Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

<![CDATA[red flag laws]]>

No, We Don’t Need Red Flag Laws for Transgenders

by Leave a Comment

I never considered the idea that I might have to argue against red flag laws proposed by conservatives. Yet, here we are.

After the tragic school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee, the usual debate over gun control arose as Democrats exploited the deaths to push their anti-gunner agenda. This is nothing new, so I am used to this.

But I also saw something I thought was strange. After it was revealed that the shooter was a transgender male who was born as a biological female, some on the right began advocating for banning transgender folks from the right to keep and bear arms.

The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro, in a recent podcast episode, justified the idea of enacting transgender red flag laws. He said gender dysphoria seems to be “a pretty significant symptom of an underlying mental malaise.”

Podcaster Elijah Schaffer posted a tweet suggesting that those who believe transgenders have the natural right to bear arms should “rethink” this. He tweeted:

Every libertarian who’s made the argument of “every transgender should own an AR-15”

May want to rethink their worldview

TJ Moe, a contributor for The Blaze, argued that transgender individuals “shouldn’t be eligible to purchase any gun legally.” He wrote:

Regardless of whether one has a mental illness, red flag laws are not what conservatives should be proposing – especially not after a mass shooting. I’m see the exact same type of arguments used by progressives seeking to disarm as many Americans as possible.

The fact that Hale was a supposed transgender male does not make it okay for the government to violate the Second Amendment rights of others. Moreover, it makes no sense for conservatives to use the same fearmongering tactics that the left uses to persuade people to support more gun control legislation.

Leftists have long touted red flag laws as a way to prevent gun violence by allowing law enforcement to temporarily seize firearms from individuals deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. While this may sound like a good idea on the surface, there are several compelling reasons not to rely on this approach.

First and foremost, red flag laws violate due process and the constitutional rights of gun owners. Under these laws, individuals can have their firearms confiscated based solely on the suspicion of a third party, without being given the opportunity to defend themselves or even be heard in court. This is a clear violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, and guarantee due process of law.

Moreover, red flag laws are inherently subjective and can be easily abused. The criteria for determining who is a “dangerous” individual are often vague and open to interpretation, leaving room for personal bias and political agendas to influence the decision-making process. Indeed, it seems to me that this bias is one of the reasons why some conservatives are suggesting gun restrictions on transgender individuals. This could lead to innocent people being unfairly targeted and having their guns taken away without cause.

In addition, red flag laws can also discourage people from seeking help for mental health issues or other problems that might make them a risk to themselves or others. If individuals know that seeking help could result in the loss of their firearms, they may be hesitant to come forward and get the assistance they need. This could ultimately lead to more, not less, gun violence.

Furthermore, as most conservatives know, red flag laws are unlikely to prevent mass shootings or other forms of gun violence. Research has shown that most mass shooters do not have a prior history of mental illness, and that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained firearms. Confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens is unlikely to have a significant impact on the overall rate of gun violence. To put it simply, using the state to prohibit transgenders from owning firearms will not stop mass shootings.

To be clear, I’m not saying most conservatives are on board with the idea of violating the Second Amendment rights of some Americans because they are suffering from gender dysphoria. But I saw enough of it to warrant writing this piece. It would be a bad idea for conservatives, who claim to value limited government, to start advocating for the same type of measures championed by the anti-gunner lobby. This is not exactly the company you wish to keep, is it?

The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.

Trending on RedState Video

Nashville actually doesn’t make case for red flag laws

by Leave a Comment

We’re now firmly in the phase of the mass shooting aftermath where pretty much every gun control proposal is trotted out to try and say it could have stopped the shooting.

A popular one these days, of course, is red flag laws.

A lot of the media has been focusing attention on the fact that Tennessee doesn’t have such a law, the implication that they should pass one is pretty clear.

However, there are reasons why Nashville doesn’t really make that case.

First, let’s understand how such a law actually works.

