When pieces o’ feces like the one at Parkland wreak mass murders, we in the gun owners’ civil rights movement are the first to say, “We need psycho control, not gun control.”  When so-called Red Flag laws are proposed that would disarm someone when damn near anyone says, “that person is crazy and dangerous,” we look like hypocrites when we say, “Wait a minute!”

But it’s not hypocrisy.   We’re resistant because these proposals – at least all the ones I’ve seen – are too hastily written, and dangerously lacking in checks and balances. 

“SWAT-ing” has become a thing. It’s a form of harassment in which the hater makes a false call to police claiming that some horrible crime is happening at the victim’s home, with the result that armed police in a high state of danger alert respond there.  It has already caused tragic, unnecessary death.  Long before this trend, bitter and hateful people were making false complaints to police and the courts: any experienced cop can confirm that, and so can any divorce lawyer who has practiced family law for any length of time.

Anti-gunners on Facebook and elsewhere have claimed that any time they spot a gun on someone, they will attack them (and that has actually happened) or they will call 9-1-1 with a “Help! Man with a gun!” call.  What would such people do if they believed a simple phone call could get a gun owner – and his or her firearms – seized? The potential for abuse is obvious.

Too many of the proposals would take a single accuser’s word as truth. Let’s say Marvin the Monster is stalking Vickie the Victim.  He calls in and claims that Vickie is out of her mind and has threatened him with a gun.  Vickie’s guns are automatically seized.  It will be at least days before she can have a hearing, be cleared, and get them back…and for every minute of all those days she is helpless to protect herself from Marvin.

Red Flag laws need to be done right, and that won’t happen unless our side goes beyond knee-jerk opposition and has a hand in formulating them.

  • Such a law, IMHO, should require probable cause to trigger confiscation.
  • It would have to provide for quick hearing and resolution of false claims, something that will be difficult in today’s clogged court system.
  • There are logistical issues to consider: storage space for temporarily confiscated guns, perhaps provisions for them to be stored with FFL dealers, etc., protocols for disposal of a gun collection if the owner is indeed dangerous based on investigation and adjudication and is institutionalized, and so on.
  • There should be serious, and perhaps mandatory, penalties for false accusations.
  • If the claim is that the subject has said he’s going to steal his neighbor’s or relative’s guns to commit mass murder, do the innocent neighbor’s or relative’s guns get seized?

Input from professionals seems to be lacking in the proposals I’ve seen thus far.  I would like to see a blue ribbon panel of knowledgeable psychologists and psychiatrists – Dr. William Aprill in Louisiana, Dr. Alexis Artwohl in Arizona, and Dr. Anthony Semone in Pennsylvania all come to mind – study this issue and make some professional recommendations from their field of expertise. Similarly, I want to hear from police administrators on logistical elements: someone like this Colorado sheriff, who has a handle on it. And I want the legislators to tell us what they want the law to do with genuinely dangerous people once their guns have been confiscated. 

Readers, chime in:  We all want to see psychopathic killers stopped before they can claim their first victims, and we all want the process to be such that it minimizes and hopefully forecloses the chance of abuse by false accusation.

What would YOU want to see in such legislation?


  1. Pretty sure I commented on someone’s post a week or more back before this was dated almost all of these same points…shorter form but much of this could be a direct quote…I am not sure if it is good that I am not the only one thinking these things or not so good. Either way, well said.

  2. 1. “Probable cause” (15-20%) is way too LOW a standard of ptoof for thr court

    So is “preponderance of the evidence” (50% plus a smidgeon).

    That is why the Florida red flag law uses “clear and convincing evidence” (75-80%) as the standard to trigger a seizure.

    2. The Petitioner must be the police, not a crazy, vengeful relative. This prevents “SWATing”.

    3. A non-FFL third party should also be allowed to keep the guns. Otherwise “reasonsble fees” by a FFL or the ploice for storage will “take” the guns.

  3. I am pretty much a skeptic on such laws. I think it was a strategic error to focus on mental illness as “magic bullet” for murder prevention. As you point out, our enemies are smart enough to use the issue against us. A lot of killers are obviously crazy (not counting people motivated by ideology or criminality because while they may be crazy the causality is different). Problem is that there are millions of crazy people(depending on how one defines crazy) out there who are no threat to anyone, except maybe themselves. The analogy to blaming law-abiding gun owners for everything is far too close for comfort.

    That said, you are right that the issue isn’t going away. I am very concerned about the problem of false accusations. We seem to be unwilling to control that problem on any issue so the prospect of controlling it here seems remote. Draconian penalties might work but would create other problems like mass incarceration. The solution to me is to bring back involuntary commitment to mental health facilities. If someone is too dangerous to have guns, they are too dangerous to be on the street where things like cars, poisons, gasoline, and knives are readily available. When you go this route, you automatically get the due process issues resolved. Plus it exposes false accusers to perjury charges. The problem would be to get our dysfunctional court system to respond on a timely basis. My solution is to make judges work harder and more efficiently.

    I hope that Clayton Cramer responds to you. He is one of us, having been instrumental in exposing the Bellesiles fraud. He also has a lifetime of dealing with a mentally ill brother about which he has written. I am thinking that he will have some insights.

    • Agreed on the “mental illness” focus. It was put out there because most of the recent mass murderers have been certifiable.

      But the initial proposal to get a handle was modified; they removed a word. It wasn’t to restrict guns to the “mentally ill”; it was to restrict guns to the “dangerously mentally ill”.

      Psychologists and psychiatrists will be the first to tell you, “mentally ill” people aren’t any more violent or dangerous than mentally-healthy people. Individuals can be violent or dangerous, but painting the whole “mentally ill” population with that brush is counter-productive. They’ll also tell you the rate of violent or dangerous individuals is about the same for “mentally ill” and healthy: around 3-4%. So the other 96% of “mentally ill” folks are NOT a danger to themselves or others, but they’ll get lumped in with the dangerous ones.

      Because “mental illness”.

      We as gun owners strongly resent being lumped in with violent criminals (or more commonly, violent criminals being lumped in with lawful gun owners, as if there’s no difference). Yet the focus on “mental illness” — without the “dangerous” qualifier — does the exact same thing to another sub-set of society. It was a deflection borne of desperation after Sandy Hook (and Aurora, CO, and Gabby Giffords in Phoenix, AZ), but it has come back to bite us.

      I do have an issue with the due process and false accusation issues, but I don’t agree with “mak[ing] judges work harder and more efficiently”. The bureaucratic answer will be to increase judges’ case loads and demand quicker resolutions. What that will translate to in reality is rushes to judgment (heh!) without the luxury of time to objectively examine individual cases.

      An extra bit of background: I’ve worked with the foster care system. We rely on judges to examine individual cases and make decisions that affect the lives of children, some of whom have come from terrible, terrible situations. I’ve seen good calls and bad calls from the bench; the bad calls almost always come from bad information — biased or incorrect, that could/should have been challenged, but the court didn’t have sufficient time or resources to follow up — complicated by time limits set in statute, usually by legislators who don’t understand the system. NOT lazy or incompetent judges. But regardless of the why, once the gavel falls, for better or for worse the decision is as good as law.

