawyers in the earlier link, either the police or your attorney’s investigator will find out the truth and things will be squared away. If you tell people to start shooting under those circumstances, you’re either an anti-gunner trying to damage gun owners’ civil rights or have become an unwitting puppet of same. What will win this will be common sense presented to the lawmakers and the public to prevent onerous laws from being enacted in the first place.
Second Amendment and First are still celebrated here. But so is critical thinking, common sense, and knowing what the hell one is talking about.