If one was to describe the nature of the anti-gun movement, they would probably use the analogy of the frog in the boiling pot. Another way to look at it, though, is unwittingly inviting a vampire into your home. Do it once and he'll keep inviting himself back every night until you have no more blood left to drain. Red flag laws are like an open invitation for gun grabbing vampires to enter any firearm owner's home for almost any reason, slowly but surely confiscating weapons from every American they don't like.
It doesn't have to happen all at once. It could happen over the span of years, but eventually they'll get every gun that's not hidden away without anyone ever committing a crime and without any due process pursued. Donald Trump gave credence to these policies during his first term and it was one of the dumbest things he did in office. Under Kamala Harris, however, we can be guaranteed a federal effort to enforce Red Flags.
Red Flag laws are a backdoor to gun confiscation that undercuts the 2nd Amendment by using standards similar to involuntary civil commitment. Sometimes all it takes is a couple of random accusations that a person is dangerous and they receive a visit from authorities with a warrant to seize their firearms. In some states authorities can hold those guns for up to five years if courts deem it necessary, all without the person ever being convicted of a crime.
Just like civil commitment, there are a host of constitutional conflicts dealing primarily with the 14th Amendment. The political left is usually opposed to involuntary commitment for this very reason, yet, they are highly enthusiastic about Red Flag laws. Apparently, due process applies to some groups and not others.
A steady avalanche of lawsuits is now underway in multiple states to counter Red Flag measures and Democrats aren't too happy about the level of opposition. In an article co-produced by Rolling Stone and The Trace, anti-gunners argue that the lack of compromise on the part of conservatives is putting people's lives at risk. They attempt to support their position with a singular anecdote - An ongoing conflict between a 25-year Marine veteran named Don Willey diagnosed with a hoarding disorder and city officials in Cambridge, Maryland demanding he clean up his property.
Rolling Stone writes:
"The right-wing echo chamber expanded, until there was consensus. Red-flag statutes violated due-process rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. They also lacked a historical analogue, and, according to a controversial 2022 Supreme Court decision, were therefore incompatible with the Second Amendment.
These arguments would form the basis of Willey’s lawsuit, serving up the fresh outrage the gun-rights movement requires to sustain itself..."
The story drones on, adding little justification as to why Red Flag laws should be tolerated by the greater constitution loving public. But, it does give insight into how such laws might be applied if they are left unopposed.
Rolling Stone describes the battle between the veteran and city bureaucrat Susan Webb as if Willey is a bully terrorizing Webb and other officials with his presence. He's a Marine, a Christian, he's bigger than them, he apparently defends the display of confederate flags, he says mean things, he refuses to let them on his property and he owns guns. He's also a member of the Second Amendment Foundation and a legal campaign called Capture the Flag that is opposed to the trespasses of Red Flag laws.
In other words, Willey is a Democrat bureaucrat's worst nightmare. Rolling Stone continues with dismay:
"The federal judge in the case recently asked Maryland’s Supreme Court to provide him with a definitive interpretation of the state’s red-flag statute, placing the lawsuit on hold. But he indicated that the plaintiff’s narrative carried weight. The court, the judge wrote, “is no doubt sympathetic to the experience Willey endured as he described it.” These were victories in their own right, a degree of validation that also preserves the status quo for Willey, whose property remains unchanged..."
Here we get a look into the mind of the common Democrat/progressive. Note that they cling to the idea of the property and Willey's lack of compliance. They automatically attach his defiance of the city to the reason for gun confiscation, and this is a twisted mentality.
The debate over property rights and hoarding is beyond the scope of this discussion, but there's nothing within the law that allows for law enforcement to disarm a person simply because they have too much trash and they're not cooperative with the city government.
Red Flags allow such officials to find ways to punish people for non-compliance by removing their 2A rights based on subjective accusations of danger rather than proof of a crime. Maybe they find a relative, an ex girlfriend or a neighbor that doesn't like the target individual and they coax those people to write up a testimony. In the case of Willey, the city tried to use Veteran's Affairs documents citing a previous struggle with PTSD as a reason why he should be disarmed.
Once you have disarmament in play, now it's no longer a legal impasse between the city and the individual. Now they have instigated a confrontation which could end in bloodshed. Rolling Stone claims this concern has been inflated by pro-gun groups, but this is exactly how it works in most states with Red Flag laws.
In California, San Diego has been beta testing Red Flag confiscation for the past few years and they are avidly promoting the use of "task forces" to ensure guns are surrendered. There are no provisions within San Diego's Red Flag measures allowing for true due process.
In 2022, the California State Legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom approved an expansion of California's red flag law allowing eligible petitioners to include additional family members, roommates, individuals with a dating or co-parental relationship with a person who may pose a risk to themselves or others.
City officials in San Diego touted a decrease in overall gun homicide rates, but those stats conveniently end in 2020 when violent crime in CA began to spike again.
Maybe Rolling Stone is right and Don Willey is not a nice guy (they do attempt to dig up every last piece of dirt on the man's life while saying little about Susan Webb). Maybe his land is covered in junk. Maybe his yard is a fire hazard. All of this could be true and it would be irrelevant to his gun rights.
Democrats think very differently, though. The core of Rolling Stone's argument and The Trace's argument is that Willey could be perceived by them as dangerous, and that's enough to trample his rights. The problem is, leftists are terrified of everything and see danger under every rock and behind every tree (or junk pile). They are not qualified to be the arbiters of what constitutes a "dangerous person" and this is why they're being buried in lawsuits.
Once these arbitrary distinctions and accusations are allowed, anything goes. A combative post or politically incorrect comment on social media could one day become a justification for a Red Flag visit. "Guilty until proven innocent" is an unacceptable dynamic in America and should not be tolerated.