      I bring this up to explain that the LAST thing we need is judges forced to rush through 30+ “red flag” hearings every day, only giving each one 10-15 minutes; after counting for introductions and prepared statements, there’s no time left to present or refute evidence or third-party testimony before the judge decides. IOW, it will lead to more rubber-stamping, less due process.

      (Creating more judge-ships to handle the increased case load could be a viable option, but IMHO pushing existing judges harder will only aggravate the existing problems.)

      On a whole, I see “red flag” laws as a net negative. It’s bad for gun owners, bad for society as a whole. They are only good for collectivist control freaks, and for them they are VERY good. That alone should be a “red flag”, so to speak.

      • Unfortunately, mental health professionals are not very good, that is, accurate, in predicting which mentally ill persons will act out violently.

  4. Re: “What would YOU want to see in such legislation?”

    This is what I proposed to my pro-gun legislators in Colorado. It appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

    1. Agree to be voluntarily confined to a local mental health facility (or regional facility if no beds are available) on a 72 hour hold that is voluntarily extended by the respondent to a maximum of 14 days with no requirement of the respondent to surrender any legally owned firearms to law enforcement authorities or an FFL

    2. Agree to be voluntarily incarcerated in a local jail (or regional jail if no space is available locally) for a period not to exceed 14 days with no requirement of the respondent to surrender any legally owned firearms to law enforcement authorities or an FFL

    3. Be immediately compelled to surrender any firearms to law enforcement authorities or an FFL (i.e. the only current option)

    Note that this proposal does not require and new laws or expenses for option 1. Mental health authorities or a peace officer are currently empowered under CRS 27-65-105 to evaluate anyone and confine them to a mental health facility away from their firearms for 72 hours without any due process if they believe the individual is a danger to themselves or others. After 72 hours, the individual is either released if they are no longer considered to be a danger to themselves or others or they are offered the choice of remaining in the facility either voluntarily or under a court order per CRS 27-65-107. No sane gun owner is going to choose the court order option because it will automatically adjudicate the individual as being mentally defective and under current US law (see BATF form 4473 question 11f) that will disqualify the individual from possessing any firearms now or in the future.

    If the Democrats vote this proposed amendment down, it will expose the fact they are only concerned with confiscating firearms and not mental health issues and efforts should be made to publicize their vote and this fact to the news media. It is also noted that since this bill is about “danger to self”, according to the CDC in 2016, 22018 people killed themselves with firearms and 22175 did it by other means and this ERPO law as written would not prevent an individual from employing “other means” – but confinement to a mental health facility or jail would.

  5. The law should mandate that these cases jump to the front of the line and be seen next by a judge before any other case that has not begun.

    There should be fines and/or jail time for an accuser that is found to be wrong. An honest claim may be a small fine, but a malicious accuser should have the book thrown at him.

  6. I appreciate a reasoned response such as yours. Too often people on both sides of the guns/gun control issue react with emotion. One side goes immediately to “we have to do something” and “why do you even ‘need’ a gun. The other side puts more stickers on their trucks and dares anyone to “come and take it”. If each of us could work with just one gun control proponent to show them the pleasures of shooting for sport or competition, we would be a lot closer to an acceptable meeting of the minds.

  7. Balancing the safety and security of the vast majority with individuals’civil liberties is one tough nut, and fraught with potential serious abuses as the author well describes.

    Yet in many, maybe most, of the mass killings over the last couple decades there were ample warning signs, often overt threats, from violent loonies who were about to go berserk and commit mass murder. Generally the authorities knew about these gibbering nutters and did nothing, offering the excuse that they could not violate their Constitutional rights. Then the unthinkable occurred. However, I agree with the author’s sensible recommendations for enacting Red Flag laws.

    • The question for we PotG is: Who do we want drafting the language for such red-flag laws? In the present mood of the country these laws will be passed and we don’t have the political power to stop them. So, should we stand by howling into the wind on principle?

      A secondary question is whether we PotG really want to stand in defense of the gun rights of people who are really BOTH crazy and dangerous? Are these folks comrades in arms standing in the breach in defense of community and country? Or, are they making the case for more gun control? Still more important than this secondary question is whether we really want to be seen by voters to be doing so?

      The real problem with the red flag laws as passed and proposed is that they are TOO EASY to apply in practice. Pass the law; wait for disgruntled relatives to file complaints; send the cops out to pick up the guns; put guns in a rusty barrel in the evidence room; wait for the victim to try to get his guns back. There is NO BURDEN on the state.

      The real remedy is to include safeguards that BURDEN the STATE. By way of illustration, suppose the police were obliged to put the confiscated guns in cosmoline under the supervision of a high-ranked officer who certifies that the guns were not mishandled. (This is merely for illustration; I’m not serious.) The cops wouldn’t be encouraging judges to issue confiscation orders just so they could go for an exciting SWATing raid on a gun-owner.

      We need to be smart about designing these burdens. It does no good to compel a mandatory and draconian penalty on unjustified accusations. The judges won’t impose the penalty so they will find that every accusation had a reasonable basis, however thin. Moreover, even if the burden on the accuser were practical, it wouldn’t apply the constraint where it is needed: on the state. Suppose the accuser had to post a $1,000 bond to make the complaint. That would cost the accuser $100. No discretion. So, accusers would pay the bondsman and the judge would grant the confiscation order. No skin off the state’s nose.

      We need something like a cause of action against the state if the state fails to apply the standards. Contingency lawyers will take egregious cases against the state when judges grant orders that are not warranted.

      Another provision is that the accused gun owner should be arrested and taken to a hospital for an evaluation at the expense of the state. If found dangerous to self or others, the mandate should be to hold the accused gun owner in a hospital until he is deemed not dangerous. There are NO available beds in hospitals for crazy people who really DO need to be held in custody; NONE. That is a serious problem having nothing to do with guns. The logical consequence is that hospitals will be exceedingly reluctant to declare any gun owner to be so dangerous that he MUST be held in custody; they will not ration the rare available bed unless the accused gun owner is believed to be more dangerous than the other 100 people waiting for a custodial bed.

      • @ MarkPA – “Who do we want drafting the language for such red-flag laws? In the present mood of the country these laws will be passed and we don’t have the political power to stop them. So, should we stand by howling into the wind on principle?”

        Just because there are a lot of people in America, currently, who are insane and suffering from the effects of left-wing propaganda and delusions, that does not mean that we should join the “madness of crowds”.

        Would one want to take the attitude, in 1930’s Germany, that antisemitic laws are going to be passed anyway and that we should “make the best of it” and try to get the Nuremberg Laws written with as reasonable language as possible?

        Sometimes one MUST stand on principle or else lose one’s soul. Who knows what the result will be. Maybe it will be futile and the left-wing delusions will roll over America like a tidal wave and destroy everything in their path. Maybe it will just be “howling into the Wind”. On the other hand, maybe the howl will be the “wake up call” necessary to get the people, who still love America, off their duffs and into action so as to form the Sea Wall to stop the tidal wave.

        No one knows the future. However, I would rather howl into the wind in a cause that is Right then follow the crowds into madness and folly.

