You can lose your drivers license if you have a medical condition that makes it dangerous for you to drive a car. Why would a red flag law about guns be any different?
I don’t know if red flag laws have been studied enough to know if they work. What does seem to work is universal background checks and extending gun bans to people convicted of violent misdemeanors.
I am for universal background checks. I am also for a min age of 25 to own our possess a handgun.
I am against the requirement for safe storage. My gun is locked in its safe but there are times when I want it unlocked and accessible to me in my home. Like under my pillow when I sleep.
True, although background checks on all guns sales would also handle that.
It is also already illegal to buy a gun in a state you are not a resident of.
But yes, the strawman seller needs to be squelched. It is the primary source of guns for criminals.
Oddly, that law has due process:
Driver's License Suspensions from Physical/Mental Conditions
Drivers are entitled to a hearing to prove they can safely drive
The good news is that the California DMV must give a driver the chance to prove that he or she can drive safely.
Why are you opposed to Due Process, which the ACLU supports?
I can see an exception for a self defense gun being hidden- as long as there are no kids in the house. However, as long as you are home, burglary is not really an issue. They should be secured when you are not at home.
Correct: no kids in the house. I would not have any unsecured guns if there were kids in the house, or if there’d be a reasonable chance of other kids coming in to my no-kids home.
On the one hand, I don’t want to get distracted by more “car” stuff.
On the other hand, paraphrasing that cite might provide some useful language for the proposal: " The [government] is not required to hold a hearing before [removing a gun from an owner] IF it believes that the [gun owner] poses an immediate safety risk." Isn’t that what a red flag law would do?
Yes that’s what red flag laws would do.
As for car stuff, one relevant aspect is that the 2nd Amendment uses the word right, and that’s what some in the 2A crowd focus on, whereas driving is a privilege and not a right. But right follows the prefatory clause about A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…
Because in part of that prefatory clause, and also because of what guns can do, I believe gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.
Then again I have a right to free speech and exercise of religion and assembly but I cannot drive a sound truck blasting out a gospel revival through residential streets at 3AM, or hold said revival in the middle of Main Street without a permit. Many people falter on the notion that a right may be subjected to limitations of time, place and manner as long as those limitations are not discriminatory nor place an undue burden.
So sure, red flag law, but you must promptly have a fair hearing to determine if the flag was raised properly. And I suppose since it’s a matter of a right v. a privilege, the burden would be to show why not return to the citizen their firearms.
Hey, folks, I just wanna reiterate some stuff from the OP, since I fear it’s getting lost. I hope this doesn’t count as junior modding.
Do folks agree that the following would have minimal effect on gun owners, but a large effect on reducing injury/death?
A red flag law that removes guns from ownership of someone if there’s deemed to be an immediate risk of harm to self or others. The removal would happen immediately, but there would be due process structures to contest the removal, after the fact.
I don’t think I’m convinced that it would have a “large effect” on gun deaths or injuries. I think we need more information about gun deaths. My hesitation with facially appealing proposals (changes to background checks, waiting periods, red flag laws, etc.) is that I’m not sure that they are likely have much of an effect. That’s probably my overall reaction to most proposals.
That said, my concern with a “red flag” proposal isn’t that it would harm legitimate gun owners (although there is always a risk of government overreach or other misuses of the system) but that it would disincentivize people from seeking mental health treatment, which could have deleterious effects that outweigh any benefit.
In a coldly utilitarian world, one more suicide is probably worth reducing one mass shooting event. But, of course, gun suicide is a much greater problem (in terms of deaths, at least) than mass shootings.
I agree with you. However, these are “common sense” regulations, where not having them is flatly irresponsible.
It’s also possible that they bear fruit in the long haul, winnowing down the black market, or at least having a structure in place that can help restrict the black market, making guns legitimately less available to those who shouldn’t have them.
Add to that that the hearing be prompt, and that the burden would be on the flagger to show why not return them.
Also that the red flag for psychological conditions must not extend to mere record absent context. As in, for example, merely being on a prescription for Paxil must NOT redflag you ipso facto.
I don’t agree. I think most gun deaths are due to casual gun ownership, not gun ownership that occurs as part of a predictable “extreme” escalation in bad behavior. I certainly am in favor of red flag laws, I just don’t think they are likely to be a huge hit. People who casually carry guns who shouldn’t, then get into situations where they use those guns when they shouldn’t, either due to poor impulse control leading to criminal behavior, or just general stupidity–that’s the heart of the gun violence problem.
I think red flag laws have a place even though they aren’t (likely) in my opinion to be a huge net decrease of gun violence. Namely, they give us an intervention tool in the situation where a person has given us (society) some meaningful indicator they may be about to do something bad with a gun. My opinion is most gun violence doesn’t follow that, but some certainly does. As has been mentioned, many states the police can seize guns from a home after a domestic violence charge, but they often don’t do so adequately, I think red flag laws kind of are in that same vein, they are good but I’m not sure they will have a vast impact.
While I don’t believe they necessarily strictly follow the concept of “minmaxing”, I do think red flag laws are minimally intrusive for most gun owners. Most people will never have a red flag proceeding against them. Process wise, I think it also shouldn’t be too hard to build a red flag system with appropriate due process. In the mental health world, a family member or physician in most States can relatively easily get a 48 hour psychiatric hold put on someone, but then there is basically a hearing that has to occur with some level of due process, in order to civilly commit that person for a longer period of time. I think it would be decently reasonable for a red flag law to allow a police officer to seize a person’s guns, and red flag the person so they can’t buy any further guns, immediately upon the officer receiving a report that in their mind justifies it. Maybe a magistrate judge could also do it quickly as well. Then for the red flag to stay longer than a relatively brief period of time, there would have to be some sort of due process hearing, the structure of which isn’t super important, but would have basically an element of a hearing where a person gets to plead their case and evidence is presented / weighed etc.
