Why We Use The Wrong Argument Against Red Flag Laws

Sean Sorrentino opened my eyes regarding red flag laws. In a segment originally posted to the Assorted Calibers Podcast, he said we shouldn’t argue on due process grounds. Instead the argument against red flag laws is that they don’t work.

These laws arrest the gun and leave the dangerous or troubled person on the streets. There are a myriad of ways that they still can harm either themselves or us. You need only look in your kitchen or medicine chest to know that.

You may not agree with Sean on whether or not due process is afforded to the person in question. However, it is hard to argue that these laws are effective.

I met with Sean last week while he and his lovely wife were coming through the area on vacation. I mentioned I really liked that segment. He graciously has uploaded it to YouTube specifically so I could embed it. My thanks to Sean for doing this.

4 thoughts on “Why We Use The Wrong Argument Against Red Flag Laws”

  1. They clearly don’t work and they clearly violate due process. How about both. If this is going to be settled in court, it will have to be due process as judges don’t give a cr*p whether something works. If legislative, whatever works. I have a dislike of pragmatic arguments when principle is at stake but if pragmatism is the winning argument, I am good.

  2. Ditto what Richard said. What works is a great argument for a legislative body (assuming that hysteria or dogma is not currently reigning) but once passed judges don’t (and shouldn’t) have any say in whether a policy choice is effective or not. Their job is to determine whether the elected officials have the authority to legislate that issue that way.

Comments are closed.