  8. The whole argument about due process is a waste of time. Anti gunners don’t care if gun owners get due process. Frankly, no one but us cares if we get due process. The real problem is that the entire concept is built on a lie. The lie is “we don’t want to take away guns, we want to prevent violence.” Let’s consider the following best case scenario
    1. Dude is certifiably nuts and an immediate danger to himself and others
    2. The reporting party is reporting in good faith.
    3. The judge honestly and fairly evaluates the evidence and issues the correct order
    4. The police seize all the guns safely and with no violence.

    In that perfect scenario they’ve abandoned an unsafe and unstable crazy person where he has access to gasoline, matches, and if he has the least motivation, a gun sold to him by the local drug dealer.

    If the anti gunners wanted to prevent violence, is this how they would do it? Or are they really just taking guns?

  9. The left-wing gun-grabbers, and leftists in general, excel at the art of using deception and misdirection to achieve their goals. Red Flag laws are a case in point. The leftists push their gun control agenda after every mass murder. As Mas notes, the pro-gun side responds by saying that we “need psycho control not gun control”. The leftists then, immediately, analyse our position and see if they can twist it to use against us. They quickly find a solution.

    As I noted previously, the leftists often use deceptive “Bait and Switch” tactics to pass more restrictive legislation. They BAIT people by claiming that their proposed laws will disarm people (criminals, the mentally ill, etc.) who should not possess weapons. They know that most reasonable people will agree with this stated goal. However, when they write the proposed law, they SWITCH the provisions so that they mostly target legal firearm ownership. The leftists hope that their deception will fool enough people into supporting and passing the new restrictions.

    These Red Flag laws are more of the same. They are advertised as allowing law enforcement to disarm dangerous, mentally-ill people. That is the BAIT. However, the proposed law is SWITCHED to a law that is so broadly written that it can be used to disarm legal gun-owners almost at will.

    The leftists constantly use deception because their TRUE GOAL is firearms prohibition and the universal disarmament of the civilian population. This is in support of the establishment of a totalitarian Socialist State in America. The Democratic Socialist States of American instead of the U.S.A. They know that THIS GOAL DOES NOT have the support of the majority of the American People. Therefore, the only way for them to achieve their TRUE GOAL is by using deception to pass gradually increasing restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

    I disagree with Mas on one point. I dispute the statement that “Red Flag laws need to be done right”. As soon as you accept the premise that some type of new firearms law is necessary, you are fighting the gun-grabbers on their own turf and handing them a victory. As I stated in a previous comment, LEGITIMATE firearm laws are already MAXED out. The 2nd Amendment has already been infringed too much. We don’t need another RED FLAG law. What we need is a RED LINE which says NO MORE!

    Commentator Paul Harvey foresaw what the Leftists were working toward years ago. If anyone doubts their goal, I recommend that they watch the following video. It is not long in length. Less than 10 minutes.


  10. Most states already have a mechanism for emergency intervention for people with mental health issues. We don’t need to add anything, particularly these laws which ignore the constitutional protections for the accused. Have we moved into an area of “pre-crime”?

  11. Massachusetts has a RED FLAG law, new last year that is PRETTY DARN GOOD. It does not “take a single accuser’s word as truth”. Only family and household members can ask for an Extreme Risk Protection Order (EPRO), not annoyed neighbors, not “concerned friends”, no 911 call, not even police or medical folk. Only the family, who knows these people best, can ask for an EPRO. The court must find a preponderance of evidence to grant an EPRO, with a hearing if there is time, or a temporary one if there is an emergency (mirroring the traditional domestic violence protection orders that can be given either in an emergency or at a hearing). To prevent abuse, the EPRO law was real teeth for anyone who who lies about the danger or uses this law to harass someone: fine up to $5,000, or by imprisonment for up to 2 ½ year, ore both. The primary goal of the law is not to prevent mass murder but to reduce suicides – a worthy and important goal you have recently addressed in your writings. In the first 4 months of the law, In 4 months there were 7 applications made for an EPRO Six were approved, one was denied, without finding the denied one false or harassing. The MA law seems to have all the right features and not wrong ones. Gun owners should not automatically reject any “red flag” law, but should look at the actual provisions. Massachusetts red flag EPRO law is a good one.

    • @ Lyn Bates – “Massachusetts red flag EPRO law is a good one.”

      Do we really know that? I am sure that the left-wing dominated legacy media will be praising this law to the heavens. Anyone who relies upon their information will, naturally, be inclined to believe that this new law is the greatest thing since “sliced bread”.

      However, I have (long since) developed a great skepticism regarding media reporting. Indeed, the more the media loves something, the more I tend to doubt and distrust it.

      Will this law truly save lives? Did Massachusetts build a provision into the law to require that it’s effects be studied after a certain period of time (5 to 10 years)? Does it include a “Sunset” provision that will automatically terminate the law unless the results of this study support that the law be renewed? Given that it directly impacts a Constitutional Right, I don’t think that it is asking too much that it should contain these things.

      More then likely, the only people who will “Study” this law are anti-gun professors who teach at left-wing universities. Their “Studies” will doubtless, as a forgone conclusion, find value in these laws and find that trampling all over people’s 2nd Amendment Rights was “worth it”.

      Then, in a few years, the anti-gun Massachusetts legislature will decide to “strengthen” their Red Flag law and the good features, that you cite, will be stripped out and the law will “devolve” to the point when it can be used to disarm legal gun-owners at will.

      Believe me, the leftists never let up. There is an old Arab saying that “If you let a camel get his nose under the flap of the tent, soon you will have the whole camel in the tent with you!” It is the same with leftists and their gun laws. These laws are always sold as “reasonable measures”. They may even start out as “reasonable measures” in some cases. Eventually, however, the leftists will go “Whole Camel” and the laws will trend toward registration, confiscation and then Firearms Prohibition. That is always the “End Game” for the Leftist gun-grabbers. They are willing to work for years, decades, even centuries, to reach their goal of Universal Disarmament of the People.

      The SCOTUS badly needs to get off its duff and put the brakes to these constant infringements of the 2nd Amendment. By ignoring their duty, they are demonstrating, daily, that the US Constitution is devolving down into being nothing more than an irrelevant piece of paper.

      • I have good answers, actually, to the points you raise. If you want the text of the law, not just media reports, like I do, it is Massachusetts House bill No 4670. That not media, is the source of my information. And yes, there is provision for checking for effectiveness, not every 5-10 years, but every year a public report with 12 kinds of information , including how many petitions filed, how many granted/not granted, granted for how long, how many fraudulent or harassing, Everything you say about the future is hypothetical, so can’t be known for sure now. For now, the MA EPRO law is about as good as it can be and I hope it is a model for other states.

    • @ Lyn Bates

      Since you have looked at the actual statute language, I won’t dispute that this Massachusetts Red Flag law is fairly reasonable in it’s provisions. You say that a statistical yearly report will be produced. That is good. However, statistics regarding the number of times the law is invoked or rejected still don’t provide a picture of the law’s effectiveness. Is the law actually preventing suicides and murders? Or is it simply removing firearms from people who had no intention of performing these acts? Is it trampling on their 2nd Amendment Rights to no purpose? Does it remove firearms only to leave the person on the street to commit crime or suicide by using other methods? I am doubtful that a statistical report that covers 12 basic areas of data will answer all these questions.

