Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Since the implementation of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), or “red flag” laws, numerous studies and high-profile incidents have cast doubt on their effectiveness and raised concerns about potential abuses and deadly outcomes. While ERPOs are intended to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, evidence from recent studies and case examples demonstrates significant flaws in both effectiveness and due process.

FAIL: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) Don’t Deliver

A comprehensive review by the RAND Corporation reveals that Extreme-Risk Protection Orders have had inconclusive results on various public safety outcomes, including violent crime, suicides, and unintentional injuries. While proponents argue that ERPOs could reduce gun violence by preemptively disarming high-risk individuals, RAND’s findings indicate that this objective remains largely unproven.

According to RAND’s 2024 update, only five studies met their inclusion criteria to assess ERPOs’ impact on suicide rates, and of those, only one showed any potential reduction, estimating a mere 4% to 6% decrease in suicides. Yet even this study faced criticism for significant methodological weaknesses, including its limited geographic focus and reliance on assumptions rather than direct causative evidence (Dalafave, 2021).

The RAND analysis highlights the disparity in outcomes across states implementing ERPOs. For instance, in states like Connecticut and Indiana, initial findings suggested minor reductions in firearm suicides, but when RAND revisited these findings, they found that results varied widely by location and that some states, like Connecticut, experienced inconclusive or even negligible impacts despite widespread ERPO implementation. The observed declines were not statistically significant in most cases, raising questions about ERPOs’ broader effectiveness. (RAND, 2024).

On other outcomes, such as violent crime and mass shootings, RAND’s report describes the evidence as “inconclusive or mixed,” with studies unable to demonstrate any consistent decrease in homicides or firearm-related assaults post-ERPO adoption. One study, analyzing data from Indiana and California, found no clear link between ERPO laws and declines in violent crime. In fact, the study cited “serious methodological concerns,” with one study noting that the “Extreme-risk protection orders have uncertain effects on total and firearm homicides. Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive”,” pointing to factors such as limited enforcement periods and variable criteria for ERPO petitions as possible explanations.

Similarly, RAND’s findings on unintentional firearm injuries reveal significant limitations, with only one study meeting their standards to evaluate this outcome. The study’s authors observed “uncertain associations” between ERPOs and unintentional firearm deaths, emphasizing that “available data do not allow for clear conclusions on ERPOs’ preventative capacity in this area” (RAND, 2024). In other words, although ERPOs are positioned as a preventative measure, evidence supporting their practical impact on enhancing public safety remains insufficient.

With these findings, RAND emphasizes that ERPOs, as currently implemented, “leave major gaps in their purported safety benefits,” potentially posing more questions than answers. These mixed results indicate the need for a critical examination of ERPO policies and underscore concerns raised by civil rights advocates about the laws’ effectiveness and constitutionality.

Citations:

1. RAND Corporation, “The Effects of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders,” July 16, 2024.
2. Dalafave, R. “An Empirical Assessment of Homicide and Suicide Outcomes with Red Flag Laws,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2021.
3. Pear, V. et al., “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law,” JAMA Network Open, 2022.

FACT: ERPO Have Deadly Outcomes

In Maryland, however, tragic results from an ERPO enforcement in 2018 stand as a stark warning of the real-life dangers posed by red flag laws. Early one morning, Maryland police attempted to enforce a red flag order by removing a resident’s firearms without prior notice. A struggle ensued, leading to the homeowner’s death. This incident underscores concerns raised by Second Amendment advocates who argue that ERPOs can turn deadly when gun owners, often unaware of the order, are faced with unexpected armed confrontations on their own property.

FACT: ERPO Hurt Due Process

The lack of due process in these laws is also under scrutiny. In 2023, a New York court ruled that red flag orders must require supporting documentation from a medical professional, highlighting due process violations in previous ERPOs. Without such standards, red flag orders may be issued based on claims from family or friends without a medical basis, stripping gun owners of their rights without adequate justification. Judge Craig Steven Brown, citing the Constitution, stated that “Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than… Fourth Amendment rights,” emphasizing the need for robust due process before depriving someone of these liberties.

FACT: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders Are Abused

Critics also note the ERPO system’s vulnerability to misuse, including situations where orders are reportedly used to harass former partners or as leverage in family disputes. For gun owners, fighting an ERPO can be costly, particularly for those with limited resources, effectively making it more difficult for lower-income individuals to reclaim their rights.

Just Say NO!

Organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition have taken strong stances against red flag laws, arguing that no amount of due process can reconcile these laws with Constitutional rights. Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) states they could support red flag laws if due process is guaranteed. However, NSSF has emphasized that ex parte orders—those issued without notifying the gun owner beforehand—pose an unacceptable risk of abuse.

The mixed results from ERPOs on safety outcomes and the potential for rights abuses are significant. As more states consider ERPO laws, policymakers must grapple with the evidence and listen to communities concerned about both safety and constitutional rights.

