At the Detroit News: Red flag laws don’t necessarily prevent harm
Following Dr. John Lott’s testimony before the Michigan state House, he has a new op-ed piece with Michigan state Representative Andrew Fink in the Detroit News.
.
If you are worried that someone is suicidal, just taking away their guns isn’t a serious solution. There are so many other ways that people can commit suicide. But gun control advocates of “red flag” laws, such as the bill before the Michigan Legislature, want you to believe that simply taking away someone’s legally owned guns ends the risk of suicide.
.
Red flag laws are virtually always invoked for suicide prevention, but even in those rare cases where there are threats to others, there are many other ways for people to do harm. Violent individuals have driven cars through parades and crowded sidewalks, for example, to accomplish the same goal.
.
The Washington Post reported that between May and June 2020, there were at least 18 cases of vehicles being deliberately rammed into people. In November 2022, Florida police narrowly averted a “mass casualty” event at a 5K Thanksgiving Day run by stopping a woman before she could drive her Range Rover through the crowd at 60 mph. The truck attack in Nice, France, on July 14, 2016, claimed 86 people — two dozen more than the worst mass public shooting in American history. Only the 2015 shooting at a theater in Paris has claimed more lives.
.
Under red flag laws, a judge acts on a mere written complaint. He doesn’t talk to the person making the complaint or the person it is made against.
.
Under Michigan’s proposed bill, a hearing will occur within 14 days after one’s guns are taken away. But many defendants can’t afford to hire a lawyer. Even if they can, they are likely to decide that keeping their guns isn’t worth the $10,000 that many attorneys will charge.
.
All 50 states, including Michigan, already have more fair and effective involuntary commitment laws in place in. If you worry that someone is dangerous, you can tell the police about your concerns. If the police agree there is a “reasonable” chance that the person is a danger to themselves or others, mental health experts evaluate the individual. If the experts agree, an emergency court hearing occurs before a judge’s decision. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, one is provided, and judges have a broad range of less extreme options such as outpatient mental health care or suspending a person’s driver’s license. Gun confiscation is also an option, but only after the process is followed.
.
Gun control advocates keep pointing to surveys to prove that Americans overwhelmingly support “common sense” gun control measures, such red flag laws. But surveys compress complicated bills down to one-sentence oversimplifications. Typically, surveys ask people if they support laws that “allow guns to be temporarily confiscated by a judge from people considered by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.” That seems reasonable, and Americans support such a law by somewhere between 2-1 and 3-1 margins. But involuntary commitment laws already allow this. Surveys fail to explain how red flag laws bypass normal legal and judicial processes such as cross-examination of witnesses and examination of evidence.
.
The CPRC conducted a different survey last year on “red flag” laws. After 1,000 likely voters were informed that there are no court proceedings before guns are confiscated and that mental health experts are not consulted, support changed to opposition (29%-47%).
.
Finally, the survey asked if people prefer involuntary commitment laws or red flag laws. Respondents favored the current involuntary commitment laws over red flag laws by a 40%-33% margin.
.
Research is clear that red flag laws won’t necessarily stop a dangerous person from hurting themselves or others.
.
Rep. Andrew Fink, R-Hillsdale, represents Michigan’s House District 35 and serves as the vice chair of the House Judiciary committee. Lott is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center.
.