      However, leaving the reporting aside, I still have problems with the philosophy behind these laws. Firearms laws, and all prohibition laws for that matter, operate upon the principle that human behavior CAN BE MODIFIED and CONTROLLED by limiting access the material objects in the environment. That alcoholism can be controlled by limiting or banning access to alcohol. That drug addiction can be controlled by limiting or banning access to narcotic substances. That suicide and criminal violence can be controlled by limiting or banning access to firearms.

      This is a LEFT-WING type of philosophy. It is based upon the Left-wing worldview that humans are good, that all humans WANT to be good, and that they only go wrong because they are the VICTIMS of negative environmental influences. Such as being exposed to alcohol, drugs or firearms. It is an ideology that denies personal responsibility in favor of always shifting the blame for the world’s evils from mankind, himself, to external factors.

      I am not left-wing in my political views and I REJECT this victimization philosophy as given above. Alcohol Prohibition was a failure as is the “War on Drugs”. I don’t believe in the prohibition approach and so I am, fundamentally, a skeptic regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws.

      It is commonly reported that there are 20000 firearms laws in the USA. A 2008 study by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy disputes this number. They claim that there are ONLY about 300 SIGNIFICANT firearms laws at the Federal and State level although they admit that they ignored and did not count local firearm ordinances. By any measure whether it is ONLY 300 or more than 20000, there are a lot of these laws. Yet, according to the leftists, our firearms laws are still sorely lacking and many more, including now these Red Flag laws, are needed.

      Based upon the fact that the hundred or thousands of laws, already on the books, are still insufficient, I think it is safe to say that firearm laws have been no more successful then alcohol prohibition or the “War on Drugs”. So, I am quite comfortable in saying that we do not need more of these laws, no matter how well they are justified by the gun-grabbers. We need to drop the firearms prohibition (AKA Gun Control) approach, altogether, as a FAILED APPROACH and try something else. Certainly, we should not continue to trample on people’s 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights in a vain pursuit of more and more failure!

      The leftist democrats and the news media cannot be trusted in this policy matter because their own left-wing bias blinds them to other approaches and keeps them locked into the the pursuit of a failed, dead-end approach. We need fresh thinking in this area. Thinking that is not limited by the narrow, left-wing worldview that has them locked upon the firearms to the exclusion of all else!

      • I should have added information about suicide is kept by several different organizations, state and national, so over time it will be possible to look at things like the rate of suicides by gun in states that have red flag laws and those that don’t. This will be take a few years but should be as accurate as statistics deaths by lung cancer.

      • Lyn Bates, interesting your words bout this law. But I still have two issues, and they’d apply to ANY sich ERPO laws.

        First, it always seems the first goal and action, along with taking the individual into custody, is to seize his guns. IF he is in custory, HOW can he access tose guns? Seems the seizure of lawfully owned personal property should be delayed until AFTER he is determined to be a danger to himself/others and thus separated from his guns. And i ALL such cases, for local LE to simply move in and take them all is NOT acceptable. Unless there are new safe. secure, protective sotrage options available where they can al just be locked up in one sealed lockbox with tem and humidity control, secure inside the local LE offie, or whatever. Sort of like a bank vault… SAFE storage not just to separate them from their owner, but to protect the guns themselves. Read about the aftermath of Katrina, where thousands of privately and lawfully ownd arms were simly seized by LE and tossd into an unventilated steamship can and laft to rust into ruin over the three years it took for some action to get tem back occurred. THIS was an unlawful taking without compensation. And the State MUST pay for all the expenses incurred in seizure, safe storage, and return to rightful owner once its all settled. If it is determined that the accused can no longer possess armes, then the owner MUST have full say in their disposition. Gramps MUST be able to say which of his grandsons gets his old Winchester Lever Gun, and his damask barrelled double ten bore. For them to be turned over to the loca cops to destroy is NOT acceptable. IF the owner decised they should all be given to some other individual, one background check to assur3 the guy ain’t a felon, on the State’s nickel, then the designated new owner gets them all. No more costs. Or to an agent who will list/sel on gunbroker or equivalent.

        The other thing that disturbs me greatly is that if the target of the order is too dangerous to be trusted in public with guns, WHY is he then released into society where there are all manner of OTHER tools one can use to end life? As David Codrea so famously says “if a man can’t be trusted with a gun how can he be trusted without a custodian?”.

        And further, ANYONE making ANY false statements that lead to a man’s being taken into costody MUST be punished severely, no plea bargains, felony perjury and jail time, mandatory.

  12. Red flag laws should have provisions for paying the attorney fees of the accused person, compensatory damages if seized firearms are damaged while in custody, and have objective standards.

  13. Brings to mind the old saying:
    You’re better off in a military court if you’re innocent.
    You’re better off in a civil court if you’re guilty.

    The point? Innocent until proven guilty. When such laws are written so they almost never penalize the innocent law abiding citizen then they’ll be good to go. But won’t that let wrongdoers pass through the cracks and maybe hurt/kill someone? Yeah, like that doesn’t happen in the courts today?

  14. If I can’t trust someone with a gun, I can’t trust him without one, either. People that dangerous belong in a prison cell or a secure mental hospital. Unless we are willing to go to such lengths to control them, the only effective alternative is to make it as easy as possible for the prospective victims to protect themselves.

    Red flag laws to confiscate firearms would have done nothing for two wives whose husbands set them on fire, a woman who was found naked and bleeding in the street because her abusive boyfriend beat and stabbed her, or the woman whose boyfriend chopped her up with a sword after learning she was pregnant. In Iowa, police called a husband to see if he would be at home for the next while. They explained that his wife had obtained a restraining order against him and they needed to confiscate his guns. Before they could arrive, the husband went to his wife’s place of employment and shot her to death.

    Here in Omaha, a meth addict beat his girlfriend after she escaped from his vehicle. Staff from a nearby restaurant separated the pair, took the woman inside and locked every door they could. The addict, now armed with a hunting knife, entered through the remaining unlocked door. He was driven off by the owner’s son who holds a concealed handgun permit and was carrying. (The addict was crazy enough to attack his girlfriend but knew better than to attack someone with a gun.)

  15. Red Flag laws are the most egregious violation of due process. Today it will be used for confiscating guns without adjudication, tomorrow it will be used at the whim of government to deprive us of anything they want. As legal precedent, it’s completely unacceptable to allow the government this power, the power to take away our civil rights.

    We already have laws available in most states for 72 hour mental health holds and taking people to court to determine if they are mentally incompetent. No more laws are needed, they just need to use and enforce the laws we already have.

    Mas, you’re correct in saying we need better people control. I would add that we need to act on a personal and private level to provide the mental health help that people need. You know why people don’t get help? Because it’s hard! Nobody wants to make the effort, they are too risk adverse or are of the attitude that “it’s not my problem”.

    Well, if we don’t step up, then the gubmint will step in like they have done in so many other ways. When they take it over, you know it’s not going to end well for anyone.

  16. The trend with these ERPO’s includes ex parte hearings, meaning the respondent (accused) is not included in those hearings. They are thus denied due process.

    They learn of the court order when the police show up to confiscate their property. This has already caused the death of an individual.

    Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian (Codrea’s Law).

  17. If there was ever a candidate for Red Flag laws it was Nxxxxxxx Cxxx, who did the February 14th, 2018 school shooting in Florida. He posted on Facebook that he would become a school shooter. Nevertheless, the government has too much power already, and we already have too many firearm laws. These Red Flag laws are complex and I would trust angels to enforce them, but not humanoids.

