- Feb 5, 2002
- United States
- Marital Status
article said:Proposed red flag laws in Michigan would allow family members of the person they deem a danger to themselves or others to call the police, and law enforcement would have the authority to temporarily take away that person’s gun for three days while they wait for a hearing, said Michigan Democratic Senator Rosemary Bayer. Following the hearing, a judge would have the power to order temporary removal of the gun for up to a year.
Gun control a priority for Michigan Democrats. What studies say about reforms. | Bridge MichiganDemocrats want to pass red flag, safe storage and universal background check laws when they take charge in January. Most research say the measures can reduce gun deaths, but much is inconclusive.www.bridgemi.com
Gee, I can't see any scenario where this procedure would be abused.....say, like, in the case of a vindictive, angry, soon-to-be ex-spouse who wants revenge against hubby for whatever reason. All she'd have to do is call the cops and say, "I feel threatened; he said he'd use his gun on me," and *wham*! the guy loses his 2nd Amendment rights, even though he hasn't done anything, nor planned to.
The problem with these "red flag" laws is, they punish somebody not for what they have done, but for what they might do, or what they could do. That's a slippery slope of unparalleled magnitude, right there. If a guy wakes up with a headache, has a bad meeting ahead of him at work, burns his hand on the toaster, yells at his wife, and peels out of his driveway in a snit, is that "red flag" enough for the government to take away his driver's license until he can undergo a court hearing so a judge can decide that he's not a danger to himself or others while behind the wheel of an automobile?
How about if a guy has a tree-removal business and wants to take his kid with him for the day? Even though he might take every precaution to ensure the kid's safety, momma might not want the kid exposed to saws that can rip through oak, falling trees, crashing limbs, etc. So does that warrant the court taking away the guy's chain saw, or even worse, his kid, because of what could happen, however remote? How about if momma wants to take the kids white-water rafting, and the father thinks it's too dangerous? Is that "red flag" behavior enough on the mother's part to have her rafts and canoes taken away from her, because the kids might overturn and drown?
When you get down to the bottom line, these "red flag" laws aren't about controlling guns at all---they're not even about safety; they're about controlling behavior. "Do what Big Brother tells you to do, think what he wants you to think, say what he wants you to say, stay in line, don't make waves. Because if you do, you will be punished." Once you can get that established, you're suddenly living in a Stalinist police state, where people cower in fear of the government, and the KGB can smash into your house in the middle of the night and drag you off to a re-education camp for any reason whatsoever, real, imagined, or made up out of thin air.