The question remains whether the risks ERPOs present to individual liberties and potential misuse outweigh their uncertain benefits for public safety.

Read Related:

• Where Gun Groups Stand On Red Flag Laws ~ On The Record
• Home Resident Killed by Maryland Police Trying to Confiscate His Guns
• New York Court Rules Due Process Needed for ‘Red Flag’ Order

Hunters take note: State attorneys are arguing your rifles are not “constitutionally” protected in Connecticut.

 

What does that mean? According to attorney Joshua Perry, who works for the Connecticut Attorney General’s office, this means hunting rifles are legal but not protected by the Constitution. He argues that the Constitution only guarantees citizens the right to guns commonly used in self-defense and that semi-automatic rifles used in hunting do not fall into that category.

 

This discussion came up on Wednesday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Attorneys representing Gov. Ned Lamont and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) made oral arguments in front of Judge Alison Nathan. This was a part of a lawsuit the NAGR filed against the state last year.

 

NAGR, and a co-plaintiff Toni Theresa Spera, are challenging “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.” The act, which was passed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, bans the sale of firearms and accessories classified as “assault weapons.” NAGR and Spera believe this violates their Second Amendment rights.

Perry argued the state could restrict guns not commonly used for self-defense. Nathan asked if, by this logic, semi-automatic hunting rifles were protected. Perry said they are not.

“Connecticut restricts instrumentalities that are unusually dangerous, that are like M16 rifles, that have combat functional features, that allow users to hose down… a battlefield or tragically a school and cause a disproportionate number of casualties,” Perry said.

 

He referenced the bans of the M16. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on the weapon in Columbia v. Heller.

Perry argues that the “plain text as historically understood” of the U.S. Constitution protects the right to self-defense, “not a right to possess any type of weapon for any sort of confrontation.”

Immediately after these arguments, another gun case was argued: Eddie Grant, Jr., v. James Rovella. Perry presented during these arguments as well.

 

“Connecticut has not banned hunting rifles. Whether or not they are constitutionally protected, they are certainly democratically protected,” Perry said. “As a rule, something that is popular doesn’t need constitutional protection, because it’s popular. Hunting rifles would certainly fall into that category.”

 

He went on to say, “As to whether Connecticut could restrict hunting rifles, I think we probably could not, because I think it could be shown that they are not unusually dangerous. They are not ill disproportionately suited in the way that… AR-15s are, and the record might well show that they were used and useful for self-defense. I’ll be honest, we have not done that analysis, but I have no reason to think that wouldn’t be true.”

 

Semi-automatic shotguns are used for hunting pheasants, waterfowl and partridge, according to Eugene Kisielewski, the treasurer of the Northwest Connecticut Rod and Gun Club, who spoke with Inside Investigator about hunting and gun ownership in Connecticut.

 

Kisielewski, who owns a semi-automatic shotgun to hunt pheasants, believes gun regulations in Connecticut are too strict, and expects them to get stricter in the immediate future.

“We do have a constitutional right to own and use firearms. When you’re talking [banning] about a particular type of firearm, then I think you’re really discriminating overall,” he said. “Unfortunately, I don’t see the difference in hunting with a semi-auto versus a bolt action or a pump action or a single shot. The projectile still comes out at the end of the barrel at a high rate of speed.”

 

Attorney Barry Arrington, who represented NAGR, says the AR-15 is not dangerous or unusual in the United States.

“The fact of the matter is that this is political grandstanding by the Connecticut legislature, it has no effect on crime,” Arrington told Inside Investigator in an interview. “For obvious reasons, a criminal is not going to walk down the street with the AR-15. All the cases say that handguns are preferred by shooters, even in mass shootings.”

 

The AR-15 is the most common rifle in the United States.

According to a report from the National Institute of Justice, over 75% of mass shootings involved handguns, and 25% involved assault rifles.

 

However, only 3% of gun deaths involved rifles of any kinds, according to Pew Research Center.

“If the most popular rifle in America is not protected by the constitution, then [no rifle] is,” Arrington said in court.

This is almost too much to unpack in a single post, but let’s give it a try.

First of all, sniper rifles of all sorts are still predominately bolt action rifles. The shooters are just highly trained and very good at their craft. So are so-called DMs (designated marksmen), although a DM might also use a semi-automatic rifle (either in 5.56mm or 7.62mm).

But as for the danger any long gun presents, simply see the example of Charles Whitman, who managed to kill 17 people mostly with a Remington 700 and Remington 6mm rifle, both bolt guns.

This conversation above is way behind the times. Many deer hunters are taking game with semi-automatic AR-10s shooting 6.5mm Creedmoor or .308. Good guns are capable of ~ 1 MOA or better. There is simply no difference today except hunter’s choice.

