Red Flag Laws: An Effective Tool to Fight Gun Violence? - Research Paper

Introduction

The red flags laws are state enacted laws that empower the courts to order temporary confiscation of firearms from individuals who have been established to be posing harm to themselves or other people (Spitzer 55). Notably, the request often comes from the close family members or other concerned people about an individual who rightfully owns the gun but has exhibited suicidal tendencies (Brown and Manisha 714). In the recent past, there have been growing cases of gun violence, and the laws were enacted to the firearms away from people who pose a danger not only to themselves but also to public safety. However, it should be noted that the unlawful use of red flag laws has been heavily criticized as it is considered to be a threat to the veterans and citizens Second Amendment rights. More fundamentally, the red flag laws have violated the enshrined due process of the law as it deprives individuals of their liberty and hence their basic rights as outlined in the constitution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Impact of Red Flag Laws on Veterans and Citizens

The restrictions on access to firearms have been established to be an infringement on the Second Amendment, which promotes individual rights. Understandably, the use of red flag laws has impacted negatively on the veterans and citizens from New York. The National Rifle Association has weighed on the issue of red flag laws, where it has reaffirmed its commitment and support to keep guns away from dangerous individuals (Spitzer 203). However, it has viciously opposed the practical application of red flag laws by arguing that courts are given unnecessary powers to confiscate firearms from individuals who have no criminal activity records. Veterans and other citizens' rights to own guns are enshrined in the constitution and denying them that right has negatively affected the progress that was envisaged by the Second Amendment (Jones and George 167). The American constitution does not provide the regulation of firearms, and the enactment of red flag laws in different states and, more specifically, the state of New York has affected the liberty of veterans and citizens.

Moreover, there is limited proof that red flag laws have effectively helped in curbing the rampant gun violence in the United States. Evidence has proved that red flag laws have been unlawfully used in other different situations away from the gun violence that they were expected to curtail. The aspect of due process, as guaranteed by the American constitution, has always formed the hallmark of the unlawful application of red flag laws. The government has always failed to follow the due process of the law by denying veterans and citizens of New York the most fundamental individual rights and liberty (Spitzer 209). More significantly, the confiscation orders are often issued against veterans and other citizens without highlighting to them the accusations on their perceived danger they are posing to themselves and others. Understandably, the failure to issue a notice to the veterans and other citizens often denies them the opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations leveled on them (Wallace 159). The constitution provides that the subject should be made aware of their perceived threat, but the unlawful use of red flags has infringed on that basic right (Brown and Manisha 718). Furthermore, red flag laws have been maliciously used by individuals such as ex-partners to ensure that the rightfully owned properties such as firearms are seized from veterans and citizens under the pretext that they are dangerous to themselves and public safety. In light of this, therefore, the laws often bring adverse effects on the basic rights of veterans, as outlined in the First and Second Amendment.

Additionally, the red flag laws have been labeled as a policy that compromises the civil liberty of veterans and citizens from New York. The laws were intended to curb the spiraling incidences of gun violence that have resulted in the loss of lives of many Americans (Spitzer 221). Moreover, the red flag laws were not subjected to scrutiny to establish if it will effectively serve the intended purpose of preventing gun violence. These laws were hinged on emotional response following the tragic shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The introduction of the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act bill by Rep. Phil Roe of R-Tennessee and Rep. Colin Petersen of D-Minnesota has proved that the red flag laws have resulted in adverse effects on the veterans in the state of New York (Ghiani, Summer and Christopher 509). Also, in some cases, the Department of Veterans Affairs often approves a third-party to help in managing veterans' benefits, but that should not jeopardize their rights to own firearms. The red flag laws infringe on the rights of veterans in New York by avoiding the due process of confiscating their firearms despite having no criminal records (Pederson et al. 273). It should be noted that some veterans have been subjected to work-related disabilities such as severe emotional problems and developmental instability, and the red flag laws do not put into perspective their contribution to the security while they were in service.

