Talk:Red flag law/Archive 1

Archive 1

NRA now supports

NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox: “We need to stop dangerous people before they act, so Congress should provide funding for states to adopt risk protection orders. This can help prevent violent behavior before it turns into a tragedy. These laws allow a court to intervene and temporarily remove firearms when a person threatens violence to themselves or others.”[http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/12/nra-joins-white-house-support-firearm-confiscation-orders/] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Updates to state laws

Since the article was last updated, two states have added "red flag" laws -- Vermont and Maryland. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 18:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated too.Terrorist96 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Also Delaware, Rhode Island, and Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killuminator (talk • contribs) 12:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Requested move 22 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Mahveotm (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Extreme Risk Protection Order → Red flag law – I propose renaming this article from "Extreme Risk Protection Order" to "Red flag law". "Red flag law" is the commonly recognizable name for this type of law. Under such laws, which have been adopted by some U.S. states, judges may, under certain circumstances, temporarily confiscate a person's firearms. The judicial order used for this has different names in different states, as explained in the article -- "extreme risk protection order", "risk protection order", "gun violence restraining order", and so on. But the term that our readers are most likely to search for is "red flag law", especially now that such laws are more in the news and are being passed by more states. (Note that "Red flag law" is currently a redirect to "Red flag traffic laws".) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging some editors who have worked on this article. Apologies to anyone I might have missed. @Anna Frodesiak, Beefyt, Reinyday, GHcool, Neutrality, Hodgdon's secret garden, Terrorist96, Shaded0, and Killuminator: — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment As creator, I own this article, and this talk page, and all of the mainspace. I also own the Wikipedia® name, the servers, and Jimbo's house and car. As for the article title, I prefer the article title that everyone else prefers. I am fine with anything. Oh, and I own the known universe. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for pinging me. I don't have strong feelings about this, and I am not an expert on the subject, but the term I've read/heard most in the media is "ERPO." --GHcool (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support This move makes sense to me. Red flag law seems much less unwieldy. In my context I have heard red flag law much more than ERPO. But I'm not strongly biased towards one term or the other. Shaded0 (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• I dont have a strong preference either way, but it seems like ERPO is the official name and RFL is the common name.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support First, "red flag law" is better title for this subject. The media in the US uses this term frequently. The acronyms like ERPO and GVRO are not consistent. Second, the Red flag traffic laws article, which is about "waving a red flag in front of the vehicle as a warning", should be deleted since most of this material is either repeated from the Locomotive Acts article or not particularly notable by itself. beefyt (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenge to recently added content

I am challenging this recently added content here. I think this is undue weight in the context of the article, for two reasons. First, we already cite 3 gun-rights activists' articles here. Do we really need 5 articles? Second, the newly added stuff about the presumption of innocence and Confrontation Clause is inapt because the Confrontation Clause only applies in favor of a criminal defendant. We already mention the due-process issues and the opposition to ex parte hearings, and that should be sufficient. Neutrality^talk 14:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand how you can argue that you can remove those initially because they didn't conform to the sources, but then when sources are added, say that it's undue and remove it again. It's not undue when we are literally talking about the subject. If it's undue, it should not be mentioned at all versus only mentioning a neutered version of it. We have a section for support and opposition and if anything, that section needs expansion instead of attempting to shorten a single sentence that mentions the opposition. What do others think? Pinging recent contributors @Abatementyogin: @Mudwater: @Natureium: @Jshockley3: @KH-1: Terrorist96 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Supporters and opponents each get a sentence or two, which is adequate. I don't think the current language ("Opponents of red flag laws argue that such legislation infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to due process of law, and object to ex parte hearings.") is "neutered" at all; it seems to sufficiently capture the thrust of opposition. We don't need to capture every claim or argument made. Neutrality^talk 21:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of civil proceedings that are quasi-criminal in nature. E.g. when a court declares someone a habitual drunkard and takes away his drinking rights, that's a quasi-criminal proceeding (at least according to the 4th Circuit). Civil harassment and resulting protection orders have also been called quasi-criminal in nature. This is basically the same kind of situation; saying, "This guy is a danger and needs to have his rights taken away from him." It's incapacitation, like what courts often do in sentencing criminal defendants. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There also seems to be another meaning of "red flag law" to refer to literal red flags

See, e.g., Stromberg v. California or https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/freedom-of-expression-speech-and-press

The Court did not invariably affirm convictions during this period in cases like those under consideration. In Fiske v. Kansas, it held that a criminal syndicalism law had been invalidly applied to convict one against whom the only evidence was the “class struggle” language of the constitution of the organization to which he belonged. A conviction for violating a “red flag” law was voided because the statute was found unconstitutionally vague. Neither case mentioned clear and present danger.

Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Has nobody raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to red flag laws?

They are, after all, coming into people's houses to rifle through their stuff and try to find guns, and presumably any other contraband they find (e.g. drugs), they're going to be seizing as well and potentially using as the basis for prosecution.

The Fourth Amendment is pretty vague, talking about "unreasonable" searches and seizures, so I'd think there'd be a lot of room for litigation.

I see that Iowa state senator Jake Chapman, who has introduced 4th Amendment legislation in the past, has also weighed in on this issue. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Why is it better to say "gun violence prevention" rather than "gun control"

That would be like calling the Controlled Substances Act a "drug abuse prevention" law. It's more neutral to call it a law establishing federal U.S. drug policy, because it's questionable whether drug prohibition actually prevents drug abuse; some would say, it makes it worse, because it encourages people to use harder drugs like opiates instead of softer drugs like cannabis. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there are 5,980,000 results in Google for red flag law "gun control" and 101,000 results for red flag law "gun violence prevention".Terrorist96 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, or +"red flag laws" +"gun control" yields 254,000 results, and +"red flag laws" +"gun violence" yields 225,000 results. We can do +"red flag law" +"gun control" and get 104,000 results, or +"red flag law" +"gun violence" and get 79,900 results.

At one time, I would've trusted Google more as a rough guide to popularity, but these days they've gained a reputation for being manipulative. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The term "gun control" is more neutral and therefore preferable. The term is widely used by the mainstream media and others. The term "gun violence prevention" is used by advocates of stricter gun control laws, and is therefore less neutral. Personally I'm convinced that red flag laws generally do work to prevent some gun violence, and are constitutional too, but that's beside the point here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Neutrality: I did some research on Gary Willis

I see a few news stories about him in connection to red flag laws, e.g.:

• "Maryland's Red Flag Law Seeks To Balance Safety With Due Process". WAMU. When an attempt to carry out a gun removal in Anne Arundel County left a Maryland man dead, opponents of the state's red flag law were incensed. "Whatever you may think of red flag laws, they should not be death sentences. And they were in the case of Gary Willis," said Mark Pennak, an attorney and president of the gun rights organization Maryland Shall Issue.
• Stanglin, Doug (1 May 2019). "Should guns be seized from those who pose threats? More states saying yes to red flag laws". USA Today. In Maryland, where the law went into effect in October, an early test case went horribly wrong.

Then there's Congressman Allen West's piece,

• West, Allen (12 August 2019). "Allen West: Real 'Red Flag' in America Is Red Flag of Progressive Socialism". To my knowledge, an otherwise innocent man, Gary Willis, lost his life, his first inalienable right, and for seemingly no reason. Sadly, we did not hear about Gary Willis on the mainstream media, and to this day it has not been explained why he lost his life. I can tell you why he did – incompetent politicians rushing to implement their ideological agenda violated our individual rights.

Willis is also mentioned in pieces by Reason, FEE, LvMI, and AmRen, so we pretty much know where libertarians and white nationalists stand on this. Admittedly, secondary sources don't seem to care what these groups think about Gary Willis.

One might argue, "Willis is just one guy," but a lot of times the success or failure of a legislative proposal hinges on one person's death, like when bills are named after dead children. Or, political sentiments will shift based on one person's death, as in the case of Heather Heyer; the Charlottesville car attack was a large part of what made people think the Alt-Right was really dangerous.

More generally: Oosting, Jonathan (7 March 2018). "Snyder eyes 'red flag' gun safety law". Detroit News. "I believe, and many police I've talked to believe, that (a red flag law) would lead to barricaded gunmen," Jones said. "You know, 'We're knocking on your door and we're here to take your guns away.' It doesn't sound like a good plan."

It seems notable that some people don't want to create a potentially confrontational situation where police are having to seize guns solely on the basis of a magistrate's judgment that the person is a danger to himself or others. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to cite more op-eds from right-wing media outlets. We already give a sentence about the Anne Arundel County incident, which is the appropriate weight. Neutrality^talk 14:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

FEE content

I've removed this newly added content, for a few reasons, most relating to undue weight. First, the article already explains, in a encyclopedic way, the position of opponents. Second, the content cited is basically a blogpost by an obscure commentator for a advocacy group (the "Foundation for Economic Education"). Third, the text and the source talk about the "enumerated powers of Congress," yet the author is not a lawyer, legal scholar, historian, or expert of any kind. This is not the kind of sourcing we need to be using. Neutrality^talk 22:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In all likelihood, it's just going to be another commerce clause case like United States v. Lopez where it'll come down to whether the law is limited to firearms transported interstate.

