Gun Controller Advocates' Projection

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax was touted as  a "Gun Safety Champion" and feted by Giffords.   Gun Safety Champion is gun control advocate speak for Gun Banner.

He was the decisive vote for Virginia's Red Flag Law, a law that was touted as reducing violence with firearms by confiscating them from those suspected of potentially being a danger to themselves or others with them - a with a lack of proper due process to boot.

In short, he was a major advocate for gun bans under the guise of gun control.

And he just shot and murdered his wife before killing himself.

Bearing Arms: Former Lt. Governor and Giffords 'Gun Safety Champion' Kills Wife, Self in Northern Virginia

If his murder of his wife wasn't such a stupid and unforgivable criminal waste, one might almost be amused at the irony of his actions. 

Gun banners once again projecting their own homicidal violence onto the law abiding rest of us.

One should note that all of the laws that  Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax passed, every single one of them, did nothing to stop him from murdering his wife and then offing himself.

The Ineffectiveness Of The Red Flag Law

As has been pointed out multiple times, one of the many problems with Red Flag laws, in addition to their lack of due process, is that they don't interdict someone known to be (or at least claimed to be) a dangerous threat to themselves or others from still being a threat.

And now you've made this dangerous person more angry by "red flagging" them, and yet leaving them free to roam and carry out their alleged violent actions.

It creates results like this one:

The Detroit News: Man with gun and axe killed after breaking into ex-girlfriend's Orion Township home

After being red flagged, the scumbag of the story goes off, gets a gun and an axe, and then breaks into his victims house looking to kill the occupants.

Luckily, there is a happy ending.

The happy ending, that of the violent scumbag attaining room temperature and being violent no more, is not due in the slightest to the red flag law he was tagged with.

Instead, it is due to the bravery of the step-son of the intended victim, who was in the house, obtained a firearm, and stopped the threat, unlike the red flag law. 

The red flag law not only did not prevent the deceased attacker from obtaining and axe and a gun -- after he had been red-flagged -- but it did not stop him in the slightest from breaking in to the victim's house and attempting to murder her and her adult son.

Even if the red flag law did take away the firearms he had prior to being red flagged, it sure didn't stop the jerk in the slightest from getting another one, and an axe!, and then going on his murder attempt. Indeed, it probably just made him mad - and left him free to plan and go on his attack.

Red Flag laws are not the panacea they're claimed to be, and by not actually interdicting the alleged threat and leaving them free to roam and commit their violent acts, seems to be as predicted, merely feel-good gun control legislation that forgets that it is the violent person, and not the tools they might use, that are the problem. 

The further problem is this feel-good gun control legislation will also be used to trample the rights of the non-violent when used as a tool by someone with an axe to grind against them.  But when that happens, it still leaves them, and the actual violent people the law was meant to stop, free to go get an axe.

Michigan Red Flag Laws And Democrat Double Standards

So the badly flawed Michigan Red Flag Law has been signed into law, and those who have signed it have yet to point out a single incident in the past that would have actually been prevented by its existence.

Quite a few Michigan County Sheriffs have expressed reservations with the lack of due process in the law and stated they will not enforce it.

This has further revealed that for Michigan Democrats,  when it comes to standards, that if they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

Both Governor Whitmer and Attorney General Nessel are absolutely aghast and dismayed at the thought that the law might not be enforced by law enforcement or county prosecutors:

For those who are in law enforcement who refuse to enforce these important orders, let me say this loudly and clearly: I will make certain that I will find someone with jurisdiction who will enforce these orders," Attorney General Dana Nessel said.

Note this is the same AG Nessel who, less than a year ago, when enforcement of a law was on the subject of abortion, took the following stance:

Nessel says she won’t enforce the ban in Michigan, along with at least a dozen law enforcement officials across the country – a bold statement that sets the US up for a complex legal landscape with different enforcement regimes in different states, and even within them.

Governor Whitmer had this to say on the potential that a prosecutor or sheriff may not enforce the Red Flag law:

When it does take effect, Whitmer told reporters, law enforcement will be expected to enforce a judge's order.