    I would say all citizens, including criminals, have the RIGHT, to carry a gun anywhere except in a courtroom, and no one should drink alcohol while armed. Also, my right to life trumps restaurant owners’ private property rights, so we can carry anywhere. Even criminals need to defend themselves from other criminals and from animals, so I would allow criminals to be armed.

    If schools were protected by good people with guns, people like Nxxxxxxx Cxxx could attack them, and then get shot down. Hopefully the crooks would be shot dead, so the taxpayers don’t have to pay for their healthcare, cable TV, college tuition and conjugal visits.

    I’m afraid even our well-intentioned government ruins everything it touches. College and healthcare costs rose when the government got involved. The greatest military in the universe can’t win in Afghanistan, because of bad civilian leadership.

    Areas of the country where people carry guns will be polite and law-abiding. Areas where guns are not carried, or areas that are run by gangs, will be dangerous.


  18. One type of “Reality Check” that can be performed on proposed legislation is to take the idea, behind the law, and apply it to other areas. If it is a good idea, it should be applicable to more than one area. On the other hand, if it is silly when applied in other areas, chances are that it is also silly in its original application. Therefore, let us test the concept of Red Flag laws by conducting a little “Thought Experiment”.

    Suppose we go back in time to the world of 1915. To a time when there is a strong Temperance Movement in the USA but the 18th Amendment, for National Alcohol Prohibition, has not yet been passed. During this period, the Temperance Movement often sought to apply alcohol prohibition by means of State Law. In fact, there were several States that went “Dry” before passage of the 18th Amendment.

    One meme that the Temperance Movement liked to use was the “Drunken Husband”. The man who would be sober as long was he did not have any money. However, once he got his paycheck in his hands, he hit the local bar and spent the money that his family needed on booze. Then, in a drunken haze, he would stagger home and engage in domestic abuse of his long-suffering wife and innocent children.

    Well, suppose that some still-Wet State, Massachusetts for example, decided to pass a Red Flag law to address the above meme. They passed a law that:

    1) Allowed a family member to file a request for a Protection Order. This request would detail the nature of the complaint against the drunken family member.
    2) Within 10 days, a court would hold a hearing on the matter. If the court found the request valid, they would issue the Protection Order. This Order would have Start and End dates and a duration of one year.
    3) Upon receiving the order, the Police would raid the property of the person, under order, and confiscate every bottle of Whiskey, Wine and Beer.
    4) They would also take photographs of the person and prepare fliers with the persons image, name and the Start/End dates of the Protection Order. The fliers would be distributed to every Saloon, Bar and liquor Store within the Person’s City of Residence.
    5) These sellers of alcohol would be informed that, if they were caught selling spirits to a person under a Protection Order, it would be a $500 fine for EACH BOTTLE sold. If it happened upon multiple occasions, the seller could be convicted of criminal violation of a Protection Order and sent to jail for up to 2 ½ years.
    6) Furthermore, it was published that, if people know of a seller who was violating Protection Orders, they could turn that seller into the Police and receive 25% of all fines collected as a reward.
    7) Three weeks before a Protection Order was due to expire, the individual filing the original order was notified and had the option of re-filing for a new Protection Order if it was still needed.

    What do you think of the above approach? Is it a “Model” that should have been adopted nationwide back in 1915? We know that National Alcohol Prohibition was a failure. Would it have worked better when applied at the individual level by means of Red Flag Protection Orders?
    Do you think the above approach would have really worked to break people of their alcohol addiction? Or would the drunks continued to get their hands on the “Demon Rum” anyway? Contrast this approach with the one used today by Alcoholics Anonymous. Do you think that the left-wing approach of having the All-Powerful Government show up with a Court Order in-hand to micromanage our lives is the best way? Or is the AA method of using Peer Support and Personal Responsibility more likely to break the addiction?

    Do we want to live in a world where informing to the police and “ratting out” one’s friends, family members and business associates is encouraged by the Police State?

    If you do think, as I do, that heavy-handed Government interference would not work for Alcohol Addiction, why on Earth do you think it works in the case of Firearm’s Protection Orders? Is it because the media pounds you with anti-gun propaganda continuously so that you are no longer thinking straight?

    I am just asking questions here. My own view is surely clear. I do not favor the left-wing, heavy-handed, GOVERNMENT IS THE BOSS approach to anything!

    Mas says that “Red Flag laws need to be done right”. I say that they don’t need to be done at all.

    While I suspect the left-wing Democrat leadership has underhanded, ulterior motives for pushing for Firearms Prohibition, I know that many people, some with comments on this blog, push it with the best of intentions. I say that the Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions!

  19. I agree that these are bad laws, but when will our community write the bills for submission and then look for a good sponsor?

  20. If the bad guy really is a danger lets leave the damn guns alone. How about the white van with the straight jackets makes a stop at his house ? It is the person who is the problem not the guns. Take his guns and what about his 2 ton Suburban? What about his 12 inch kitchen knives? His baseball bats? Axes? Chain saws? Archery equipment?

    My God what a stupid idea taking guns away is !

  21. Marvin likely became aware of Vickie’s ability to defend herself only when he approached her and made clear his evil intentions. He slithered off, she re-holstered her Shield, and their encounter added to the non-statistics of Defensive Gun Uses where no shots were fired.

    He was first with the phone call to report she had threatened him with a gun (true enough!). He embellished the account by mentioning her crazy eyes, and the wheels of injustice were set in motion.

    He waited a safe distance away until she got the visit from the Confiscation Squad, comforted by confidence he won’t be in danger of injury next time he approaches.

  22. I am aware of at least one coded, seriously mentally ill person, who has also been on the Terrorism Watch List for the past 15 yrs, who stalks, terrorizes and is leader of a hate group. No one is taking away HIS guns or his access to them. Law enforcement is too scared of him! Unlike the rest of us law-abiding citizens who are subject to confiscatory practices of the State.

  23. As someone who’s attended your MAG-40 Class and active NRA Instructor, I consume these posts like water by one lost in the desert. I struggle mightily with concerns about preventing those intent on doing harm to innocents, balancing that against retaining the ability by those innocents to defend themselves. Can’t thank you enough for these posts, Mas!

  24. If firearm removal is justified, is the subject not sufficiently dangerous to commit (voluntarily or involuntarily) to mental health treatment?

    Or put another way, how many reasonable suspicion visits from law enforcement should have been made to the Parkland monster’s house before he was subject to legal and mental health treatment consequences, rather than insulating and coddling him?

    • and this mention brings up one of the most signficant issues regarding “gun violence”.

      I’ve read in reasonable depth of EVERY known inidence of mulitple victim violence, including =many that did not involve the Demon de Jour, the firearm. Things like fire alarms/cars/knives, Home Depot trucks, etc.

      In almost EVERY CASE the perp violated existing laws well enough in advance of this mayhem that he SHOULD have been listed in the NICS system as a “Prohibited Person” and thus denied the right to arms. WHY was he not? Simple… some government functionary FAILED to take the lawfully mandated step of charging with the felony crimes already committed by the perp (Parkland shooter, at least four such crimes on his record, not charged with any), thus ensuring a DENY code returned when he went to buy the guns he used to kill.

