Aggressive drivers are troubling. 

I've seen way too many reports of shootings that were the result of road rage to not be troubled. There's a reason why people want a gun in the car, even if they don't carry it elsewhere in their daily lives.

But an attorney found himself in hot water recently, which led to him suing the state of New Jersey over its red flag law.

A former New Jersey congressional candidate and attorney who had his guns confiscated after he flashed his pistol at an aggressive driver is suing the state to eliminate several gun laws.

David Burg, a business and entertainment lawyer, is alleging New Jersey’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment. The state’s extreme risk protection order—commonly referred to as a “red flag law"—and limitations on possessing guns in sensitive places like cars infringe the right to keep and bear arms, he argues.

“New Jersey is piling on its suppression of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms using every possible means,” he said in his complaint filed Friday in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. also joined Burg as a plaintiff.

Burg, who ran against Rep. Chris Smith (R) in the 2022 primary, said the state’s limits on where guns can be bought does not meet the “justifiable need” requirement to bear arms outside of specific places. He also claimed the red flag law inappropriately strips individuals of firearms and delays them being returned, especially for gun-owners who face corresponding criminal penalties alongside weapons confiscation, and is part of the state’s “blatant refusal” to follow US Supreme Court precedent.

Burg’s suit highlights two major debates across firearm rights litigation: what places are sensitive enough for firearm prohibitions, and what due process must be given to firearm owners before guns are confiscated by police.

I mean, Burg isn't wrong.

New Jersey, like some other anti-gun states, passed laws that created tons of "sensitive places" well beyond what was described in the Bruen decision. These were termed as "carry killer bills" because they were specifically crafted as a way to deter people from carrying a firearm, even if they could do so lawfully.

Of course, criminals don't obey the laws, so they just keep on doing what they've been doing.

Red flag laws, though, are a particular problem because they do a lot of things, all of them wrong.

First, they take away someone's Second Amendment rights while also violating their due process rights. You don't get to face your accuser, you're not innocent until proven guilty, and you're not even in the room when the decision is handed down. The first you know of it is after a red flag order has been issued.

How is that just?

But that's not all that happens with those laws.

See, one massive issue is that even if a red flag order is issued and someone's guns are taken away, you're still leaving a dangerous person walking the streets. It treats the guns as the problem and not the supposedly homicidal or suicidal person. I don't know if everyone knows this, but you can kill people without a gun. You can take your own life without one, too.

So yeah, these laws need to be overturned, and I don't care who precipitates it happening. I get why someone might flash a gun when dealing with an aggressive driver, after all, and it's not that they're inherently violent, it's that aggressive drivers tend to be. Losing one's gun rights over that, especially if there aren't charges filed--and there's no indication in this piece that they were.

May these measures go down.