"Every prosecutor has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Michigan, and that's the expectation," said Whitmer, who did a stint as Ingham County's prosecutor before running for governor in 2018.

Verily, note well that this is the same Governor Whitmer who having taken an oath to uphold the laws of this state, that when the question came up on enforcing an abortion ban law in this state immediately sued the state to prevent that enforcement and ensure the law was not upheld. Again this was less than a year ago and they've both now flipped their principles as to the enforcement of laws 180 degrees.

Wonderful consistency there on their part, isn't it? Then again it is about power and politics, not principled enforcement of laws.

So Let's Talk About Michigan Dem's Horrendous Yet Likely To Be Pushed Through Red Flag Law

If you search for the proposed Red Flag Law on Michigan's Legislature site, you won't find it.

That's because its cutely known as the "Extreme Risk Protection Order Act".

Here's the proposed law for your reading enjoyment.  It's tied to a lot of other bills that themselves change other areas of Michigan law to harmonize them with the ERPO.

In short it is bad.  How bad?  Read on.

We're gonna call the person who is the subject of the ERPO the Subject for the sake of brevity. The law provides that a whole lot of people can apply for an order to take a Subject's firearms if they allege the Subject may be a harm to the Subject or others.

This includes: 

(i) A parent.

(ii) A son or daughter.

(iii) A sibling.

(iv) A grandparent.

(v) A grandchild.

(vi) An uncle or aunt.

(vii) A first cousin.

(viii) A police officer/Sheriff/Corrections officer/Federal LEO

(ix) A Mental health professional 

Oh, and for absolutely no chance of false claims being made it also includes:

(a) The spouse of the defendant.

(b) A former spouse of the defendant.

(c) An individual who has a child in common with the defendant.

(d) An individual who has or has had a dating relationship with the defendant.

(e) An individual who resides or has resided in the same household with the defendant.

In short, your former roomate, your ex-roomate. or your ex, no matter how long ago it was that they became your ex doesn't like you, they can mess up your life by filling for one of the ERPOs.  If you had a dating relationship 20 years ago and haven;t seen them since, this law qualifies that person to file such a petition.

The order is issued under the very low civil evidentiary standard of a preponderance of the evidence, not the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt as is the case in a criminal prosecution.

Amazingly, one of the elements a court can  use to consider in deciding to enter the ERPO is if the Subject has purchased a firearm or ammunition within 180 days before the filing.  Since the ERPO is about removing firearms that's a tad tautological and it's ridiculous that simply buying a firearm can be considered a factor in whether the Subject has to surrender their firearms.  Michigan anti-gunners rejoice.

Even better, the order can and indeed will be issued without notice to the Subject of the order.

The Subject gets all of 24 hours after being served with the order to surrender all their firearms. No chance to contest it at this stage.

Within 10 days of being served with the ERPO the court would hold a compliance hearing where the Subject of the ERPO has to affirm they have surrendered any firearms they own. This again isn't an opportunity to contest the ERPO.

To contest it, the Subject, on their own, and they better hire an attorney at their own expense, gets to file a motion that the order should be rescinded. The burden of proof is on the Subject, not the state nor the person making the accusation that led to the ERPO.  The Subject of the order has to prove, again by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not a threat.

Nicely reversing the standard that the prosecution must prove the subject is a  threat and instead it is on the subject to prove they are not. Kafka would be proud.

As Yoda might say: Turning American jurisprudence on its head this law does, hmmm.

Why would the Subject need an attorney?  

Because under this law you get One, yes just ONE chance at overturning the ERPO (you also get 1 additional shot at overturning it if/when the ERPO is extended). 

If you lose the first one, all subsequent motions the Subject may file the court can summarily dismiss without a hearing. So you better do a perfect job the first time, and likely means you better come to court with an attorney and already have paid for and been evaluated and cleared by a mental health professional.

Again, the burden is on the Subject, not the state.

That's pretty damn nuts right there. Actual due process went right out the window. Oh, and there's no provision for anyone to pay the Subject's attorney's fees if they win and the order is found to be without basis. The process damn well can be the punishment here.

