Some states have passed “red flag” gun laws whereby police or family members can petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who they suspect may be a danger to others or to themselves. This month, California Senator Kamala Harris proposed a measure that would “empower federal courts to issue new “Domestic Terrorism Prevention Orders” that would “temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if they exhibit clear evidence of dangerousness,” in the words of her proposal found at bit.ly/31LCRFN. Only certain individuals, such as law enforcement officers or family members, could petition the courts under her proposal, which singles out what she calls white nationalists and white supremacists.

We’ll be asking this question in our new online poll: Do you support giving the federal government new authority to deem individuals a danger to themselves or others and to temporarily seize their firearms? To vote yes or no, click here.

(6) comments

IZSM

Absolutely not. When is it prudent to allow 'government officials' to determine the 'mental health' of individuals? Grievences between neighbors, become opportunities to report. This sounds a great deal more like Mau's China than the U.S.

Mary Lou Shelton

iz, I asked you several questions due to comments you made. are you going to try to respond, or move onto fresher ground? always safer just to put an opinion out there. gene

IZSM

Fire away gene, sorry I missed your questions. To save us both time, please re-post.

trose

I can easily visualize how a Red Flag Law would be eventually abused. The administration of this would not be easy especially if the government has anything to do with it.

Mary Lou Shelton

t, I think pretty much any process is open to abuse, some more than others. but what govt are you talking about, city, country, state, or federal? and btw, can you tell me any retirement program that has lower overhead than social security, or any medical program that has lower overhead than medicare/medicaid? I know thats a popular mantra among some that the govt. can't do anything right, but facts simply do not bear that out. so lets privatize the process and see how long it takes the first bribe to come in. as to red flag laws, both calif. and fla. have had success (anecdotal evidence only as you cant run a controlled experiment) with stopping some crimes. there is strong evidence that those who have committed spousal abuse are at much higher risk than the average person when it comes to actually killing their spouse, and red flag laws have probably saved some women, at least according to law enforcement agencies. since the feds are the ones that process the applications to buy a gun, they will have to be involved at some level, but the info to red flag a person comes from the local level. there has been a lot of talk about how all shooters give some advance notice of intent. so if this is true, I cannot understand why anyone would be against a red flag law. it is possible that the law might be abused? of course there is, but I see this as just another way to avoid doing anything. gene

Mary Lou Shelton

iz, simply scroll back to the comments and you can find my questions. gene

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.