If a bipartisan Senate deal on guns is passed as a law, it
will mark the most significant federal push for states to set up red-flag laws.
This means a judge can order the seizure of firearms merely based on the
suspicion that the owner of the firearms will use them to hurt themselves or
others.
Under these proposed
Red-flag laws family members, law enforcement officials, associates, doctors,
etc. can petition a court to confiscate firearms for a period of time if they
feel that person is a threat to themselves or others.
Currently, nineteen
states and the District of Columbia have some form of this law on the books.
In states, where no
red flag laws are passed, an individual has to be convicted of a felony or
committed to a mental institution to lose their right to own firearms.
Under red-flag laws,
firearms can be seized temporarily without any criminal record or a history of
mental illness
The proponents of
these laws claim that law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear. They also
say that most shootings are done by mentally unstable people. Hence if a friend
or a psychiatrist, or a family member can alert a judge about the potential of
violence, a shootout can be prevented. Precious lives can be saved.
But this is the best
possible scenario where this law may work is a utopian scenario where each and
every family member, friend, doctor, law enforcement official, and court judge
is both morally upright and objective.
But laws must not be
judged solely by how they will be used in utopian climates but also by how they
could be misused and exploited by rogue elements in a worse possible scenario.
In democratic
nations, courts operate by certain immutable principles.
An accused is
pronounced guilty only when it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused did commit a crime.
Most importantly, the
accused has a right to defense to contest the charges and make his case. However, with red flag laws, this provision of defense is
eliminated totally because it is deemed as an emergency situation where urgent
action is needed.
Even the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which by no means is a second amendment
absolutist, opposed red-flag
laws in California back in 2019. The ACLU said red flag laws posed
a significant
threat to civil liberties" as it allows employers, co-workers,
teachers, and those covered under the existing measure to seek the gun violence
restraining order without first allowing the owner an opportunity to contest
and make their case.
Beyond violation of
due process, in a Democracy, a court pronounces guilt merely based on actions and emphatically not on suspicion.
If an armed
individual walks up to a bank with the intent to rob it but abandons his plans
at the very last minute at the doorstep of the bank, he cannot be convicted of
a crime or on the suspicion that he may have robbed a bank. He also cannot be
convicted because he may rob banks in the future. A conviction occurs only if
there is proof that he did indeed rob the bank
What happened to the
principle of is innocent until proven guilty i.e. the burden of establishing
guilt lies with the prosecution. When suspicion becomes the criteria, the
individual is guilty until proven innocent, this is Kafkaesque and has no place
in a civilized democratic society.
In the end, suspicion
is purely a matter of conjecture, perspective, and opinion. When someone looks
suspicious, the suspicion often emanates from the inherent bias of the
beholder.
For instance, an MSNBC viewer may think of anybody wearing a MAGA hat as suspicious. A CNN viewer may think of maskless vaccine skeptics as suspicious. Another may look at masked individuals are suspicion. A BLM supporter may look at law enforcement officials with suspicion. At times suspicion is aroused due to appearances or sartorial choice.
There is a random
subjectiveness or arbitrariness that informs suspicion, hence it has
no place in a court of law that should be based on hard evidence.
Beyond the confiscation
of guns, the mere stigma of being targeted due to a red flag law will have dire
consequences. The grounds may be baseless but the smirch prevails
Perhaps employers
will be hesitant to retain such an individual i.e. if a judge deemed him
unworthy of having a firearm, he has to be unstable. What if he uses an office
paperweight as a weapon to strike a colleague he disagrees with. Perhaps
employees or clients will be reluctant to work with such an individual.
Perhaps friends stay away because they see the individual as a risk. Perhaps landlords evict the individual and hotels refuse accommodation because they do not want to endanger the lives of other guests.
The law can be used
to target people and destroy lies.
Most importantly this law will not prevent dangerous individuals
from procuring guns illegally.
What makes laws such
as these alarming is the climate in which they are being passed.
The protesters
of January 6 were and probably still are being subjected to draconian
punishment. The partisan January
6 Select Committee's sole function is to harass and intimidate
political opponents. Parents concerned about their children being indoctrinated
with Critical Race Theory were branded as domestic
terrorists. Biden called the Trump supporters "the
most extreme political organization that's existed in recent American
history." Then there is the ominous Disinformation
Governance Board, which intends to sit in judgment of the pronouncement of
citizens. There were and perhaps still are government-ordered vaccine mandates
that override the democratic right of choice. There were lockdowns that
restricted movement.
It comes as no
surprise that the Democrats are supporting these draconian red-flag laws
What is disappointing
is that Five
House Republicans and 10
Republican senators are also pushing these laws at the state level.
Yes, some among these are disgruntled never-Trumper Republicans and some are
turncoats, but what about the rest? This continues to be the risk when
Republicans retake the House and the Senate, they may be in control but the
strings of some puppets may be in the hands of the Democrats.
These Red Flag laws
will be another step toward authoritarianism where the government
encroaches into the private space of the citizen.
This is a truly worrisome trend in one of the world's foremost and largest Democracies
Also appears on American Thinker
Comments
Post a Comment