Oh, and even better, the ERPO doesn't have to be filed in the County where the Subject resides. It can be filed where the person making the allegation resides, so the Subject may potentially have to travel across the state to contest it.

Violation of an ERPO by not divesting of all firearms by a Subject starts off as contempt of court and on a further or ongoing violation turns into a 5-year felony.

Oh, and what if you live with a Subject who gets one of these ERPO's? Well, under the law, you would be ordered under penalty of contempt of court to make sure the Subject cannot gain access to any of your firearms.

There is at least a penalty for filing a false ERPO, but it has a higher standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence.  Instead it has to be shown that the petitioner "knowingly and intentionally" filed a false petition.  I don't expect a lot of prosecutions under that standard. Even if that is shown, it is a criminal conviction and the Subject does not personally get recompensed for the ordeal. Plus the first time they make a false filling, it's only a misdemeanor and a $500 fine - which is rather light for falsely putting someone through this process - an may be worth it to people with a grudge. Only if you keep filling false petitions does it become a felony.

I will note that if there really was an extreme risk there are already multiple ways the person can be interdicted with due process - involuntary mental health holds; Personal Protection Orders; or even - dare I suggest - prosecution for actual crimes the person may be doing.   This law instead kicks it up to 11 and dumps due process by the roadside, while leaving multiple opportunities for mischief.

Again, an ERPO law would not have stopped the MSU killings. No one tried to stop the killer in question from having firearms even as they knew he had paranoid schizophrenia.  He was never involuntarily committed., never charged for discharging a firearm inside cituy limits, and there's no record of anyone actually seeking to have him dealt with and being unable to do so. Now, had the Ingham County prosecutor not dropped the felony charge against him that may have done it. but she likely did not do so for woke reasons, so here we area.

This law flips the burden of proof on its head, creates a huge list of people who can file it who may have their own axes to grind in the matter, and really messes with the concept of due process.

This is a bad law, and it's going to go through.

So How Many Laws Failed In The Highland Park Killings?

The City of Highland Park where the shooting took place bans "Assault Weapons" within the city.

To everyone's (assuming everyone is a progressive who claims gun control laws work) obvious surprise, it didn't work.

Even with the longstanding ban, an "Assault Weapon" (type still unknown) was clearly within the City of Highland Park and used for this attack as the killer just up and ignored the law.   

Clearly an impossibility as the City of Highland Park banned such, right?

The State of Illinois also has a much touted "red flag" law that, given the impressive history of violence and threats from the alleged killer, should have prevented him from having firearms.

To everyone's obvious surprise, it didn't work.  

The killer after threatening to kill people in 2019 had over 16 knives and swords taken from him and then was left free to go forth and purchase a firearm and do some killing.

This is the flaw with red flag laws that conservatives have pointed out time and time again: 

You take away present weapons but leave someone who you clearly believe is a deadly threat free to roam around, acquire other weapons, and commit deadly acts without any follow-up.  

Sounds like a great idea. 

Yet again this is another killer "known to police". 

The killer even released a video in 2021 showing him gunning down people in a parade.  Law enforcement and everyone else did nothing.

Good going there proponents of red flag laws, the laws "worked" exactly as you designed them to do, which is not well at all.

We can also note the 2019 incident led to him getting mental health treatment that likely should have disqualified him from buying firearms as he was a clear danger to himself and others, yet clearly the system let him slip by yet again.

With all this history he was still issued an Illinois Firearms Owners Identity Card and able to buy firearms with no hindrance. 

He then violated Illinois firearm transport laws to carry out his crime. 

He then, of course,  went on to repeatedly violate Illinois' laws against murder and attempted murder.

Big Surprise.

But never fear,  the prosecutor is now promising to charge him with “dozens more charges centering around each of the victims.”  

That's going to be super-effective and should really teach him not to kill people in the future, now won't it?

