Florida Has Had 3,500 Red Flags Used Since Parkland

One of the most controversial anti-gun laws being proposed by the anti-gun lawmakers and organizations, are red flag laws. They have already become a law of some form or another in more than a dozen states.

Essentially, what a red flag law is, is when a gun owner shows some signs of mental illness or says something that may be questionable, and has their guns taken away for a period of one year (Florida's Red Flag).

Then, after that one year is over, their guns will be returned to them unless they're still deemed unsafe or have a mental illness.

According to Yahoo! News, advocates of Florida's red flag law said it was hard to remove firearms before the laws existed. People “suffering severe mental breakdowns” couldn't have their guns (the guns are their property) taken away.

The interesting thing about this, is actually twofold. First, these red flag laws don't necessarily do anything to help the person having the mental breakdown. And, second, these laws only take guns away when anything can be used as a weapon.

In all reality, if someone wants to hurt themselves or another, anything can be used. A car, for example, can be much more dangerous than a gun.

And, red flag laws don't necessarily work, either. The reason why, is clear. Some of those people still had mental break-downs and killed themselves. One of them used carbon monoxide (likely from a car).

The other got hold of a different gun and killed himself.

Read that last sentence again. He still got an illegal gun. Why? Because determined people will always be able to find another mean to an end.

At some point it has to make you wonder why, if the person is sooo dangerous that they must have property taken from them, they're allowed to continue wandering around the streets with the rest of their freedoms in tact. I mean, wouldn't it make sense to remove that person from the street?

Hmm. I believe the quote above was “suffering severe mental breakdowns.” That's serious enough that you take their property away from them without due process, but not serious enough that they're taken off the streets.

Oh, is it because they've not committed any crimes yet? Hmm, interesting concept!

Got it, so we're picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution we're going to follow.

I could technically stop this article right here and consider my pro-Second Amendment point to be proven. But what fun would that be?

Also from the Yahoo! News article linked to above:

Orlando attorney Kendra Parris, who is trying to get a case before the state Supreme Court to overturn the law, says it doesn't adequately define some terms, such as what constitutes serious mental health issues. And in any case, she says, other Florida statutes, such as misdemeanor breach of the peace, already allow police to take firearms from the truly dangerous before they act. That statute could easily have been invoked against the Stoneman Douglas shooter. Probably two dozen times this guy could have been charged for breach of the peace and had his firearms removed.

I'm fairly certain this attorney likely acquired her law degree from a reputable school and can be called an attorney because she's a practicing lawyer. She therefore also probably knows the law.

This tells me that the Parkland shooter could have been stopped by the laws put in place by the people who enforce said laws, but it wasn't invoked for some reason.

Hmm, it's almost as if the laws already on the books would work if given a proper chance to, before the need to shove more rules down the throats of the law abiding was ever needed. All the laws out there won't make a lazy person do their job.

And, all we know for certain, is that people still were able to hurt others or themselves and there was no due process before the removal of property. Any red flag laws are simply a violation of Constitutional rights. Which rights? The 2nd, 4th, 5th … and what's worse is that I'm starting to notice a pattern here.

The pattern is that the government, at least parts of it, don't consider our guns to be our own property. They consider our guns to be their property. That's why they want to conduct a “buy back” and why they don't consider the removal of property to be a violation of the fourth and fifth amendments.

They think the guns are their property. How else can they explain themselves? Why else would they think they can take away our property without due process?

Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it?

Leave your thoughts on this in the comments below.