The conversation above also shows the complete ignorance of the lawyers who argued the case. They hadn’t thought about these issues. Or maybe they had thought about it, they just didn’t have an answer because lawyers seldom attempt to make their case logical, preferring to submit arguments to win a case regardless of how inconsistent or irrational they are.

Here’s a tip for reading legal briefs and “friend of the court” briefs. If you study an argument, and agree or disagree with it, you might go to the next argument in the brief and see one that completely contradicts all of the salient points made in the prior argument.

That’s not a mistake. They usually make no attempt to be persuasive using a logical approach all the way through the brief. The singular goal is to win the case, and if the judges won’t accept one argument, they might accept the next one.

But for the deer hunters out there who prefer their bolt action rifles and look down on guys who use AR-10s (there is still a lot of folks like that) and therefore stay away from gun rights arguments and even neglect to vote, David Codrea has a message for you: “Your turn in the barrel, Fudds. Just because Polyphemus promised to eat you last didn’t mean he wasn’t going to.”

You see, they don’t care about being honest. It’s all just in the messaging. All they care about is confiscating your firearms. In Australia, my understanding is that they have even outlawed lever action long guns because they are “repeaters.”

Always remember their long game (TCJ, citing Daily Kos).

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

 

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

If you think they are willing to stop at collecting machine guns, they will eventually go for your semi-automatic rifles. If you think they will stop at semi-automatic rifles, they’ll go for your bolt action and lever action rifles when you’re not looking.

They are the enemy. See them as such or you won’t have any firearms to take on your deer hunting trips no matter how nice that Remington 700 is and how many deer you’ve taken with it.

They hate you. They want you disarmed. Never forget that.

The second amendment is about the right of insurrection, not hunting, nor technically self defense, unless you fold self defense into the right of defense against tyranny (which I think is a perfectly fine and logically consistent thing to do). The point isn’t whether hunting rifles (here they mean bolt action rifles) are protected and whether they can be used for self defense. They are, and they have been, as have AR-15s.

Any weapon can be and has been used in warfare, from rocks to spears to arrows to revolvers to balls of fire to melted tar to bolt action and semi-automatic rifles and pistols and bombs.

All weapons are weapons of war. The issue here is that if they want to collect your guns, they intend to do something to you that would cause you to need your guns.

UPDATE: Kamala Harris once suggested that it would be great to ban all gun ownership (via Instapundit). But you knew that about her anyway.

A recent spate of gun confiscation in New Zealand shows just how dangerous a gun registry can be when combined with some gun owners opposing the views of those in charge of the government. And with constant attempts to create a registry in the United States, it highlights a danger Americans should understand.

According to a report at waikatotimes.co.nz, 62 firearms license holders recently had their licenses revoked, forcing them to surrender their guns to the government or another firearms license holder. The individuals were all members of the group Sovereign Citizens, or SovCits, who hold that the federal government there is illegitimate.

New Zealand authorities conducted Operation Belfast in 2022 in an attempt to identify safety risks for law enforcements. The focus was SovCits, and authorities identified some 1,400 people they believed subscribed to the group’s ideology. Of that group, 58 were firearms license holders.

One of the conditions of retaining a firearm license in New Zealand, under the country’s Arms Act, is that license holders meet the obligation of being a “fit and proper person” to hold a license. Having an undefinable condition like that within the country’s gun laws gives the government overwhelming power to deem anyone they choose to not be “fit and proper” and make them relinquish their guns.

According to the report, an intelligent report from 2021 “found that there was a ‘realistic possibility’ that a violent extremist or group of violent extremists, motivated by SovCit beliefs, would commit a spontaneous act of violence in response to a perceived assault by government agencies during a routine act of legal or regulatory enforcement.’” However, to date the perceived “threat” hasn’t resulted in any violence with firearms.

Over the years, the New Zealand government has repeatedly tightened its gun laws, most recently in 2020 with firearms registry that required license holders to update as they buy or sell guns.

“The new law is designed to stop firearms falling into the wrong hands,” Minister of Police Stuart Nash said at the time. “It spells out for the first time that owning a firearm is a privilege, limited to responsible licensed owners.”

The move prompted the International Bar Association to tout the country as a model for what American politicians should do to address criminal violence.

“The Pacific nation has introduced swift and sweeping reforms of gun laws following the mass shooting in Christchurch in March—a move that highlights the continuing lack of action to tackle gun violence in the United States,” the IBA stated in a news item following the passage for further restrictions.

Interestingly, the Sovereign Citizens movement is alive and well in the United States. In a nutshell, adherents believe the government is the illegitimate product of a conspiracy that subverted the original, lawful government. And they believe people can take steps to divorce themselves from the illegitimate government, after which it has no authority or jurisdiction over them.

If, in fact, we had a national gun registry or national firearms licensing in the U.S., it’s not a large step to think that the Biden-Harris administration or future administrations might go after their firearms by deeming them a threat to law enforcement or simply because their ideology wasn’t in line with the people in power.