The first thing that happens is that someone becomes alarmed that an individual is a danger to themselves or others, so they petition the court to issue a red flag order. The police then come and confiscate the person’s guns as well as enter their name as prohibited in the NICS database for the period while the order is in effect.

On the surface, this looks like something that might have stopped the shooting.

Here’s why it wouldn’t have, though.

The first reason is that the killer’s mother didn’t realize they even had a gun.

The parents of the shooter, [name redacted], spoke to police and said they knew Hale had bought and sold one weapon and believed that was the extent of it.

“The parents felt [the killer] should not own weapons,” the chief said.

Now, we know that the mother shared gun control posts previously, so it seems unlikely that they were of the opinion that anyone should own guns, so their belief the killer shouldn’t have owned guns may well have been broader than a feeling that the killer would eventually kill.

It may also have prompted the killer to lie about having guns in the first place.

Yet that lie also illustrates a potential problem.

You see, people don’t seek out red flag orders without cause. Even if the laws exist and are well-known, people often don’t think of their own loved ones as doing something like that. Especially if they don’t already own guns.

Some will argue that public relations campaigns could change that, but I’m not that sure. A broad, relatively generic by necessity PR campaign isn’t going to trump anyone’s feelings about their own flesh and blood, especially if they don’t have guns already.

Then there’s the fact that law enforcement saw no reason for concern.

Tennessee does not have a “red flag” law that would allow a judge to temporarily seize guns from someone who is believed to be a threat to themselves or others. Even so, Drake said they did not know about Hale’s issues, and there is yet no evidence that Hale was believed to be a threat prior to this week.

“Law enforcement was never contacted,” he said. “She was never committed to an institution.”

Again, while the killer’s folks may have thought he/she/whatever at this point shouldn’t have a gun, there wasn’t anything to suggest they were a danger to anyone up to and including themselves.

As such, it’s unlikely a red flag order would have been granted.

Now, there’s going to be a lot of debate and we may learn something that negates my arguments here. It’s early still, relatively speaking, and so I can accept that.

Yet I’ll also note that, as Cam has previously pointed out, it wouldn’t exactly have been difficult for the killer to completely bypass the protections supposedly put in place with a red flag law and simply buy a gun illegally. Or, perhaps more terrifyingly, they could have come up with some method of murder that would have killed even more people.

The problem with red flag laws is that everything has to work perfectly for them to have any hope in hell of actually doing anything, and they usually don’t.

Plus, in addition to that, there are due process concerns that we’ve talked about aplenty here and the fact that it simply takes one potential weapon away from a dangerous person but leaves them walking around.

Red flag laws aren’t the ticket here. Not even close.

Past failures don’t justify future gun control

by Leave a Comment

It shouldn’t work like this, but anecdotes tend to move us more than facts.

From the earliest days of humanity, we’ve used stories to share information, pass on history, and learn about the world, so it stands to reason that stories also move us to support various laws and regulations, such as gun control.

Just like Uncle Tom’s Cabin swayed many people to become abolitionists, stories can sell us on an awful lot.

But the problem is that there shouldn’t be holes in those stories. While reality doesn’t have to make sense like a good piece of fiction must, some plot holes are just too big to miss.

Take this one trying to push red flag laws in Iowa.

Temple Hiatt’s nephew showed signs of mental illness the day of his death. A Red flag gun safety law could have saved his life.

Hiatt, a volunteer with Iowa Moms Demand Action, said legislation should be put in place to minimize harm from firearms. But until that happens, it’s up to the community to know how to stay safe. Phillip Travis, Hiatt’s nephew, died by suicide from a gun in 2014. This loss has influenced her advocacy by showing her firsthand how gun safety can save lives.

Now, understand that I’m sorry for Hiatt’s loss. Suicide is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

However, she says her nephew showed signs beforehand. If that’s the case, why didn’t she and her family get a 5150 hold for him? That would have put him in a psychiatric facility for up to 72 hours and, unlike with a red flag law, would have gotten him some much-needed treatment.

