Look, I get it. You’re rolling your eyes thinking, “Do we really need another article on Red Flag laws?” It’s right up there with pieces on “Which exercises to do on an airplane” or “The best method for folding laundry”—we’ve all seen so many, that we’ve practically memorized the bullet points. So why throw one more log on the bonfire? Well, allow me to offer a semi-humorous explanation:

    1.    Because Some Things Just Need Repeating

My mother always told me, “If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times…” and let’s just say the problems with Red Flag laws are worth repeating a thousand times—if only because they keep popping up like the world’s most determined prairie dog. New attempts at crafting or expanding these laws seem to surface every legislative session, and people keep not getting the constitutional message.  

    2.    Because My Keyboard Tells Me To

My keyboard and I have a relationship. It’s one of those “love-hate, but we can’t quit each other” romances. Every time a new spin on confiscation hits the headlines, my keyboard lights up with near-hysterical blinking, silently screaming for me to type “DUE PROCESS MATTERS!” So if you want someone to blame, blame QWERTY. He’s never wrong about these things.

    3.    Because We All Secretly Love Dead Horses

Yes, folks, we’re beating the proverbial dead horse. But let’s be honest—sometimes the horse decides to get up and trot around like nothing happened. Then we have to remind it that it’s, well, still a horse. Calls for Red Flag laws, especially, seem to resurrect themselves again and again in legislatures across the country, so we need the occasional “Yes, this is still a violation of due process” whack.  And while we're beating dead horses, when was the last time you called your state representatives and let them know you don't support Red Flag laws?  You see, that horse is starting to awaken.

    4.    Because Now Is the Perfect Moment

More seriously and more importantly, there’s actually a compelling reason to circle back to these arguments: We now stand at a turning point in Washington. With a new Trump administration poised to reshape federal policy, we have what may be a once-in-a-lifetime shot to restore the Second Amendment to its original brilliance. Better still, the U.S. Supreme Court is more aligned with pro-Second Amendment jurisprudence than it has been in decades. That combination—a supportive executive branch and a Court willing to hold the line—means the timing couldn’t be better for all of us to push back on these laws and do it decisively.  We just need conservative legislators to get the message. The Second Amendment is the issue you will be judged on. 

So yes, you may think this is another “blah blah, Red Flag laws are bad” screed. You’re right—it totally is, and I'm not ashamed in the slightest. If we let up now, future generations might have to deal with “Red Flag Laws 2: Overreach Harder.” Let’s do the work to retire them permanently, so we can focus on more uplifting stories—like how to repair that squeaky gun safe door or perfect your trigger press while blindfolded.

Restoring the Second Amendment 

On a more serious note, the new Trump administration provides the best opportunity in decades to roll back intrusive firearm regulations and reaffirm the robust protections our Founders intended. With a U.S. Supreme Court finally disposed to take a strong stance in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, the time is now to protect due process and beat back any law that presumes guilt until you prove innocence.

Over the last few years, Red Flag laws—also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs)—have emerged as a supposed solution for preventing violence and self-harm. In reality, these laws create a host of legal, ethical, and practical problems that threaten the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners while doing little to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health struggles or domestic disputes. Contrary to the claims of gun-control advocates, solid research—most notably from Dr. John Lott—reveals that Red Flag laws fail to deliver on their promise of reducing homicides and suicides. Even worse, they enable government overreach and erode core due process protections that stand between citizens and tyranny.

Due Process: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

The primary danger of Red Flag laws lies in how they shatter the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” Under many state versions of these laws, a single complaint—sometimes anonymous and presented in an ex parte hearing—can authorize law enforcement to confiscate your legally owned firearms. You, the accused, might not know you’re under investigation until police show up at your door to seize your property. In a traditional judicial process, the burden of proof lies with the accuser; but Red Flag laws essentially flip that burden. You can lose your Second Amendment rights with little to no chance to defend yourself before the initial confiscation happens. Only after the fact do you get an opportunity—often requiring legal counsel and considerable expense—to prove you’re not a danger.

To make matters worse, the standards of evidence for these orders are frequently shockingly low. Some states only require “probable cause” or a mere “reasonable belief” to grant a confiscation order. When your constitutional rights can be stripped away on the flimsiest of claims, we’ve crossed the line from preventing potential violence to trampling on civil liberties. Historically, our system demands robust proof before the state can deny a fundamental right. Red Flag laws abandon this principle, leaving law-abiding citizens exposed to unwarranted harassment and having to claw their rights back through a lengthy legal battle.