The Amendments

The American constitution's Second Amendment was enacted to ensure that the basic individual rights of owning firearms are protected. The law was intended to promote the rights to self-defense and overall civic responsibility of defending the state against external aggression (Lund and Adam 15). Recent gun control measures in the United States as ignited the debate about the Second Amendment. Proponents of the Second Amendment have argued that people have a right to possess firearms to help in defending themselves against crime. Further, they have argued that the introduction of red flag laws has significantly affected individual rights as provided by the Amendment (Lund and Adam 17). The Second Amendment envisioned a regulated militia, which will help in ascribing all citizens the status of a soldier and instill in them the civic duty to protect their state against any form of aggression from external forces. The unlawful application of red flag laws has been established to be a key hindrance to the enshrined individual rights that should ooze from the Second Amendment (Brown and Manisha 723). Concerning the First Amendment, the federal government, through the police, always spearheads searches that contravene the basic rights of citizens. The freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment, and the police often execute social media searches and basic their decisions on the ineligibility of some citizens to own guns because of what they perceive as violent speech.

Understandably, the Fourth Amendment provides for the right of citizens to remain secure in their houses, and there should be no unwarranted seizure of their properties. The red flag laws have consistently violated this vital right by promoting unconstitutional confiscation of citizens' properties, including guns under the pretext that they are dangerous individuals that can harm themselves and other people (Lund and Adam 19). Law enforcement agencies always rely on other people's opinions about the perceived threat of their loved ones, which may not be true. Also, the red flag laws have disregarded the underlying fundamentals of justice by focusing on the issuance of orders to confiscate firearms without providing a better judicial path that would ensure that the accused are given the opportunity to defend themselves (Jones and George 171). It should be noted that the red flag laws have resulted in adverse effects on various Bills of Rights' Amendments, and it has significantly reversed the gains that have been made in the American judicial system.

Effects of Red Flag Laws on Basic Rights

It is worth noting that the violation of the due process of the law has affected the basic rights of different people in the United States. Most poor people are always more likely to fall victim to crimes, and the proponents of unlawful application of red flag laws will remove the firearms from the hands of people, thereby exposing them to the potential threat from other aggressions (Brown and Manisha 727). Following the brutal shootings of innocent civilians in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, US president Donald Trump mentioned that the shootings were a result of mental illness and deep-rooted hatred. However, evidence has revealed that the red flag laws have not helped in resolving the recent increase in gun violence in the United States. The laws have resulted in the infringement of civil liberties and rights, as outlined in the American constitution. The red flag laws have bestowed the different states in the US the power to regulate arms, which is not part of the powers granted to them in Article I, Section 8 (Pederson et al. 278). Therefore, the laws have not only denied the people and more specifically to own firearms but also infringe on their basic rights.

Moreover, the red flag laws have promoted a backward process where the Second Amendment is viewed more as a privilege than as a fundamental individual right. American rights are established in their constitution, and denying people who have no criminal history is considered as an affront on their fundamental rights (Pederson et al. 275). Worse still, red flag laws have created a reverse effect other than the original purpose as it has resulted in a confrontation between firearms owners and law enforcement agencies. The Americans are guaranteed a right to safety in the constitution, and depriving them of the opportunity to own guns has led to increase in criminal activities targeting them as they are unable to defend themselves (Lund and Adam 16). It is instructive to note that red flag laws have disrupted the normal functioning of other measures aimed at enforcing gun control. The proponents of the law have shied away from adopting other gun control policies that are less likely to cause violation of people's basic rights as enshrined in the American constitution. Understandably, red flag laws have the potential to address the increase of gun violence in the US but the unlawful use of the laws have overshadowed the expected benefits where it greatly violates the rights of Americans to access and own guns which they can use in executing their civic duty of protecting their states and more significantly defending themselves against crime.

Notably, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the American constitution provide that the federal government should not deny citizens to own property without following the due process of the law. The red flag laws deprive the citizens of their enshrined rights to own guns, which is considered a violation of the Second Amendment (Lund and Adam 23). More significantly, court hearings concerning the threat posed by individuals who own guns are often held ex parte, which means that they are not always present when orders on confiscation of their guns are issued. This has been established as a violation of the Sixth Amendment, which provides that the accused should be present to confront the accusations labeled against them (Brown and Manisha 721). Additionally, there is always a likelihood that the provided evidence on the incapability of veterans and other citizens is not true, and acting on such shallow evidence often results in wrongful confiscation of guns, and hence, the infringement on their rights. Despite being touted as a potential solution to the recent spate of gun violence in the United States, the unlawful use of red flag laws has brought more negative effects on the enshrined rights of Americans.

Also, red flag laws have failed to address the real causes of gun violence, but it has overemphasized the need to confiscate firearms from individuals who may not be a threat themselves and others. Treating veterans and...