Indianapolis Shooting A Demonstration of Red Flag Laws' Innate Flaw and Failure

The Indianapolis killer as far as we know to date was not driven by any white supremacy beliefs (much to the sadness of the progressives), but instead was apparently well known to be CCFCP*

Indeed, he was even "known to the FBI" which as Cindy at From the Caer has rightly commented, is about the most useless titles for a potential mass-killer. Apparently, "known to the FBI" means the FBI makes sure it will stay well out of your way until you commit a mass killing and then say "yep, we knew him".

Verily, this fellow and the action taken by police in response to his being CCFCP* and proclaiming he wanted to commit suicide by cop was indeed the very example of the glaring failure and obvious inherent flaw of Red Flag laws:

The Detroit News: Prosecutor: FedEx shooter didn’t have ‘red flag’ hearing

Authorities believed they had done what they needed to by seizing the pump-action shotgun from Brandon Scott Hole in March 2020, Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears said.

“Absolutely there needs to be some intervention and absolutely the firearm needs to be taken away. … But the risk is if we move forward with that (red flag) process and lose, we have to give that firearm back to that person,” Mears said. “That’s not something we were willing to do.”

The shotgun was never returned to Hole, police have said.

Read that one again.  He was reported to be likely to kill others and himself, the police responded by taking a firearm away and then not even holding a "Red Flag hearing" because they might have lost and had to return it.

So they did what everyone who has concerns about red flag laws has pointed out as to what can occur: They left him free to go out and purchase another firearm and commit murder, and he did.

But hey, at least they thought they did what they needed to do.

Yep, take the firearm away from the madman and leave the madman free and unsupervised to go forth and  commit mayhem - including going out and buying another gun, explosive, gasoline, what have you. 

A rather glaring and fundamental flaw in the whole process.

Now, had they taken him in under a psych hold it would have gone differently. If he was then involuntarily committed as a threat to himself or others - which sounds pretty darn likely - then after a hearing (with all that due process stuff the anti-gunners don't like, which is why they circumvent it to go with a red flag law), he would have been designated in  NICS and been unable to legally purchase a firearm. Even more importantly, he would have received treatment for his underlying psychosis of being CCFCP.* These involuntary commitment laws predate red flags and are a lot more effective.  But the police and other officials need to actually decide to use them.

But, that was too much work apparently, and the police apparently figured that just partially red flagging him instead of having him get treatment for his underlying mental instability would suffice.

It obviously did not.

Red Flag Laws don't prevent an act of mass murder, they just delay it a bit.

* CCFCP for those who don't know means Coo Coo For Cocoa Puffs.  Since we don't know the wackjob's actual diagnosis, that will have to suffice.

Red Flag Follies

A lot of people are concerned about Red Flag Laws being misapplied.

There's certainly a great deal of reason to be justifiably concerned given how such laws have been used so far.

Red Flag laws are yet another "Do Something" response to incidents like the Parkland School Shooting and the comforting idea that "just one more law" will solve the problem and prevent violence.

The problem is, it won't.

As at Parkland, plenty of laws existed that would have stopped the miscreant from carrying out his action. The problem was they the multitude of existing laws weren't enforced and all the multitude of warning signs were ignored.

One more law, on the books but unenforced, isn't going to help.

The problem with Red Flag Laws is not just that they're a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem, but also in how they're being enforced, oft times with dubious process, against those who don't pose a threat to make it appear that the powers that be are "doing something".

For example: The Addison County Independent: UPDATED: Police, school officials avert Middlebury middle school shooting

How did they avert it, exactly?

They used an "Extreme risk protection order", Vermont's "Red Flag Law", not to disarm or indeed even criminally charge the known wrongdoers who were planning to shoot up a school, but instead to confiscate firearms from an innocent third party from whom the wrongdoers allegedly planned to steal the firearms to be used in the shooting.

So far the wrongdoers themselves have yet so far as we know to be charged with a crime nor locked up. So they're free to find another source of weapons to steal, assuming they actually meant to carry out their threat.

So this touted use of an extreme risk protection order was used, to much fanfare, not against the actual wrongdoers, but an innocent third party to confiscate his/her property for an indefinite period of time. That is certainly a problematic application of the law.

If you were worried about the misuse and problematic enforcement of Red Flag Laws, you were certainly justified to be concerned.