Which suggests that any gun regulation needs to be done on the federal level. I live in Chicago and many gun enthusiasts love to point out how worthless Chicago’s gun regulations were. And they are right because it was trivial to travel to a suburb or Indiana or Wisconsin to get whatever you wanted legally.
These laws are only as strong as their weakest link. If even one state has permissive gun laws then sidestepping regulations becomes easy and those regulations mostly worthless.
I think the fundamental problem is that we’ve got so many guns in circulation that are only known to the government in the most vague aggregate sense.
Any attempt to regulate those is going to either be ignored, or require some level of intrusiveness (registration of ALL guns or something) that is going to be seriously unpopular.
For example regardless of what the laws are, how does the government get a handle on say… me giving/selling my grandfather’s old shotgun from 1958 to my brother? They don’t know it exists, and have no way of knowing that I sold it, or my brother bought it.
Of course, that situation is the ideal one in the sense of we’re both safe, law abiding people who would pass any necessary background check. But the government would have similar difficulty in keeping me from selling it to some low-life out of the trunk of my car for $100.
I feel like market-based solutions won’t work- they would reduce shooting among the people who are safest, and do exactly zilch to stop the loon who saves up thousands to go shoot something up, or for the criminals who steal their guns/ammo in the first place, or steal to buy them.
I wonder if there could be a multipronged approach. Maybe something like enhanced and tightened background checks combined with a fairly lengthy waiting period (like 45 days or something), unless you get some sort of license which has other stipulations- registration of what you buy, periodic background checks, HIPAA clearance for your mental health for license renewal, etc…)
Combine that with serious effort to identify and monitor people who might be at risk for being a mass shooter beforehand- some sort of professional obligation for mental health professionals to report people, maybe some sort of social media style profiling (in fact, make social media platforms do this, since they already have the data and technology) to identify potential shooters and put them on the red flag list for gun purchases.
It seems to me that nearly all these people always seem to have been identified by someone as a potential school shooter or to have something wrong with them ahead of time. Or they buy those guns and go shoot stuff up in a very short time frame. I would suspect that a lengthy enough waiting period combined with better background checks would minimize the mass shootings as much as can be reasonably expected.
I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate them completely- there are too many holes for people to fall through involving existing guns, emergent mental illness, etc… But we could minimize them. if we so chose.
The biggest problem is the slippery slope attitude of the hardcore gun lobby - they won’t negotiate, they won’t come to the table. Any restrictions are off the table for them.
Not just casual ownership, but casual acceptance of the presence of guns.
I reject this argument. The notion that the problem is too big so don’t bother doing anything makes no sense to me.
Sure it will take a long time for regulations to have an effect but you need to start somewhere. In time we should see those regulations make a difference (assuming they are not easily sidestepped/ignored).
And who are the regulations unpopular with? If 80% of people support background checks then do we care if 20% do not like it?
Agreed that it would have a minimal effect on gun owners, disagree on ‘large’ effect on reducing injury/death, but right now we’re min/maxing. So if minimal effect on owners but even a ‘small’ effect on the reduction of injury and death it’s worth pursuing. But see below.
I think these concerns, and other, similar ones, would need to be very carefully baked into the legislation, possibly with some minimal (and very careful) consequences for the flagger if found to be verifiably false. With, of my concerns, the biggest being the hold being for a fixed, relatively short period without supporting evidence and/or judicial or similar review.
My concern, relatively minor, for some consequences for false flagging (deliberate irony) for purposes of harassment would be limited to making any such accusation be sufficient to discourage blatantly false claims, but not enough to discourage actual reporting. Which of course, would be a hard line to draw.
Something we’ve touched on upthread, including @YamatoTwinkie’s link from RAND, is minimal ages. I would also probably push handgun and semi-auto rifle purchasing and sole-ownership requirements to 21. One, it would be an ‘easier’ sell by comparison to drinking age (and that’s all I’m saying on drinking, I promise) - and two, while we’re all old, we probably all still remember junior and senior high as insanely stressful points in our life.
I don’t think it’s entirely a coincidence that a number of recent shooters are at that age, stressed, angry, disaffected, independent but not fully, with any lingering issues (abuse, bullying, relationship issues, isolation) unresolved but without some of the more fully adult concerns and responsibilities tying them down.
Again, not anywhere near a perfect fix, just working on min-maxing as it were.
I stumbled on a 17pp PDF that I’ve been perusing this morning. It resonates with me.
In true confirmation bias spirit – and in the hopes that the narrow group of Dopers may be willing to scan the paper, too (it’s very hard to summarize and retain its meaning) – I give you … The Public Health Approach to Gun Violence Prevention
They approach the situation the way I think it would be ideally approached. It begins with gathering good data. They then evaluate individual risk factors along with societal or community risk factors. They deal with the tactical and the strategic.
They also advocate for things that most of us would agree are likely to improve the lives of a great many people.
In short, they seem to advocate that we do it nothing like we currently do, and quite likely like the other advanced economies do.
But it probably has minimal impact to current gun owners, except as they are also taxpaying US citizens who may not be predisposed to shifting government spending that far away from guns and toward butter.
So there’s that 