For quite some time, Americans have flirted with the idea of “Red Flag Laws” to address the issue of firearm violence. But, while many argue the potential societal benefits of such laws, it is important to examine whose rights they would violate the most. First, let’s understand what these laws are and what they actually […]
For quite some time, Americans have flirted with the idea of “Red Flag Laws” to address the issue of firearm violence. But, while many argue the potential societal benefits of such laws, it is important to examine whose rights they would violate the most.
First, let’s understand what these laws are and what they actually entail. Perhaps one of the biggest issues is that this is not a single law that could be challenged in court. Rather, it is a series of laws that may vary from state to state, allowing governments to hide their intentions behind the curtain.
Instead of simply saying “Guns are now banned”, which would cause uproar and immediate legal challenges, they enact several smaller laws meant to curb the right of gun ownership.
These laws and restrictions will often go under-reported and miss the public’s attention. But, considering the shooting at the Uvalde, TX school on May 4, in which 21 individuals were victimized, including 19 children, such laws have received more attention and support in recent weeks.
At every new mass shooting, this subject is promoted to the forefront of our debates around the 2nd amendment. Most recently, an individual in Illinois opened fire at a July 4th parade and killed 7 innocent people.
The US continues to search frantically for answers to the problem of mass shootings, while the problem itself remains unaddressed.
On June 25, President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law. Among several things included in this bill, there is a big economic incentive for states that enact ‘Red Flag Laws’ and related regulatory measures.
Red Flag Laws are a collection of pieces of legislation bundled together with the final goal of seizing firearms from individuals who may be deemed, by police, community or family to be of violent and/or dangerous nature.
The individual would then be required to appear in front of the court to defend his right to gun ownership.
A right that has always been constitutionally his, taken away due to a crime he or she did not commit.
Now, if you fail to see the slippery slope of punishing people and removing their rights for crimes they have never committed, then think about this:
Who decides, in fact, what is the appropriate level of danger?
I grew up in the poorest region of Brazil, surrounded by violence levels higher than many warzones. I possess firearms, and am very well trained in their use, among other things.
So, you may consider something to be dangerous way before I do.
If, in your past, you have had traumatic situations that make you more vulnerable to things you may consider offensive or aggravating, the threshold of ‘danger’ you’re willing to tolerate might be much lower than somebody else’s.
For example, because of my life experiences and the adversity I have faced, I tend to be very crude and have a dark, sarcastic humor. I’m often quiet and always ready to react. People can, and do find that scary. But, it’s how life has made me. There’s nothing wrong with me. I cannot change myself if I wanted to, and I shouldn’t have to do that in the first place.
Despite having a dark personality, I would never consider harming an innocent person. On the opposite--Given all the violence I’ve lived through and seen, I would be the first to jump in defense of a person who is being victimized, at the expense of my own safety if necessary.
Being a person who is very serious and does not like to lie, fake or get along just for the sake of getting along, you can imagine I have gathered a good share of enemies over the years. People who have tried to run over me, and got called out before they had the chance.
If one of those badly intentioned people were to “red flag” me, I would lose my ability to defend myself and be vulnerable to them and others, until my court day arrived.
Which would be God Knows When, assuming such cases would become more and more frequent.
Not only that, but I would eventually have to appear in court in front of a judge, who may be very much pro or against guns (I wouldn’t know or expect impartiality, we all have subconscious biases, even judges) to defend my sanity.
Even though I’ve never even committed a single crime.
Does that sound crazy to you? It does to me.
I’m a 100lbs 5’2’’ woman. To lose my ability to have an equalizer and be able to defend myself could mean the literal loss of my life. You expect me to grab a ladder to be able to pepper spray a 6’5’’ attacker?
My life experiences have also made me very shy and introverted. I’m very much averse to formal situations. To have to stand up and be at the front and center to try to convince people to trust me, is a horrifying thought. Especially if my rights are at stake based on how well I perform.
“Pay a lawyer.” Sure. Who among us doesn’t have endless amounts of money to burn?
“There are other less lethal ways of defending yourself” Ok. Let’s discuss them.
A cloud of pepper spray that moves with the air can surely hit the attacker but, depending on the direction of the wind, it can incapacitate you as well. Perhaps even more.
Tasers can be often ineffective due to clothing, distance from attacker, etc. If they’re holding you, you’ll feel the shock as well. And how long do you think this shock will incapacitate them?
Not long.
Now you’ve got an even angrier attacker.
In sum, there’s no real match for a firearm when it comes to equalizing a situation in which the victim is of physical disadvantage.
But what upsets me the most is that, by all means I should be the best candidate to own a firearm. I’m trained. I’m careful. I’m good. Or at least, I try my best to be.
But all of that does not matter in a scenario in which Red Flag Laws are enacted.
You know who else fits a similar profile?
Veterans.
Folks who have served our country and put their lives on the line to protect others. War is hell, and we cannot expect them to return to our shores the same way they left it. Many come back with PTSD, anxiety, avoidance to crowds, and other perceivably “antisocial” tendencies.
Does that mean they would hurt anyone? No. They have actually proven to us the contrary. That they are there to defend us.
But all of that doesn’t matter to a Red Flag Law. It is, in fact, meant to curb gun ownership from folks who would know how to use it. Folks who would not be able to defend themselves in court either. Regardless of whether that person is good or bad.
Remember, psychopaths and narcissists are often very charming and great talkers. They would have no problem defending themselves and manipulating the court.
The vagueness of these laws is by design, not a flaw. It is how government manages to gradually curb gun ownership without doing so officially. It’ll involve things such as proving the need to have a firearm, which is subjective. Psychological reviews, which are also subjective (people can lie). And in cases such as NY, for example, you’d be obligated to share your social media handles for review by an officer who will determine whether you are mentally fit or not to own a gun.
All of those reviews, of subjective matters, done by different people with different backgrounds, along with requirements like high fees and long waiting times, would essentially get rid of everyone’s ability to own a gun, bit by bit.
“You did not pass”. Maybe you ended up with an anti-gun psychologist? Or a boomer social media reviewer who didn’t get the joke behind your memes? How long until they review everyone’s 3 years of social media posts? Across all social media?
And during all of that – You’ve committed zero crimes. Never have. Nada.
Guilty until proven innocent.
Predators will Red Flag their victims before attacking.
Society will not be safer by this. Vulnerable people who need the most to have the ability to defend themselves being denied their rights based on no concrete reason at all.
This is the nightmare Red Flag Laws provide us with.
And, of course, killing is already against the law.
Who’s to say that killers will respect these new laws if they don’t respect the most basic one?
It’s naïve to believe this is anything but an effort by those in power to disarm the populace at large.
For the safety of our communities, families, and country:
We must say NO to Red Flag Laws.
