Unconstitutionality of "Red Flag Laws"

Above, yours truly with my new (to me) Winchester 94.

Three year ago, I had to deal with California's (i.e., Commiefornia's) version of a "red flag law".

It happened like this (this is what I posted on a gun owners forum):

Last summer, a vindictive ex-girlfriend filed for a temporary restraining order on me. Part of the order was to surrender my firearms to law enforcement. At the hearing [on the restraining order], she dismissed the matter as I had ample proof that I was not bothering her.  

Fortunately for me, everything worked out fine and I got all my guns back. I had proof that I was avoiding her like the plague.

However, Democrats (and some squishy Republicans) are talking about passing a nationwide "red flag law".

These laws can and are abused (like my above example) by vindictive people. They are also unconstitutional.

Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News recently weighed in on this (bold print mine):

When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something. 

Governments are animated by the belief that doing something — any demonstrable overt behavior — will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty. 

The government's job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce the ability of madmen to get those weapons? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws? 

These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “red flag” laws. 

The concept of a “red flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed. 

The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The Republican proposal lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — "a more likely than not" standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the “might happen standard” is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence. 

In 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.

Contact your congress member and U.S. senator and tell them to oppose any "red flag laws".

To read more, go here.

"The red flag rule that is being pushed by the so-called people concerned with guns, it’s not about — it never is. And the left, any idea they have is never a solution. It just opens the door to new problems. And what they want with this red flag law is to create a tattletale society on everything, not just guns." - Rush Limbaugh.