Raising Red Flags About Red Flag Laws

Red flag laws

Who will decide if a gunowner is a threat, and can we trust the decision?

By Mark Anderson

It’s pretty obvious to anyone paying attention that the ruling elite want more stringent gun confiscation laws enacted. One proposed way to do this is via the institution of “red flag” laws. Red flag laws are allegedly designed to prevent future mass shootings as they empower courts to take guns away from “potentially dangerous” people, as if we can actually trust the courts to be impartial arbiters in this matter. We wish we could.

Red flag laws have already been put in place in 17 states, of which 12 enacted them after the Parkland, Fla. school shooting in February 2018. Four other states have proposed such laws. For the record, the two states in which high-profile multiple shootings recently took place—at an El Paso, Texas Walmart and a Dayton, Ohio entertainment venue—do not yet have red flag laws on the books, though Ohio had already proposed such a law.

National Coin Investments

On the federal level, at a March 26 congressional committee hearing entitled “Red Flag Laws: Examining Guidelines for State Action,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) noted:

While Republicans and Democrats, on this Committee and across America, can disagree on the Second Amendment, what’s clear . . . is that recent tragedies in the United States are examples of . . . a failure to identify and lessen risk from individuals who may be showing signs of distress and the willingness to hurt themselves or others. … The use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders also known as “Red flag” orders have shown promise in the states.

… Red flag laws generally work by a family or household member or law enforcement officer petitioning a court to temporarily restrict an individual’s ability to buy or access fire – arms. The burden of proof is placed on law enforcement to prove the person in question has become an imminent danger and there is a Due Process right for the individual to challenge the determination. . . . Politically, these laws are found in red, blue, and purple states. In March 2018, the Trump Administration called on every state to enact Extreme Risk Protection Orders.

The potential for President Trump to bend to media-induced pressure, perhaps to protect himself politically as the 2020 election nears, is high given the tense and uncertain climate created by news of the latest shootings.


The key to understanding the potential problems with red flag laws is realizing that such laws could easily morph into large-scale disarmament of law-abiding civilians based upon their political philosophy. Indeed, confiscations could become ever more frequent. Not just family members and police,  but also neighbors, acquaintances, and coworkers, possibly with an axe to grind, could conjure up reports of your “suspicious” or “errant” behavior, leading to firearms confiscation pending a review of your “mental stability.”

In Connecticut, the justifications for gun confiscation have included such simple concerns as “conflict between intimate partners, emotional distress over finances, and sadness of loss in old age,” as reported Feb. 25 in The Denver Post.

More Guns Less Crime
Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, at the AFP Store.

Interestingly, the Post, citing the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012, added: “Connecticut law enforcement had been temporarily taking weapons from at-risk people for more than a decade at the time of the shooting. According to the Duke University study, about 140 orders were issued in 2012.”

But Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old responsible for that elementary school massacre, wasn’t the registered owner of the guns he used to commit murder. Investigative reports insist he used his mother’s guns to kill her at home and 26 children and adults at the elementary school.

Another more troubling aspect of the situation is that mainstream controlled media reports on mass shootings are not based in reality. They invariably portray the shooter as a trigger-happy “white supremacist,” despite any real facts to support that contention. Thus, the first segment of the population to be disarmed—due to fake news-induced media hysteria—would most likely be white nationalists, just the very people who are most resistant to the expansion of the New World Order police state. Coincidence? Probably not.

Mark Anderson is AFP’s roving editor. Email him at <[email protected].

3 Comments on Raising Red Flags About Red Flag Laws

  1. A well-regulated military force shall be maintained under control of the President, and no political entity within the United States shall maintain a military force beyond Presidential control. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be determined by the Congress and the States and the Cities and the Counties and the Towns (and someone named Fred.)

  2. Politicians who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws. It’s like reacting to a neighbor threatening passersby with a hammer by calling the police and demanding they take his weapon. Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be the landmark of their careers. The Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves.

    It’s especially important to the justices because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

    These laws were created to dilute power licensed to the psychiatric community and transfer it to unqualified persons the democrats can influence, e.g., local judges and disgruntled aunts. Due process demands reports from two psychiatrists, one from each side, legal representation, arraignment, indictment and trial by jury. Democrats and weak minded Republicans are victims of the bum’s rush.

    They’ve been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data. It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Generally, since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent.

    The natural next step for any Nazified government was to codify empowerment of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, faculty, employers, co-workers and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence. Soon they’ll want to choose an upper age limit for people to be “allowed by the government” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

  3. ERPOs are dangerous to liberty. In technical terms, they call it an ex parte order. These orders violate due process, which is a guaranteed protection for Americans in the U.S. Constitution. It’s serving punishment on an American for not doing anything wrong. For a reasonable comparison, it would be like confiscating an automobile from a drunk, being suspicious that the drunk will cause a death. It’s “guilty until proven innocent.” The burden of proof is not on the accuser as in every other legal case, with the accused having a right to confront and cross-examine their accuser; but instead, placed on the gun-owner victim who’s property is being confiscated without due process. This is not how our system of justice works in America.

Comments are closed.