      How’s about some teeth in the laws mandating such reporting, such that they wh FAIL to report when requred to suffer dire consequences for their failure? I”d say the Cowards of broward who FAILED th charge their Wonder Boy with any of his founr KNOWN felonies are accessories to each of those seventen murders. Or the USAF guy, three felonies and a dishonourable discharge, NONE of which were reported to NICS, thus he bought his guns and was able to murder 26 in that church at Sutherland Springs TX. Two different Air FOrce desk jockeys FAILED to do their duty and REPORT te indictment/convictioin to NICS, and thus are accessories to his twenty six murders. SOMEONE knows who they are….. but they are held blameless despite the fact they are not.

  25. In 2009 the DHS listed all veterans as terrorists. The VA tried under Ovomit tried to have weapons confiscated from veterans for PTSD at ANY level.

    I since the “practice” of psychology cannot reproduce the same results from one “patient” to the next, the “practice” is just that and not a real science.

    Consider the “side effects” of what they prescribe often are exactly the problems they claim to treat. Consider that every mass shooter so far has been medicated by psycholgists to treat the problems they them exhibited.

    So we are supposed to trust these psychobabbling whacks with our right to self defense?

    Shall not be infringed.

    • I’m a psychologist and need to address these comments. First, unless they go for respecialization, psychologists do not prescribe medication. Second, to say that psychology is not “real science” is simply ignorant.

      Psychology research has contributed substantially to our lives. Psychology science has led to evidence-based assessment and treatment of various conditions. It has informed the design of effective environments that enhance worker productivity and student learning. It has even informed military and police work. Just a few examples.

      The above insults directed toward an entire professional group (not all of which are clinical psychologists, by the way) are interesting coming from a vet- vets are a group often unfairly targeted by media, politicians, and other uninformed people.

      ERPO laws present a threat to freedom- but mental health providers are not the enemy here, although the American Psychological Association & American Medical Association seem all-in with liberal policy. That’s why I terminated my 25 year APA membership.

      As others have said- predicting violent acts are difficult and risk factors need to be considered along with protective factors. The latter is too often disregarded. Until an assessment protocol is validated prospectively we can expect countless false positives and perhaps some false negatives as ERPO is implemented. We need evidence-based guidelines. I for one would NEVER get involved in this politically motivated game where science takes a back seat to the whims of self-interested power-obsessed officials. I’m not sure we will ever see ERPO procedures informed by science in our increasingly balkanized society.

      As many bave already said the answer to the problem of mass murder is multi-faceted. The so-called “constitutional carry” approach and the repeal of gun free zones are critical. Murderers will always find a way, so let us have the option of armed self-defense- in any location we have a right to be in. In addition, those in position to screen individuals for early warning signs of mental health problems need to do a better job. Schools for example should do better- so could primary care offices. Screening protocols for mental health concerns are well-established (predicting specific behaviors are another issue) so they need to be consistently implemented. We need to hold everyone that disseminates disinformation about firearms, gun culture, and gun owners accountable- before the next generation is brain-washed with anti-gun propaganda. Places that reflect high value or high casualty targets should be protected by armed personnel.
      Finally, politicians that promise to support the Second Amendment but then DON’T should be “primaried.”

  26. In 30 years as an RN,I have seen many knowledgeable psychiatrists but I have not met any psychologists that have any knowledge base beyond a social worker other than an intense indoctrination of progressive socialist. Unfortunately, psychologists have taken over the mental health systems. Remember one thing: psychology is to psychiatry as
    Astrology is to astronomy.

    • I am a psychologist and must respond. How is disparaging an entire profession helpful to this discussion? These comments reflect grossly biased, arrogant, inappropriate generalizations- just like the ones about gun owners that regularly spew forth from outlets like CNN, MSNBC, WAPO, NYT, etc.

      • I have expressed my beliefs. My experience in my 30 years as an RN including 18 years in the mental health field formulated my beliefs. I stand by my comments. Be honest – if you are a psychologist then you must admit that your profession has taken over the mental health field. And that most by a large percentage are lacking in critical thinking and are in general just espouse progressive dogma.
        I stand by my assessment that psychology is to psychiatry as astrology is to astronomy.

  27. Since I feel that the so-called “Red Flag” Programs true purpose is to Disarm Honest, Law Abiding Americans of their Right to Defend Themselves, or to be able to Oppose a Future tyrannical Government, I am Strongly AGAINST THEM!!

    These Programs, as Proposed, and Implemented, (Rules, Regulations, etc.) are poorly written, and Unconstitutional.

    They are solely intended to shut up the outspoken, while intimidating many to Accept these Draconian proceedings, under the mistaken Hope that “They will never do that to Me/Us”!

    The time to fight, and Kill, these “Red Flag Programs” is NOW, while the Democrat’s behind them are still trying to make the “Law of the Land”, and unopposable, except by only the Rich, and the “World Class Lawyer’s they can build “Dream Team’s” to Protect Them!!


  28. Suspending civil liberties in order to empower government to disarm persons who are viewed as “dangerous” is more dangerous than any act of mass murder.

  29. Anyone who makes a false claim to deprive someone of their guns should be imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years with no chance of parole. If the victim of such a crime is killed or injured while disarmed, the person making the false claim should be charged as an accomplice to that violent act in addition to the original crime. This should make those with nefarious intentions think twice before making a false report.

  30. If an individual is suspected of being a danger, taking their guns & leaving them on the street is a problem. One does not need guns to be a mass murderer.

    Baker Act. If deemed a danger, then and only then deal with the guns (if neccessary).

    And SWATting is not always neccessary. Why storm someone’s house at 5 am when it is likely there are other ways to detain someone to serve any warrant to confiscate their guns?

    This idea of a SWAT team for everything is getting out of control.

  31. A panel of knowledgeable decision makers advising in the best intrest of the general public? Isn’t that the roll our elected officials? It unfortunate that too many in charge lack the intelligence talent or will to do the job.
    The laws already on the books seem to be enough of a start if only they could have some teeth. A little more swing back toward respect and the value of social morals would be nice too. When the streets of debate increasingly clog up with the far right and far left just shaking fists at each other they beckon every CCW holder to join their side to fight. When the red flag is thrown, our actions will show our integrity and hopefully an equally honorabl reputation will clearly show the judge who deserves the jail time. -a bit rambling there but I needed to vent.

  32. The red flag laws need to be repealed. Poorly written in that infamous knee jerk reaction. No different than me complaining to LE that so and do is a bad driver and a danger to the community. LE shows up and confiscates their car.

  33. I’ll give you another thought. Say my wife has just filed for divorce. My only asset to hire a lawyer is my gun collection. If she can get the guns seized not only does she prevent me from hiring a lawyer, she leaves me without access to what may be my only liquid asset to cover other expenses.

    Having sold a massive number of firearms in 2003 to subsidize a custody fight against a woman who made five times my salary, I know.

    PS I’ve been a lawyer since 1977. If this could happen to me where, would you guys, and gals, be in a similar situation.

  34. I am automatically against all new gun control laws. They are anti-freedom and contrary to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling (Heller . .