Further, such a hold removes the individual not just from the possibility of shooting themselves, but killing themselves through pretty much any other means.

Hiatt, like so many others, is trying to use their own failures to justify gun control.

“But 5150 holds deprive people of their freedom,” some might argue, and they wouldn’t be wrong. However, let’s also remember that when you’re trying to take away someone’s civil liberties because you say you’re concerned about them, that argument isn’t going to hold a lot of water.

Opposing both this and red flag laws makes sense. Supporting both, while I can’t say it makes sense, it’s at least consistent.

So I find Hiatt’s tale less than moving because of the holes. She and her family failed to get the nephew the help he needed, so we should all put our freedom at risk so they can feel less guilty about their own mistakes.

Sorry, not interested.

I get feeling the need to do something after losing him. That’s normal. You don’t want anyone else to go through that. Yet gun control isn’t the answer.

She could instead be advocating for more involvement with those suffering from mental illness. She could be advocating for more resources for those suffering.

Instead, she wants gun control, which likely wouldn’t have done what she’s claiming it would have for her nephew.

Sorry, but I’m going to call ’em like I see ’em. Especially since all those alternatives I suggested would do far more to reduce suicides–all causes of suicide, even, not just with guns–than gun control ever could.

Iowa is one of the safer states in the nation. It doesn’t need more gun control and it damn sure doesn’t need a red flag law.

Michigan seemingly going “all-in” on gun control

by Leave a Comment

The state of Michigan has experienced two mass shootings in recent years. The first, at a high school in Oxford, and the second at Michigan State University.

They also now have Democrats in full control of the executive and legislative branches.

Now, unsurprisingly, they’re pushing gun control. A lot of it.

Michigan Democrats are pushing a package of 11 gun reform bills following two deadly mass shootings in the state, which has renewed calls for stricter laws across the country.

The package of legislation is poised to be introduced thos week, The Associated Press reported, and includes universal background checks and safe storage laws, among other measures.

…

State Democrats argued that so-called red flag laws, which allow law enforcement or family members to petition to restrict an at-risk individual’s firearm access, could have possibly prevented incidents like the Oxford shooting, according to the AP.

“We have children in Michigan who are living through their second school shooting in under a year and a half,” Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said at a police press conference for the MSU shooting. “If this is not a wake-up call to do something, I don’t know what is.”

The legislation also has provisions that individuals obtain a license as well as undergo a criminal background check and register upon purchasing, TIME reported.

In other words, they’re running out pretty much everything they’ve ever wanted in Michigan and just couldn’t get.

They’re delusional if they honestly think any of this would prevent a mass shooting from happening. The issues with red flag laws have been well documented, especially as we see lots of people talking about how there were all these signs after a shooting has occurred.

After all, red flag laws sure didn’t stop the Colorado Springs shooting from happening.

Frankly, none of this is going to make the state safer. If anything, it’ll do the opposite. Especially if they’re serious about a license-to-purchase requirement. In fact, it’s unlikely such a requirement would survive the inevitable legal challenge after the Bruen decision.

The truth is that Michigan Democrats have wanted gun control for years. They’ve pushed for it for a while, but as the minority party to some degree, they couldn’t cram it through.

Now, they think they have a way in.

Michigan State isn’t the motivation for this. It’s the pretext. We were likely to see all of these bills just the same.

Where they might be screwing up, though, is trying to do too much, too fast. A bill here and there might not be enough to motivate pro-gun voices in rural communities that just elected their first Democrat in a while, but 11? That’ll rally the troops every single time.

It might not stop everything from passing–some measures are going to be too popular to stop, most likely–but it’ll scuttle a lot of this, as it should.

Then we get to the legal challenges and the Bruen decision and we can see that there’s a very good chance that none of this stays on the books.

Good news for Michigan, but bad news for gun control.