Red flag laws are a popular enough measure with anti-gunners, but even some people who don't generally support gun control think they're a great idea. In theory, sure. You take guns away from dangerous people before they can do anything bad, even to themselves, and everyone is safer as a result.
However, there are significant problems with such laws, including Second Amendment and due process concerns. Yet one big issue is how they continue to sell these laws after they've been passed.
For example, there are always going to be questions about whether the laws work or not. To answer these questions, we get articles like this one out of Michigan"
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and supporters said the law could help prevent mass shootings or domestic violence. It took effect on Feb. 13, 2024, the one-year anniversary of a shooting that killed three students and wounded five more at Michigan State University, and was part of a broader gun safety package passed by the Democratic-controlled Legislature.
There were 391 complaints filed in 2024, the State Court Administrative Office said, resulting in 287 no-gun orders. Orders were denied in 84 cases. In 14, complaints were dismissed or orders were rescinded after a hearing, according to the report.
Someone barred from having guns can ask a judge to reconsider during the one-year period.
At least 31 people covered by a no-gun order were subsequently charged with crimes, though the charges weren’t related to complying with the order, the report said.
I could talk about how fewer than 400 people getting red-flagged accounts for virtually no one compared to the number of gun owners in the state, which number in the millions, but I won't. It doesn't matter.
See, the problem here is that these no-gun orders simply existing are all the justification proponents of the law need. They hold this up as evidence the law is working. The fact that people are being disarmed is ample reason in their minds to keep using it to disarm people.
Recommended
How many of those were legitimate threats?
Yes, 31 people were charged with some kind of crime, but what kind? There's a big difference between planning a mass shooting and tax evasion, after all. How many of them just got drunk and drove one time too many?
We have no idea.
It's entirely possible, though unlikely, that none of those arrested were a threat to anyone. The fact that they got arrested after being red-flagged suggests that if they were, in fact, dangerous then disarming them didn't seem to do much to keep them from continuing to be a threat.
But more than 260 other people got hit with these orders and then did nothing wrong afterward. Were they threats? It doesn't seem likely.
Red flag laws often mean that people who don't know anything about human psychology can petition the court to disarm someone because they're worried they might hurt themselves or others. The court then issues the order without ever having spoken to the person being stripped of their right to keep and bear arms.
And yet, articles like this are used to justify these orders all the time.
Never mind that some parts of the state saw an increase in homicides as most of the rest of the country saw a reduction. Nope, they took people's guns and that's good enough for them.
Kind of telling, really.
