A lot of people figure red flag laws are good things. After all, they disarm a dangerous person before they can hurt others. Who can really oppose such a thing?

Well, there are a lot of reasons to oppose it, to be honest. Especially since many of the laws in question are way too easy to abuse, ignore due process rights, and commit a host of other sins in a very direct manner.

However, there are also issues about unintended consequences.

Let's start by looking at a case out of Washington state where a red flag order was issued.

Cowlitz County Superior Court is barring a former Kalama city councilmember from having guns after telling his therapist he wants to shoot the local leaders who wronged him, court records show.

The court granted the protection order against Matthew Michael Merz, 45, of Kalama earlier this month, preventing him from accessing firearms for a year.

The order protects the more than a dozen people — ranging from elected officials to private citizens — named in lawsuits Merz filed in Cowlitz County Superior Court.

Now, so far this looks like a textbook case favoring red flag laws. A person threatens to shoot people he says wronged him and now he's barred from owning guns.

What's the problem?

Well, for starters, Merz is a convicted felon. That's why he was removed from office as a city council member. As such, he can't own guns in the first place.

Then we have who reported him: His therapist.

Merz’s therapist reported to the Kalama police in June that he said “in theory he would find and shoot the people that are responsible” for his convictions, though he plans to see how his current lawsuits go first.

By state law, health professionals are required to tell authorities after reasonable threats of violence.

The therapist said Merz told him he thinks about his wrongful convictions all day. He did not reveal exact names of targets, just that he would like to harm the people involved in his lawsuits, the order states.

He said "in theory" he would do this, not that he was going to.

Now, Merz clearly has some problems, but let's think about this for a moment. He was seeking therapy, trying to get help for whatever problems he has--this is what we like to call "a good thing"--and he opened up about what was going through his mind.

As a result of doing the very thing we should be encouraging enraged individuals to do, though, this guy finds his personal business plastered on the local news. Not just that he holds a massive grudge against the people he says wrong him but also that he's getting therapy.

We also can't ignore the fact that, once again, Merz can't own guns and the therapist had to know that. Merz lives with his father, who can and has four. The dad says they're locked in a safe and Merz can't access them, but will that matter with the red flag order? After all, if his felony conviction isn't sufficient to disarm him, how is a red flag order going to do it unless it also covers the father's guns?

Even then, I doubt it would do it, but the point here is that this illustrates just how awful red flag laws are, despite the supposedly good intentions espoused when passing them.

Merz's case is bound to convince someone not to go to get therapy because their gun rights aren't safe. Others will see this and figure that therapists can't be trusted to keep their issues secret.

"Dude. Therapists have always reported intent to harm others."

Yes, they have...in the context of a 72-hour hold where pretty much everyone involved is required to remain quiet. It might betray a bit of trust, but it doesn't plaster people's personal lives all over the news.

Folks, we want people having issues to get help. I'm a big proponent of people doing so. I want them to seek help.

But I can't blame people who see stories like this, live in red flag states, and figure that there's just no way they can trust that their therapist won't take a hypothetical pondering as an intent to harm others.

And this particular sin started with a red flag law.