How would you really know if a writer claiming no official credentials is an expert, though; they could've been studying constitutional law on their own time but just never got a degree. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

A FEE blogpost is totally insufficient to make any legal claim, and an amateur interested in the law is exactly the kind of person that we cannot cite for Commerce Clause analysis. If there is an article in a law journal examining the topic, then that's a total different story. Neutrality^talk 13:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, searches for +"red flag law" +"gun control" +"commerce clause" aren't bringing much of relevance up. I found one piece, 102 Marq. L. Rev. 309 (2018-2019) The Next Big Gun Case: The Resurrection of the Second Amendment at the New Roberts Court, which briefly mentions red flag laws, but mostly is just pointing out that since District of Columbia v. Heller, the SCOTUS has tended to deny cert on 2nd Amendment cases. There was that one case, Voisine v. United States, where Thomas asked a question about people losing their gun rights due to misdemeanor convictions (in Heller, the court had said, "The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"; basically, under Addington v. Texas, the government can take away whatever liberties it wants from someone once it's been proven by clear and convincing evidence that this is required for safety reasons.)

The closest parallel to a court case challenging a federal red flag law such as the proposed Extreme Risk Protection Order Act would probably be United States v. Emerson, in which the 5th Circuit found, "we conclude that the nexus between firearm possession by the party so enjoined and the threat of lawless violence, is sufficient, though likely barely so, to support the deprivation, while the order remains in effect, of the enjoined party's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms". Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Two different editors have deemed that comment worthy to add (here and here) to the article and only you've removed it (not once but twice now). I don't see consensus for removal.Terrorist96 (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I've explained my reasons for doing so, and as you know, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." Neutrality^talk 13:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

As of right now, it's disputed by no one except you. Why not add it back and see if anyone else disputes it?Terrorist96 (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how consensus operates. I've laid out a specific policy-based objection, and I've heard no compelling reason why this encyclopedia article somehow must include this material. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Under precedents like Gonzales v. Raich, Congress can regulate pretty much whatever it wants as long as it claims, "This matter affects interstate commerce." The objection, "But Congress was supposed to be limited to its enumerated powers" is more of a philosophical than legal objection at this point. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidents

• https://www.npr.org/2019/08/22/753062116/in-vermont-a-case-of-one-man-whose-gun-was-seized-under-red-flag-law - Sean Laskevich
• https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/31/report-fbi-seized-guns-from-ex-marine-who-allegedly-vowed-to-slaughter-antifa/23804669/ - Shane Kohfield
• https://www.nj.com/news/2019/11/nj-man-glorified-extreme-violence-against-jews-cops-say-so-they-seized-his-gun.html - David Greco

Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Another kind of red flag law

The requirement that a crew member precede the car with a red flag gave these restrictive enactments their popular name: red flag law. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Research

Anti-red flag law: https://www.claremoreprogress.com/opinion/sen-dahm-announces-legislation-to-preempt-red-flag-laws/article_ffc994e6-cf19-11e9-a5f3-6f054f935d79.html Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

First source needs to be fixed

Right now the link is pointing to the nyt's main page for the podcast, not the podcast episode in question, which makes it so much harder to verify--2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:24A9:3612:A2ED:67D6 (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed, with this edit. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Red Flag Laws and firearms returns

Why doesn't any of the authors or judges post material on the confiscation time periods of enforcing these laws. How long does the average citizen loose his/her firearm? What procedures are required to have the confiscating agency return the lawfully owned firearm? Omission of this vital piece of the act seems a tad bit biased. Surely, the omission is not politically motivated? 199.46.251.140 (talk)patnclaire —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly because that information varies state by state, and there may be a lack of reliable sources (WP:RS) that can be cited. While individual editors may have various biases in these matters, Wikipedia as a whole is not politically motivated. I would also like to see that information published, and as an editor would happily add it, if I had RS to support the info. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Updates to the Red Flag Law Map

Since Oklahoma has enacted an Anti- Red Flag law that bans Red Flag gun confiscation orders, it's worth updating the map with a new color shading for states with Anti-Red Flag laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.108.101 (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest adding abuse section

The reason some are against laws like this is due to the potential for abuse. so far only info supporting the law has been included in the article and none of the controversial outcomes. To make this page well rounded these other things need to be added somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.241.218.200 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What about the territories?

Do Puerto Rico or any of the other U.S. territories have such laws? -- sion8 ^{talk page} 08:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdchavez02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Maine

I think Maine has a red flag law but it’s different then in other states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.76.19 (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Added! beefyt (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)