Red flag' gun-control proposal is a recipe for decreased safety and less freedom

'Red flag' gun-control proposal is a recipe for decreased safety and less freedom

February 16, 2020, 5:00 AM EST
'Red flag' gun-control proposal is a recipe for decreased safety and less freedom
'Red flag' gun-control proposal is a recipe for decreased safety and less freedom
Because firearms have been a positive part of my family’s life in Iowa for as long as I can remember, I am shocked to see New York-style gun control bills coming to my home state of Iowa.

My grandfather was a gunsmith and my father shot on the Army Marksmanship Unit. My sister and I were both “brass rats,” which means we picked up our father’s brass, and when we got big enough we pulled targets for him.

Today I own the Davenport Guns and Shooting Club, where I share my passion for the shooting sports and firearms training. Over the years, I’ve watched countless women gain self-confidence as they learn how to protect themselves and their families with a firearm. The last thing these women want is an out-of-state billionaire telling them what to do. But that’s exactly what New York billionaire and former mayor Michael Bloomberg is trying to do.

Bloomberg’s group Everytown for Gun Safety is buying $250,000 in television ads in Iowa to pressure lawmakers into adopting a “red flag” measure — a dangerous gun control scheme that would leave law-abiding Iowans defenseless. Under House File 2367, a “red flag” measure, anyone could lose their Second Amendment rights as a result of baseless accusations and have no opportunity to defend themselves in court.

A bias against gun owners

Even the American Civil Liberties Union agrees with the NRA that “red flag” measures trample on our due process rights. An ACLU analysis of a “red flag” bill in Rhode Island concluded, “People who are not alleged to have committed a crime should not be subject to severe deprivations of liberty interests, and deprivations for lengthy periods of time, in the absence of a clear, compelling and immediate showing of need.”

Jim DeMint: Red flag laws to fight mass shootings? Fine for an ideal world, but we don't live in one.

Under the Iowa proposal, the name of a person whose firearms are taken away would immediately be placed in the federal government’s NICS background check database — potentially resulting in a lifetime ban on their rights. To get off that list and get firearms back, a victim of a “red flag” scheme would have to pay thousands of dollars in attorney fees and face a judge and a government prosecutor who has a low burden of proof.

A woman practices at a shooting range outside Fredericksburg, Virginia, in April 2013.
A woman practices at a shooting range outside Fredericksburg, Virginia, in April 2013.
Law enforcement officers across the country oppose these measures because they are concerned “red flags” will be abused and put officers and gun owners at risk. They fear that vengeful ex-spouses, a distant relative with a grudge, or even an angry co-worker could “red flag” someone with zero evidence. The result would be officers showing up unannounced at a person’s home and seizing their firearms. In Maryland, one of the first states to adopt a “red flag” law, an elderly man was shot in his home when an officer attempted to seize his firearms without any notice.

USA TODAY Editorial Board: How 'red flag' laws could have made a difference in mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton

Finally, this is totally unnecessary. Iowa already has laws in place that allow law enforcement officers to civilly commit a person for evaluation and treatment who may be experiencing a mental health crisis and poses a risk to themselves or others.

Iowans and Americans more generally don’t want an out of-state billionaire restricting our rights. We must stand together to fight the latest Bloomberg gun control scheme.

Jeanelle Westrom, the owner of Davenport Guns in Davenport, is the third generation of her family to be part of the gun industry. Westrom is the Iowa delegate for the DC Project, a nonprofit group of women gun owners who advocate for the Second Amendment. This column originally appeared in the Des Moines Register.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/red-flag-...100001382.html

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-sha...ation-numbers/

Florida enacted its red flag law in the spring of 2018 and they didn’t lose any time in putting it to use. And I mean a lot of use. But as this report from the Associated Press indicates, use of the law is not consistent from county to county and there are serious questions remaining as to how fairly it’s being applied.

SEE ALSO: Breaking: Dems lose assault-weapons ban vote in Virginia

The law, supported by legislators of both parties , has been applied more than 3,500 times since, with the pace accelerating during the last half of 2019. Even so, an Associated Press analysis of the law showed its use is inconsistent, with some counties and cities using it rarely and others not at all.

Advocates of Florida’s red flag measure say before it existed, it was often difficult to remove firearms from those making threats or suffering severe mental breakdowns. Investigators did not act on reports that the Parkland shooter was threatening to carry out a school massacre. But even if they had, it is likely he would have been allowed to keep his guns because he had no felony convictions or involuntary, long-term mental commitments, they say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikelets456

[url]use of the law is not consistent from county to county and there are serious questions remaining as to how fairly it’s being applied.

---

This is the point of most of the overbearing laws being passed by a legislature that responds to "DO SOMETHING"... The laws are unnecessary for the safety of the citizens, but it gives those in the 'Aristocracy' a way of penalizing the peons, getting retribution and revenge for anything that the peons do that is an affront to the overbearing 'Aristocracy'... This includes the governmental official and law enforcement who love flexing unAmerican power... It is purely a power grab to unconstitutionally take power from THE PEOPLE... But the Supreme Court no longer protects THE PEOPLE from unconstitutional governmental actions - In fact, it has often been complicit in taking that power...

...