Zeoli and Webster, in the new JAMA, discuss "red flag" laws. These are laws that prohibit gun ownership by people with histories of violent felonies and/or people who have domestic violence restraining orders; or allow concerned family members or others to ask a court to prohibit someone who is at high risk of suicide or violence from possessing a firearm. These mean that yes, the people are required to surrender weapons they own and the police can confiscate them.
They have not so far resulted in the shootouts Mojrim fears, and they are associated with modest reductions in homicides and suicides. Not huge, but they do save lives. The courts have consistently upheld such laws and they have popular support. I would also favor requiring that guns be stored in safes. They are only enforceable post hoc, but they do provide recourse when people are negligent and others might get the message.
Also, we might consider taking guns away from complete doofuses.
Update: To claim that firearm injuries are not a public health issue is to prove that you need a proctoscope to find your head. Injury prevention is one of the core functions of public health, obviously.
4 comments:
What is interesting is that a couple of relatives or a live-in partner can call you dangerous and ask the court to take away your guns.
Way back in the day, the same thing happened with mental illness where a couple of relatives could attest that you were crazy and all-of-a sudden you find yourself incarcerated without a trial.
I think this aspect of these laws will be challenged.
Why you gotta call me out like that?
Anyway, this seems to conflate a couple different things. The study references the removal of firearm rights for felons and those who committed misdemeanor DV, both of which are federal law, as well as those under restraining orders, which varies by state. So called red flag laws (prior restraint based on family observations) is relatively new and does not appear to be covered by this study.
It has to be understood that all these occur in different circumstances: it's easy to get guns away from a man while he's in jail, not so much when he's at home wondering why the pigs are at his door. Adding his name to NICS and preventing him from getting a gun in the first place is the easiest thing of all.
As to storage no law is really required, prosecutors need to step up and start charging people with negligent homicide post hoc.
Well, clearer laws are needed it seems. There was a case in Connecticut last year where a kid was visiting his friend and they started playing with the friend's father's gun. The kid accidentally shot himself dead. The current law regarding gun storage is leaky so the kid's father is now campaigning for a legal change to require use of gun safes in all circumstances. Apparently under present law the prosecutor can't charge.
Yes, the JAMA essay covers a variety of circumstances, but what they all have in common is keeping guns out of the hands of high risk people. So far, as I say, red flag laws have not resulted in standoffs though it would seem possible. The JAMA essay does discuss these laws.
Regarding Anonymous, judges can certainly make mistakes but laws can be written to have specific thresholds and standards, and to give people recourse to challenge an order.
The prosecutor could easily have charged, he was simply afraid to take on a case like that. Someone always starts blathering about how "they've suffered so much already." Negligent homicide statutes do not require that a specific law or regulation be violated, only that that the suspect hit the "reasonable man" standard. Since any reasonable person can deduce that (a) children find shit and (b) children shouldn't have unsupervised access to guns because (c) they stand an excellent chance of causing injury or death to themselves or others, it can work for an aggressive and committed prosecutor. The disgraceful american practise of electing DAs and judges makes them extremely risk averse.
Regarding the linked study, I think it necessary to divide out the various kinds of laws: family red flag, police red flag, protection order, violent felony, non-violent felony, and misdemeanor domestic violence. More, it should divide gun confiscation from acquisition blocks. This is, to me, akin to determining efficacy vs gram positive and gram negative bacteria. This seems to be a problem the public health community has when delving into social research issues. While it is certainly a public health concern the methodology of medical research contains certain blind spots when looking at social//behavioral problems.
Post a Comment