Red flag laws are one of the most egregious bits of gun control floating around anti-gun cesspools you might care to think of. Not only are they violations of the Second Amendment, but also of due process. The idea that someone can just have their guns taken from them despite not being enough of a threat to be locked up is the very antithesis of “shall not be infringed.”
And yet, some states not only love the idea, but they also want to make their own red flag laws even worse.
That’s not surprising coming from a state like Connecticut.
Connecticut lawmakers are seeking to expand a state law that allows police to seize firearms or ammunition from a person they believe poses a risk to themselves or others.
The changes to the state’s so-called red flag law are the judiciary committee’s “big gun safety” proposal of the legislative session, inspired by the “best practices,” of legislation passed in other states, said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, a Bridgeport Democrat and co-chair of the committee.
Under Connecticut’s current statute, also known as the risk protection warrant law, a state’s attorney or any two police officers can seek an order from a judge that allows the seizure of a firearm or ammunition if they believe the person with access to the weapons poses a risk to themselves or others. A court hearing is held within two weeks to decide whether the firearms or ammunition should be kept away from the person. Any member of the public can contact police to begin the procedure. The order lasts for a single year.
The new bill proposes to make those orders indefinite. But it would allow a person to apply to the court every 180 days to lift the order.
It would also prevent someone who is shown to be an imminent risk to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. And it would change who can seek an order from a judge. Rather than two police officers or a state’s attorney, a single police officer, household or family members and certain medical professionals would be able to petition for the seizure order.
To be fair, Connecticut’s current law is far from the worst red flag law we’ve seen. It’s extremely limited as to who can request the order and it’s a temporary order. Far from ideal, I’ll grant you, but also far from the worst.
Yet this bill seeks to change that.
It’s important to remember that red flag orders are typically issued without the accused being able to face their accusers. They’re issued when the individual isn’t there as are based entirely on the testimony of those seeking the order in the first place. Now, Connecticut wants the order to be in place indefinitely and place the onus on the accused to illustrate they’re not a threat.
That goes against everything our justice system is supposed to stand for. What’s next? Throw someone in the water and if they float, they’re a danger and should be deprived of their guns, but if they drown, they’re righteous? Are you kidding me?
The kicker is who would be hurt the worst in a scheme like that. That’s right, the economically disadvantaged. The poorer members of the community would be far less likely to have the means to fight for their rights to be restored ever 180 days. They’re also more likely to be attacked while disarmed.
Unfortunately, this is Connecticut. For all the progressive blathering about the poor we hear, they never stop to consider that group when they’re pushing for the curtailing of constitutionally-protected rights. Connecticut is among the worst offenders in this regard, so that means there’s a very good chance of this passing.
Unless, of course, folks in Connecticut rally and make it clear that supporting such a measure is career suicide.