  35. My answer to “RED FLAG” laws and gun control laws in general is to enforce the laws we already have such as, it is illegal to kill or seriously injure another person regardless the weapon(Bare hands, sticks, stones, hammers, hatchets, machetes, single shot shotguns, rifles, handguns, semi auto or full auto rifles, dynamite, gasoline+lighters, etc.) A mass murderer should be arrested, tried by a jury, and if found guilty be sentenced to death by hanging to be carried out the next business day. All his records and identification be collected and destroyed to prevent any fame from attaching to him (or her, or It) This execution should be carried out in PUBLIC. It should be televised LIVE by the local news media and released to the National Media. It will not take but a few of these to convince the “Crazy People” to find a more productive pastime. Will this stop ALL mass murders? NO, There are always a nutcase or two who will not be affected by Law and Order but they will be erased from the gene pool and not reproduce. I can remember a few years ago when this sort of thing was extremely rare. It is the reluctance to enforce already enacted law that is to blame. I don’t expect the Snowflakes and liberals to go back to 1900 style laws anytime soon. Maybe after we have fought the next Civil War we can go back to the effective enforcement of laws against murder and mayhem. My $0.02

  36. I have a relative that has some very severe mental issues. I have disowned her 3 times. She is a middle age adult, an addict, has anger issues and CANNOT maintain any healthful relationship with any halfway normal person.

    I live in constant apprehension o her SWATTING me. She does not own any legal weapons but I do own several. I live on a small piece of land that sits by itself in a semi-isolated tract in the country. GUESS WHAT? I sleep with my 65 lb. Lab/Pit mix plus a pistol on my nightstand. If I was SWATTED at 4-5 AM I would be advancing to the door with a pistol in my hand & my dog. My dog would be shot & I would be too as we would both be threats AND WHY NOT. I am a very law abiding CCW holder & believe whole heartidly in our CONSTITUTION.

    Naturally I will defend my self but I would be a fool to go to my door in the wee hours of the AM with no defense, ESPECIALLY if my dog was going crazy.

    We have lost all thoughts of DUE PROCESS in his country. We have ALL become sheeple t & have allowed knee-jerk PC disgusting politicians & the media to shape our world. The REAL & TRUE enemies are the MISeducated indoctrinated generations of our country. WE the supposed sheepdogs are truly sheeple for allowing our silence to be interpreted as agreement with all the crap for generations.

  37. Mas, you are the first one of people on the pro gun side who has stepped forward and admitted that there is a problem with the red flag laws that make us look like hypocrites if we call foul to loudly. Frankly, I really don’t know the answer, and I won’t even pretend to have the answer to this one. But what I can do is to point out some of the problems and maybe try and work with others to maybe come up with a working solution, knowing that it might not be perfect, and it might not be the same for each case.
    We need to first acknowledge that there is a difference between the typical gun owner, who might be going through a divorce with a vindictive wife, and a man who really does have mental health issues, and only needs be pushed by one finger to push him over the ledge, and he will grab the first or fastest shooting gun in his gun safe, and head on down to the local gun free zone and start trying to get his wife to finally realize that he was serious when he shouted that he needed someone to pay attention to him.

    Does that mean that the answer is to have a star chamber and start to grab the legally owned guns from any person, male or female, who someone makes a call on? Not without a fair, but very fast, hearing on. And the decision must be made before the individual leaves the hearing room. If it is decided, based upon fair and real reasons, that an individual should have their guns taken from them, then first, someone should be dispatched and have the guns removed from the house before the person is allowed to go home. That will at the least, take the possibility of a shootout in front of a man and the police in front of his 3 kids away. But also, if the man or woman is enough of a danger that they cannot be trusted to have their own guns in a safe at home, then they really should not be allowed on the streets, but should be in a hospital somewhere, undergoing treatment for their condition, with the understanding that it will NOT make it so that in the future they lose their right to own their guns again, once they are considered safe again. That is probably the biggest sticking point, that if they are involuntarily committed they lose their firearm rights. So that stigma causes a person to be even more angry with the idea of treatment, ordered with this whole thing.
    Another huge issue is that just because the 23 year old son loses his guns for a short time, that doesn’t mean that the dad that he lives with is not able to keep his guns at home, at least it should not mean that. But the leftists think that it does. So when one person loses their gun rights, that to the leftists means that all the people living in the house loses their gun rights. They don’t want to give the lawful gun owners time to take the guns over to their brother, to have him keep the guns in his huge safe, for safe keeping, unless the dad wants to use one of his guns, maybe to go skeet shooting with the brother who has the guns for safe keeping.
    When the left speak about common sense gun safety issues, I think that if they would sit down and talk with people like me, not necessarily me, but at the least, someone who is able to speak about things like this, without losing their minds, and really tried to seek common ground, without rancor, but with both sides trying to find real solutions instead of one side wanting to keep pushing until they get it all, that we could eventually get closer to each others positions.
    The problem is that on both sides, there are probably not enough people who have both a temperament, like I do, but who also have the intelligence above what I do, to be able to put something together that would work. I don’t consider myself stupid, but I know that I am not as smart about this kind of thing as a John Lott, or a Mas Ayoob.

    Given my choice, I would not take all gun laws away completely. That might seem as if I am showing just how stupid I am. But as a responsible gun owner, I understand that there are some people who simply are not to be trusted with guns, either due to their not being mature enough, or to their mental illness. And while many kids who have had the proper training, with a positive normally male influence in their lives, are able to handle firearms safely, and will normally go on to influence others to be safe with them as well. But some kids don’t have that positive influence and should not be allowed near guns until they become much older, perhaps even older than 21.
    Anyway, Mas, I thank you for speaking to this very important issue, and I hope that as a nation, we are able to come to a consensus together, and can move to fix other things that are actually just as important to leading our nation into the next part of the 21st century.

    • @ Timothy – “…tried to seek common ground, without rancor, but with both sides trying to find real solutions instead of one side wanting to keep pushing until they get it all, that we could eventually get closer to each others positions.”

      While I appreciate the “Good Faith” that you are displaying with your comment and the “find common ground” position that you and other reasonable people (like Mas himself) want to take, there are (sadly) two critical flaws in your position. One flaw deals with the concept of “Red Flag” laws while the other arises from a lack of understanding of the Left/Right ideological divide. Let me explain these flaws, one by one:

      The first flaw arises from the concept, driven by the left-wing media and their propaganda machine, that our existing laws are TOTALLY INSUFFICIENT to deal with the problems of mass murders and that, therefore, an entire NEW CLASS of laws (The Red Flag Laws) are needed to deal with the situation. This is flat out incorrect. It is a Lie. a Falsehood, a Deception that the Leftist Democrats and their media lapdogs are creating.

      Why are they lying to us? Simple, to sell their ideas to us. One of the most common marketing techniques is to (1) convince people that they have a problem and then (2) sell them a product that is supposed to be the solution. How many times on television have you seen commercials that manufacture some kind of concern (from hair loss, to tooth loss, to erectile dysfunction) and then try to sell you some kind of magic goop that is supposed to be the “miracle cure”. This kind of “Snake Oil” sales technique has been around since humans were trading mammoth tusks!

