As I See It
Wisconsin should adopt Red Flag Law
One of the common threads among those who commit school shootings in the United States is, in addition to an access to guns, is some sort of mental instability. Often, those who are intent on mass shootings are angry people, as evidenced on social media. Those close to them often noticed some change in their behavior. These should be red flags of what they are capable of, but too often we don’t discover that smoking gun until it is too late. That’s why Wisconsin should join about a dozen other states in adopting a so-called Red Flag Law. Wisconsin’s new Attorney General Josh Kaul is recommending Wisconsin adopt this law, which allows family members or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily disarm those who may be intent on injuring themselves or others. Thirteen states currently have such a law in place, and statistics suggest the law is working. Connecticut and Indiana have had a red flag law in place the longest, and both states have seen a decrease in firearm related suicides. The impact on the murder rate is less clear, but that too is under study. Such a law would allow the courts to temporarily to disarm those who are showing unstable behavior. This makes sense and could reduce the number of mass shootings. It makes sense that family members petition the courts, as they are most likely to be witness to the troubling behavior of their loved ones. We need to make our schools as safe as possible. A red flag law would be one more way to do that.
Jeff Blakeley
January 23, 2019 at 7:43 pm
1) Making yet another law is futile. If someone wants a gun, they’ll get one whether the law takes their or not. Half the guns used in crime come off the Black Market.
2) Taking away Constitution Rights without due process “just because they might commit a crime” is not within the scope of the Constitution. It’s bad enough we jump to conclusions and victims need to prove innocence in a crime. Now they have to do so because someone THINKS they will commit a crime?
3) If someone is acting irrational, have them evaluated and institutionalized if dangerous to self or others. They don’t have guns in mental hospitals. It doesn’t mean they won’t kill someone, but at least they won’t do it with a gun and everyone will feel better.
Jim
January 28, 2019 at 10:01 pm
This is a typical virtue signaling argument; do something because it “could reduce the number of mass shootings.” And if they don’t, what next? Furthermore, the concept of temporarily disarming those who show unstable behavior is a misnomer because the aggrieved will have to hire a lawyer and petition the court for the restoration of his gun rights and well as the gun’s return. The majority of American’s will not be able to afford to do that, and you know that. Also, no red flag laws currently on the books limit reporting to family members only. That is problematic because an unknown stranger could report gun owner X simply because he doesn’t like the fact X wears a red cap or attends church or goes hunting. Let’s face it: the only reason these have become the ‘in thing” is because after Parkland it was revealed that the FBI was sloppy and the local police were lazy. Red flag laws and their vagueness are indicative of more laziness because they are all about “could” and “maybe.” As Nancy P said, “We’ll have to pass the law to see what’s in it” (and how many ways it can be applied beyond public perception).