The Federalist Society’s Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group sponsored a debate between Dr. John Lott and the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer on Red Flag Laws. While Swearer believes that Red Flag Laws need to be part of the process, Dr. Lott argues that it makes a lot more sense to use the Baker Act/302s that are already in place and have extensive civil rights protections as a starting point for any new proposals.
Part 1
Part 2
(Federalist Society, Thursday, September 12, 2019, from noon to 1 PM)
The second audio cut John Lott off in mid sentence at the end. Otherwise, great debate. Very informative. Thanks.
Today’s motivation, for Red Flag laws is not about people’s safety, that democrats claim. It is about taking people’s guns, any way they can. The leftist democrats want POWER and control over all of us. If they truly wanted to help stop mass shootings, they would make sure due process is followed. No, it is ALL motivated by gun confiscation.
The fact that these laws address only guns, and not the removal of other dangerous objects (knives) runs up a red flag (see what I did there) for me. If the situation is that dire, then wouldn’t it necessitate taking those other things as well?
Agree completely! The Red Flag Laws & the often proposed confiscation of AR/AK’s is just another slide down the slippery slope to removal of ALL firearms in the possessions of citizens. At that point, as we all know, the citizens will become subjects. Once firearms are outlaws we will become the latest in a long line of Socialist failures and it will be almost certainly impossible for us to return to a Republic.
But I have a strong feeling that we are talking to the choir and have little hope of changing the direction of the anti-gunners and their maniacal desire for power.