Korwin: Red Flag Laws Are Dangerously Flawed

Alan Korwin, visit his website GunLaws.com.

The lamestream media told you:

Six states have enacted these important laws, a new front in the fight against wild-eyed psychopathic mass murderers, and 22 other states are considering this fine new legislation.

Basically, a spouse, family member, law-enforcement officer, relative, recent co-habiter or certain others can make an official statement that they know you are a danger to yourself or others, and a court can issue a STOP order (Severe Threat Order of Protection). This empowers police to break into your home and confiscate your firearms. Filing the “red flag” complaint falsely is a crime, if it can be proven you filed falsely. Later, the flagged person can file to have the flag removed, paying for all the lawyer bills. “Your honor, my wife hates me. I have no plan to kill her. Give me back all my guns.” Children would have the same right, though it’s unclear how they would exercise it. (“Your honor, give me back my journal and Facebook password, I don’t really plan to mass murder my classmates.”) Why children have become mass murderers lately was unclear as we go to press, but it is certainly not because of anything we in the media did, that for sure.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

It sounds good at first blush — provide a way for instantly disarming people who are obviously immediately dangerous and about to commit mass murder. Of course, we have laws to do that. Give police more power to save us!

But how do you do that exactly? No one knows. The psychology community uniformly agrees it can’t be done, there is no way to predict future behavior. Besides, the psych community is omitted from the new laws. Rights are removed, firearms are forcibly confiscated before trials or hearings, without the flagees involvement. They come into the picture later.

Exclusive: ‘Sending People Home To Die,’ The Truth About Red Flag Laws

Gun-rights advocates are screaming about what amounts to small stuff. Sorry, someone has to say it. Constitutional violations, no due process, infringement of the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, government overreach. Yes, that’s all true, and valid. But folks, it is small stuff in the big picture of the goal — keeping everyone safe.

The fact that these laws represent government out of control? We’ve known that for a long time. The public (useful idiots) are being led around by the nose, and they don’t know it? We know that too. The “news” media is complicit, a cheering squad for all the wrong things? You know that, you don’t need me to tell you that, again and again.

Here’s the real problem:

People too dangerous to bear there own arms are too dangerous to be walking around in public.

It’s the same mythical problem as the no-fly list government tried to convince us of back under that other guy. Someone, typically a suspected Muslim jihadi, or not, is so dangerous we can’t let them get on a plane, by putting them on a secret government list, maintained by police, in secret. A secret police list. Sound familiar? And if you’re on this secret police list, you no longer possess your Second Amendment rights. So you can’t fly to Cleveland. But you can drive there, or take a bus. Say what? Who would believe such a thing — besides journalists and the people they write for?

(Photo: Everytown for Gun Safety/Facebook)

P.S.

We have laws to disarm people and remove them from society of course, of course. Involuntary commitment. (Oh, but that’s an extreme measure!) Right. But this is an extreme situation we’re talking about here. Arrest! Absolutely, if it’s called for. A new law for summary arrest without probable cause, on someone’s say so? You’re talking about introducing official societal paranoia by force of law. Bad idea. Real bad idea. “I think he’s dangerous! Arrest this man!” Oh yeah, I think you’re dangerous! Where does that end?

Complaints about the draft laws have softened them some, but we are on a dangerous path here folks. Hoplophobia and law by mass murderer are having a cumulative effect.

About the author: Alan Korwin is an American writer, author and civil- and political-rights activist whose work serves the business, legal, news and firearms industries. In 1988, Korwin founded Bloomfield Press, which has grown into the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the nation

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • Al July 6, 2018, 2:09 pm

    Mr. Korwin, I respect you as an intellectual, however as an intellectual surely you are aware of the difference between a ‘flaw’ and deliberately misleading legislation bent on empowering Government?
    I see no ‘flaw’, I see a bid for power.

  • Michael Keim July 6, 2018, 12:02 pm

    Just one more way to deny 2nd amendment rights without due process. It’s time to chop off the camel’s nose.

  • Johnny Raygun July 6, 2018, 10:41 am

    ” We have laws that do this, give police more power”. You can’t be serious! The police are not the answer. Having a cop go to someones house who is mentally unstable, is not the answer. That is confrontational and often leads to failure and or flying lead.. You have to work with all sides for a solution… .

