Rolling Stone should probably stick to music.
I don't know that they'd be any better at it than they are at discussing politics, but based on this latest piece trying to defend red flag laws, they can't be any worse at it.
See, the issue here is that in trying to defend red flag laws, they got ridiculously myopic. They couldn't see the flaws in their own report as they tried to justify one man being stripped of his gun rights based on accusations from another. Then again, they published this with The Trace, so nothing should really shock us here.
SUSAN WEBB STOOD with her colleague on Parks Road. The Chesapeake Bay and the abandoned store with the sagging roof were behind them, the smell of discarded crab lingering in the air. Once again, someone had lodged a complaint against the ramshackle property that belonged to Donald Willey.
The home was on Hoopers Island, an isolated speck of land off Maryland’s Eastern Shore, connected by a narrow road that often took on water during high tide. On that day in April 2021, Webb had been working for six months as assistant director of planning and zoning for Dorchester County, which encompasses the island plus a handful of communities that depend on the water for their livelihood. This was her first visit to Willey’s place, though he was locally infamous. Over the previous 18 years, he had been involved in one feud after another. There were repeated warnings, court dates, and jail. Once, he was featured on an episode of Hoarding: Buried Alive.
Webb looked at the 42,000-square-foot property as her colleague, an inspector named Tom Esham, made meticulous notes and took photographs. The place looked more like a junkyard than a home. Multiple commercial flatbed and dump trucks were strewn about, along with passenger vehicles, a late-model Ford pickup, a camper, numerous boat trailers — some with boats loaded on top — and a reddish motorcycle. Countless containers and drums were mixed in, as well as household appliances, scrap metal stored in bins, heaps of piping, and piles of wood and tires. A skid loader and an excavator were in disrepair. The cab of a broken-down backhoe was packed with still more junk.
Tucked amid the chaos was an unfinished two-story house, where Willey lived. The first level was made of concrete bricks, and held more discarded items that were visible through the windows. The second level had an ornate wooden front door, but there were no stairs leading up to it. Willey’s property was on a residential street. One neighbor shared a fence with him, and Willey’s belongings cascaded right up against it. After Webb and Esham left, the inspector composed a letter to Willey. It informed him that he was in violation of a county code that barred people from using land “for the storage of junk, rubble, untagged vehicle(s), or junk vehicle(s).” Everything had to be removed, properly tagged, or screened from outside view by June 4. If Willey failed to comply, he would receive a fine, and the county would clean up his land and bill him afterward.
Without knowing it, Webb had entered the beginning of an ordeal in which she faced an unyielding antagonist who struggled with his mental health, was known to have guns, and had a reputation for lashing out at anyone who stood in his way. A month later, there were two massive fires on Willey’s property. In two years, Webb heard from community members that he intended to shoot her if she stepped onto his land again.
Webb used the state's red flag law to strip Willey of his guns, and now that law is being challenged by the Second Amendment Foundation on Willey's behalf.
This, of course, is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing because reasons.
However, this report includes some pretty relevant information that really does play a key factor in seeing the problem with this case. She never actually heard Willey threaten anyone.
See, what she had were a couple of people who told her that Willey said he'd shoot her if she set foot on his property again, but Webb never heard this directly. She had two other parties relay this information to her, and then she went to court and had Willey stripped of his Second Amendment rights because someone told her he said something.
How can you not comprehend the problems with that?
Further, there's no evidence that Willey would actually do anything except talk big. Yet if he did make threats about shooting Webb, a government employee, and someone heard it, why was it not reported to the police? Making terroristic threats--and that's what Willey supposedly did--is illegal pretty much everywhere. That's a felony, where if he were convicted, he wouldn't be able to have guns under existing law. Of course, if it was just bluster, as such comments usually are, the court could decide what's what then and there while Willey would get to face his accuser.
See, I'm not saying that Willey is a docile, innocent creature being set upon by the evil government agent Webb. I honestly don't know.
What I do know, though, is that Webb was able to get someone disarmed without any direct knowledge of threats against her. She merely said someone told her there was a threat--and it seems that she got the information from a letter sent anonymously--and that was enough.
That's never enough.
And yet, there's not an ounce of critical thinking apparently in this piece at all. No one at Rolling Stone or The Trace thought for a second, "You know, this is kind of sketchy considering what of the issues with red flag laws is the lack of due process, and now we're going to try to justify that by highlighting a case where someone was hit with second-hand accusations from an anonymous source? That might not be the best idea."
But no. They're so deep in the anti-gun Kool-aid that they didn't even realize it.
Well, I did, and I've got a problem with it.
