I had the pleasure of attending a meeting addressed by an opponent of so-called “red flag” laws last week. These are the laws — now on the books in 17 states and looming in a number of others — by which anyone can secretly accuse someone else of being a dangerous gun-owner which, if treated by a judge or magistrate in the way the average search warrant seems to be these days, will lead to a raid on the target’s home and the seizure of his or her guns.
The idea is that imminent mass shooters can be detected beforehand by things they have said (on social media or wherever) and can and should be pre-emptively thwarted in their imagined nefarious plan (or their expected mental crack-up) by being disarmed beforehand.
Plainly, these “red flag” laws are a big camel’s nose under the tent flap of widespread gun-seizure and prohibition. The reasoning used to justify seizures under these laws requires just the slightest extension to get to the proposition that some dangerous people won’t reveal themselves in writings or speech and so everyone should be disarmed (except soldiers of the state, of course).
Give people a few years to grow accustomed to the “red flag” version and they’ll have g ...