  • Clint W. July 6, 2018, 10:16 am

    Calling child protective services anonymously out of anger over your neighbor, or a relative, generates a world of hurt for the accused, automatically assuming guilt, and up to the accused to prove innocence. Red Tag laws if allowed to progress, should require all information about the person doing the reporting, proof of the claim, and notification that false accusations bring with it liability with resulting rights of the accuse to sue the person who made a false claim.

  • Right thing to do July 6, 2018, 9:46 am

    The only flaw is they didnt include physicians, pschologists and social workers as part of the people who can red flag you

    • Al July 6, 2018, 2:32 pm

      Psychologists maybe, but definitely NOT a social worker.
      You want a semi-skilled and semi-educated person having that power, with NO real system of checks and balances in place?!?
      That’s a disaster looking to happen.
      And a Physician should be recommending a Psychologist as opposed to playing one.
      This is VERY iffy territory.

    • Erick August 3, 2018, 2:05 pm

      Hitler, Stalin, Peron, Mao, etc. would agree with you! They had similar laws.

  • joefoam July 6, 2018, 9:41 am

    These laws are ripe for abuse. One phone call from anyone gets your weapons confiscated and you get to fight to get them back. My question is: suppose the weapons do get confiscated from a real mental case and they miss one. The mental case still can commit their mass murder with that weapon or simply switch methods of committing the murders. How do you stop that? Answer: you can’t, stop trying to legislate morals it simply cannot be done.

  • Rick B July 6, 2018, 8:48 am

    This Red Flag law is going to piss off numerous individuals who lose their registered guns witout due process.Then one or more will grab one of their unregisteted guns and it all goes downhill from there.

    • Darryl Bednarski July 6, 2018, 12:32 pm

      FYI. Guns are not “Registered.” Thanks to the 2nd Amendment records of background checks on individuals purchasing guns from licensed dealers are only to be kept by the govt. for 6 months.

      The federal NICS background check only indicates whether the individual is purchasing a “handgun, long gun, or firing control component.

      Tracing of guns used in crimes is done by researching who the manufacturer or importer sold it to and who they sold it to etc… Some local governments, in violation of the 2nd Amendment, have enacted laws requiring registration.

  • Jay July 6, 2018, 8:16 am

    The first step for your No Due Process, was the Patriot Act, now this, and no one fights either!! We have become a Nation of Pussies and Lethargic wimps!

  • Vincent Brady July 6, 2018, 5:40 am

    Red Flag Laws are a rerun of the Salem Witch Trials in modern times. Anyone familiar with the background of the Witch Trials will immediately recognize the same logic of stupidity that was employed then still exists. This stupidity needs to be fought at every legal and moral level available to those who believe in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

  • Arch July 6, 2018, 3:46 am

    The false, secret denial of rights, Due Process is NEVER an excuse for safety.

  • SuperG July 5, 2018, 10:33 am

    I wonder if they have ever stopped to think that these laws ignore the mental health status of the individual in question? With these orders, the government is basically saying that the person getting his property confiscated is a threat to others. Yet they just take their property and walk away. How does this make anybody safer? I can only imagine how the individual would feel, and would think it would propel them over the edge that they were on. What gripes me about all this is that the police used to have a law that would force someone into a mandatory 3 day mental health evaluation, regardless if they owned a particular inanimate object or not, but they abused it so Ronald Reagan got rid of it. So with that history in place, do anyone believe that they will not abuse this one too? The solution is to bring that law back, but this time make the police present the suspect to an on-call panel of three psychiatrists and let them make the decision. I think this solution would be implemented if anybody in government was really concerned about doing something for the mentally ill, instead of just feeling good with useless laws that open the door for over-anxious drama queens to kill someone.

    • Right thing to do July 6, 2018, 10:51 am

      If they are that unstable they shouldnt have a gun anyway

      • Erick August 3, 2018, 2:17 pm

        Rights are not contingent upon being stable or not; your definition of “stable” is different from another person’s definition. I question whether Democrat voters are stable all the time, so do they lose their freedom of speech, due process, etc.?

        Regardless, rights are granted to everyone. To pick and choose which rights we accept under the Constitution, and to whom benefits from them, is exactly what tyrannies do, and is a working definition of an “elite segment” of society (apart from the rest).

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend