Red flag laws are being sold to folks as a way to curtail mass shootings. However, it hasn’t seemed to help in California. Despite having red flags laws on the books for years, they’ve had two high-profile mass shootings in recent memory: Gilroy and Thousand Oaks.

In neither case did a red flag law accomplish much of anything despite the claims of proponents of such measures.

So what does the state of California do? They expand it.

Employers, co-workers and teachers could ask judges to take away guns from people who are deemed a danger to themselves or others under a bill that has cleared the California Senate.

California enacted a so-called “red flag law” that took effect in 2016. But it only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to ask judges for gun restraining orders. Assembly Bill 61 by Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco would expand that law.

The ostensible justification for this seems to be the Thousand Oaks shooting. After all, the above-linked story brings it up, as well as the fact that the killer in that attack had displayed “signs of instability to family and friends.”

The thing is, family was able to ask for a red flag order under existing state law. There’s no reason to expand the law based on that.

So what’s this really about?

After all, the law is a failure. There’s little to no evidence that red flag laws actually have any impact on mass shootings, so this push to expand the number of people who can ask for such an order makes no sense.

Well, it makes no sense to us, anyway.

In California, though, it makes a lot of sense. You see, the purpose of red flag laws seems to have less to do with preventing violence and more to do with finding reasons to take people’s guns away.

The state is vehemently anti-gun. We know this. I wouldn’t be surprised if they start putting anti-gun slogans on the state seal next, they’re that anti-gun. Because of that, they can think of no reason to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Nevermind that numerous mass shootings are being stopped all over the nation without the use of red flag laws, but they still want to take people’s guns away.

Heller made it clear that the state can’t just ban guns. They might want to do it, but the Court was clear. They can’t do it so they’ll try other ways. Now, all you need is someone who doesn’t like guns and doesn’t like you to say you’re a threat and POOF! There go your guns.

Oh, supporters of such laws will tell you that you can get your guns back, and it’s true. However, you’re now entering a realm of “guilty until proven innocent.” You have to show that you’re not a threat, something that’s not as easy to do as you might think and something that goes against everything we stand for as a nation.

That’s the only thing red flag laws manage to do well, and that’s why California is loving theirs.