Red-Flag Gun Laws: Are They a Divided Nation’s Bipartisan Hope?
⏱ 9 min read
“Imagine you’re a parent and you can’t even identify your child.”
This is what Texas congressman Tony Gonzalez said of the DNA tests parents were asked to submit following yesterday’s mass shooting at Robb Elementary School. Nineteen children and two teachers died. Some children were shot up beyond recognition.
Emotions, to me, are useless without action. I’ll spare you mine and jump straight to it.
Last night, a friend sent me an article by columnist David French called “Pass and Enforce Reg Flag Laws. Now.” He writes:
“The idea is simple—if a person exhibits behavior indicating that they might be a threat to themselves or others (such as suicidal ideation or violent fantasies), a member of his family, a school official, or a police officer can go to court to secure an order that permits police to seize his weapons and prohibit him from purchasing any additional weapons so long as the order lasts.”
In a New York Times article called “What Are Red Flag Gun Laws, And How to Do They Work?” journalist Timothy Williams writes:
“[Red flag laws] are intended to restrict potentially dangerous people rather than dangerous weapons. That approach is seen as more likely to attract bipartisan support than many other gun control proposals.”
David French is an Iraq War veteran and a Christian conservative. Timothy Williams, who died earlier this year, was a liberal-leaning Black journalist for The New York Times. Both men advocated for the effectiveness of red-flag laws because, despite their different backgrounds, both men have a shared goal: to reduce gun violence so that fewer parents will ever have to identify their children’s bodies, through DNA means or otherwise.
Nineteen states have red-flag laws already. So far, these laws do seem like a uniquely bipartisan way to address the correlations and conflicts we face in the U.S. over an issue fraught with division, including…
gun violence and mental health
public safety and Second Amendment rights
overdue reform and due process
No reform will be perfect because people will never be perfect. In a country deeply divided over gun ownership, it seems reasonable to strive for win-win policies wherever possible. Red-flag laws show potential to accommodate this.
Many Americans remain firm supporters of the Second Amendment. Why should those who own guns responsibly for hunting, self-defense, or recreational use have to pay for the crimes of mass murderers?
Many other Americans argue that too many people use guns irresponsibly—evilly—to justify the continued legality of firearms. Why should more innocents die just so some people can have their freedom and fun?
Most Americans—90%—agree that background checks should be a bare minimum requirement for gun ownership. Yet data shows that background checks fail to prevent mass murders. As French points out, “Mass shooters are frequently law-abiding, right up until the moment when they commit mass murder. Mass shootings are often meticulously planned, which means that they can circumvent common gun control laws.”
This is why red-flag laws, though far from perfect, may be one of our best chances at reducing gun violence in the U.S. Responsible gun owners needn’t have their rights taken away; and those who display signs of irresponsibility, or dangerous intent, are prevented from legal gun ownership.
French points out that every shooter in the top five deadliest school shootings of the past 20 years, “exhibited behavior before shooting that could have triggered a well-drafted red flag law,” from diagnosed mental illness to outright threats of violence.
Image from Safe Arizona Schools: An Action Plan to Enhance the Safety of Arizona Schools and Communities
What are the arguments against red-flag laws?
Conservative-leaning opponents say that red-flag laws violate the Second Amendment, making gun ownership a privilege and not a right. Some point out that existing gun policies have inconclusive evidence to support their effectiveness, so why make more? Red-flag laws without due process could also be abused—what constitutes “significant danger” to justify the court infringing on a person’s civil liberties? The existing language surrounding red-flag laws can be overly vague and rightfully raises concern for misuse.
NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said that any extreme risk protection orders, such as red-flag laws, “at a minimum must include strong due process protections, require treatment and include penalties against those who make frivolous claims.”
I find it hard to disagree.
Progressive-leaning opponents of red-flag laws express concern that such laws aren’t strict enough. Objecting to slogans like, “People kill people, not guns,” they point out that if guns are the common denominator in most deadly mass shootings, then isn’t it guns that need to be outlawed—at least semiautomatics and guns with high-capacity magazines?
This logic is also sound. Those pushing for stricter gun reform argue that existing red-flag laws don’t work. Yet other evidence suggests they do. The discrepancy seems largely due to the fact that most citizens don’t know red-flag laws even exist.
That is why I’m writing this piece. I didn’t know until last night that red-flag laws existed, and I live in California which has had red-flag laws in place for six years.
Red-flag laws vary from state to state and again, they are far from perfect. But as more people become aware of them and they are implemented effectively, I think red-flag laws show promising compromise in a long-standing debate that continues to cost too many lives.
Many view gun violence, and therefore gun ownership, as a topic there should be no compromise on. I disagree. I think we must find ways to compromise and concede if we are to mitigate mass shootings, gun-assisted suicides, and accidental firearm killings. Yes, mitigate—not prevent. We have no reason to believe we will ever be free of guns, mental illness, or murder. This is America, after all.
Every time a mass shooting happens, gun sales go up in anticipation of their possible illegality. If we shift the discussion away from whether guns should be restricted to the discussion of people who should be restricted, we may have a stronger likelihood of accomplishing our collective American goals: the right of non-threatening citizens to bear arms and the right of the public—of children—to live in greater safety. We must look for ways to accommodate the truth that our country is one with a deep love of guns and seek to ensure they won’t be used irresponsibly. Red-flag laws may be a worthwhile experiment to try and accomplish this.
What do you think—are red-flag laws an experiment worth trying? Why or why not?