Examples of Misuse

While proponents of Red Flag laws insist abuse is rare, there are real cases that highlight how easily the system can be weaponized:

    •    Vengeful Neighbors and Family Feuds: In multiple states, there have been allegations that someone with a personal grudge filed a Red Flag petition just to punish or inconvenience a rival. A person in a nasty divorce, for instance, might fabricate claims of “danger” against their ex, forcing them to endure legal proceedings and potentially lose their firearms—even if there’s zero history of violence.

    •    Maryland’s Fatal Incident: One of the earliest tragedies linked to Red Flag laws occurred in Maryland when 61-year-old Gary Willis was shot and killed by police who were attempting to serve him with an ERPO. The details remain contested, but the controversy underscores how abruptly these encounters can turn lethal—especially when the subject has no idea why law enforcement is on their doorstep demanding his guns.

Such incidents cut to the heart of why Red Flag laws are so troubling: Even if a case is ultimately dismissed, the damage to reputation, the emotional stress, and the legal costs can’t be undone. And on a tragic day, someone might lose more than their property; they might lose their life over a bureaucratic process that should never have existed in the first place.

Research Shows Red Flag Laws Fall Short

In the public debate, one name stands out for methodical, data-driven analysis of firearms laws: Dr. John R. Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He has spent decades studying gun control measures and their real-world effects. When it comes to Red Flag laws, Dr. Lott’s findings are unequivocal:

    1.    No Significant Reduction in Homicide or Suicide

After examining data from states that have adopted Red Flag laws, Dr. Lott found no meaningful decrease in homicide or overall violent crime. The argument that removing firearms prevents potential mass shooters or domestic murderers just doesn’t bear out statistically. Moreover, his research also indicates these laws do not produce a statistically significant drop in suicides—a point often used to justify Red Flag confiscations.

    2.    High False Positive Rates

Dr. Lott has repeatedly highlighted the lack of protections against false or malicious reporting. Because the standard of evidence is so low, it’s easy for an innocent individual to be ensnared in an ERPO. He argues that such false positives dilute the focus away from truly dangerous individuals, piling up legal cases and wasting resources.

    3.    No Real Focus on Root Causes

One of Dr. Lott’s key points is that mental health crises and domestic violence issues don’t vanish just because a gun is confiscated. People struggling with severe depression, rage, or abusive tendencies need medical treatment, counseling, or law enforcement intervention that actually targets the behavior. Removing a firearm might alter the means of harm, but it doesn’t resolve the underlying pathology that triggered the concern in the first place.

Stripping Rights While Ignoring the Real Problem

At their core, Red Flag laws treat a symptom while ignoring the underlying disease. If someone is genuinely a danger to themselves or others, then a more comprehensive intervention is needed—one that addresses mental health or domestic violence in a meaningful way. Seizing guns might temporarily remove one “tool,” but it does nothing to address deeper psychological or situational factors. Suicidal individuals, for instance, can tragically find other means if the underlying despair remains unaddressed. Likewise, abusers who truly intend harm will find alternative ways to inflict violence.

Confiscating firearms without mandatory mental health evaluations or crisis intervention plans is not only a constitutional misstep; it’s a policy failure. It provides a false sense of security to the public while leaving the door wide open for the next tragedy to occur—this time without the ability to blame a “missed red flag.” Meanwhile, lawful gun owners are left waiting for the next knock on the door that could upend their lives over nothing more than an uncorroborated accusation.

If we want to solve the underlying problems that result in red-flag gun confiscations, we should use existing involuntary commitment laws, as has been argued. 

Conclusion

Red Flag laws may be marketed as a commonsense approach to preventing tragedy, but they stand on shaky ground when judged against the Constitution and empirical data. They empower government agencies to seize property without robust evidence, compromise crucial due process safeguards, and fail to address the mental health and domestic violence challenges that often precipitate violence.

Thanks to extensive research by Dr. John Lott and real-world examples of abuse, we can clearly see the dangers inherent in these laws. In a society built on the presumption of innocence, Red Flag laws open the door to a chilling “guilty until proven innocent” mentality. And in a nation founded on individual liberty, they undermine the very principles that millions of law-abiding gun owners cherish. If we’re serious about preventing violence, we need solutions that tackle root causes—without sacrificing the constitutional rights that protect us all. 

Let’s seize this moment. Tomorrow is never promised—but right now, the stars are aligned for us to ensure the Second Amendment’s future. Make that call to your representatives.  Make a contribution to your favorite 2A advocacy group.  Let’s get it done.