      In fact, we already have plenty of laws, signed and on the books, to deal with keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Laws to take dangerous mental cases off the streets. None of this is new. The problem that we have is more the result of lax enforcement of existing laws and lack of space and resources in mental hospitals then with a “lack of laws”. However, the leftists don’t want us to focus on the real issues. Instead, they want to market the “lack of existing law” meme to us so as to sell us the “Snake Oil” of more restrictive firearms laws.

      In truth, the leftist don’t care about true solutions to these problems. That is actually undesirable, from their point of view, because if we really solved these problems by using effective means, then their case for Firearms Prohibition goes down the toilet. You need to understand that the TRUE GOAL of the leftist democrats is not to solve our problems.

      YOU ARE MAKING A PROFOUND MISTAKE if you delude yourself that there is good faith on the side of the Left. What you actually have on the Left is an overwhelming thirst for totalitarian government power that can only be satisfied by disarming the people and then putting them in the chains of Socialism. Your desire to find “Good Faith” on the side of the Leftists is wishful thinking at its worst!

      For the second flaw, you must understand that, on the issue of private ownership of firearms and other weapons, the left-wing worldview is 180 degrees opposed to the right-wing and moderate worldviews. I won’t go into the explanation of why this is so. I have explained it previously in comments on this blog. It basically boils down to the way the Leftist are mentally wired. Their brains are wired, at a subconscious level, to view humanity as innately good. This is a false view of humanity but, what can you do, it is the way their minds work. Their worldview drives them to see all firearms as evil devices and it also drives them to try to impose their views upon everyone else. This means that they are truly INCAPABLE of reaching a reasonable, compromise position on firearms. Asking a leftist to not seek total firearms prohibition is like asking a true Muslim to renounce Allah. He cannot do it and remain himself.

      The leftist gun-grabbers will never, never, never stop seeking to impose firearms prohibition upon all the rest of us. They are totally incapable of seeking a reasonable compromise position that will settle the issue of firearm ownership for all time. To hold out hope for such an outcome is to engage in dangerous self-delusion, if you are a gun-owner.

      The battle with the leftist gun-grabbers will end in only one of two ways. Either we will totally defeat them and write such strong guarantees into the law and the Constitution that firearms prohibition becomes “settled law” and the leftist abandon all hope in this area and turn their minds to other areas of their agenda. Otherwise, the Leftists will win and the American People will substantially lose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and then be folded and enslaved into the All-Powerful Left-Wing controlled Central Government.

      Please abandon any hope that there is a “third way”. There isn’t. We are in a fight that will only bring victory or defeat. Nothing else is possible.

  38. The Gestapo was effective in using one citizen accusing another, and no matter if the accusations were true or not.
    The more I observe today, in this country, the more similarities I see.

    • Of Course, Todays Anti-Gun Democrats, are Simply Their Slightly Modified Verison of The NAZI Propaganda all over again!


  39. As law abiding American gun owners, we invest our time and energy engaging within this outstanding blog forum in a spirited, healthy debate about the potential dangers inherent in rapidly spreading “Red Flag” laws.

    As of Friday, March 15, 2019, the beyond evil actions of a deranged but disciplined madman who murdered 49 innocent persons in New Zealand and the reflexive, spasmodic reaction of New Zealand’s Prime Minister to this horrific murder spree must compel us to revisit the recent admonition of our fellow gun owner and friend @TN_MAN as follows: “We are in a fight that will only bring victory or defeat. Nothing else is possible.”

    Review the text below and then come to grips with the stark reality that American Democrat Socialist politicians’ current, soothing siren song of “common sense gun safety reform” will soon enough be replaced by a repeatedly screamed, strident shout of “NOT ENOUGH!”

    Washington Post Headline 03/15/19

    BREAKING: “New Zealand’s leader vows its ‘gun laws will change.’ Suspect had license to carry the types of guns used in deadly attacks. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern spoke one day after 49 people were killed and dozens more injured in shootings at two mosques. According to the prime minister, investigators at the scene found five guns allegedly used by the primary suspect: Two semi-automatic weapons, two shotguns and a lever-action firearm.”

    And so, it begins in New Zealand.

    Semi-automatic firearms of all variants will be targeted.

    Handguns will be targeted.

    Rifles will be targeted.

    Shotguns will be targeted.

    Heck, even classic Winchester Model 94 30-30 and Marlin Model 336 30-30 lever action deer rifles, grudgingly “approved” up until this point in time as hunting rifles wielded only by orange-clad Bambi chasers, will be targeted.

    Additionally, since the primary perpetrator in the horrific attack in New Zealand was reportedly licensed by the NZ government to carry the types of guns that he used in attacking his helpless victims, licensing itself will be targeted!

    Licensing of gun owners will be viewed by angry, outraged, vengeful NZ government officials as “not enough” to keep NZ society safe!

    Now, close your eyes and imagine for a moment how all Democrat Socialist politician jockeys in the USA will gleefully mount up on this freshly saddled “Not Enough” thoroughbred horse and then ride rough shod over American gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment during the upcoming Disarmament Derbies in 2020. Are you ready and willing to be trampled? Decide now, for the dark storm clouds of 2020 are gathering, just over the horizon.

  40. I agree with you that a great deal of thought should be put into these laws. The problem is, the left does not want to give any consideration to the true experts that you have recommended. They want “their people”to have exclusive access to crafting these dangerous laws. The road to a so called “gun free America” will never embrace true experts and due process.

  41. EXCELLENT BLOG, EXCELLENT POSTS! We have the government we have, because citizens voted for it, and they keep voting for politicians who refuse to submit to the law of the land, the Constitution. My guess is that these citizens are unwilling to take the time and effort it requires to be able to understand politics. So they remain ignorant and easily fooled. The worst thing is that our tax money is being used against our interests. Our government is broke, but keeps spending. Illegal Democrats are being given food, shelter, healthcare, money and jobs when they should be given nothing. WE ARE PAYING FOR OUR OWN DESTRUCTION!

  42. The best gun laws are those made and enforced by gun owners. Gun people, unlike what the crazy liberals believe, are even more caring of victims of violence, whether by firearms or not, and we don’t want terrorists or mentally deranged scum making us look bad in the eyes of the uninformed, who want to blame everyone but themselves.

    I used to work at several of the largest gun shops locally and more than once refused to sell any firearms to customers who were obviously bent on violence or stated they were going to use their purchases illegally. One elderly woman wanted to buy a .22 rifle to “scare off” teenagers who were walking on her front lawn. This person stated she only wanted to “shoot over their heads” if they stepped on her grass again. I not only refused to sell her a firearm, I called the other gun shops and warned them about this individual and gave her car’s license plate number to the police so they can contact her and inform her of the consequences of such illegal activities. Later as a LEO, I have taken firearms from people who talked seriously of harming themselves and others, and gave them receipts so they can reclaim their guns from the PD’s property department at a later time, then Baker Acted them for a 72 hour psychiatric evaluation. This was the right thing to do and also covered my agency from any civil/criminal liability and numerous greedy lawyers in case something bad did happen later.

  43. Unfortunately there will be people who will abuse laws no matter how they’re written. I feel that a panel comprised of psychologists, military veterans, current military, police officers, FBI, and Homeland security could be a strong panel. Also include people from places like USCCA, NRA etc to get a well rounded view of what is needed to vette the caller in the first place.

Comments are closed.