The amount of backlash being generated over the approval of Colorado’s new “red flag” bill, created with the goal of limiting the possession of guns by people who are deemed “threats,” isn’t surprising, given the state’s rocky history with firearms. One of the bill’s key supporters, State Representative Tom Sullivan, lost his son in the 2012 Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting. Another one of its main proponents is Sheriff Tony Spurlock, who lost one of his officers, Deputy Zach Parish, in an “ambush-style attack” by a man known to be mentally ill and who owned a gun his own mother actually attempted to take but was legally unable to do so.
The bill, which is largely expected to become law soon enough, allows for the confiscation of a person’s gun(s) should a family member, medical professional or law enforcement officer consider them “threats.” Those threats are regarded as posing actual danger to others or to themselves. If a request is submitted, a judge may decide to have the person’s firearms seized. Following the seizure of the weapon(s) in question, the person could be without them for anywhere from two weeks to almost a full year, depending on how long the presiding judge deems appropriate.
One of the bill’s most vocal opponents is Sheriff Steve Reams, who has publicly stated that he would rather go to jail than uphold the potential passing of the law. He takes issue specifically with the lack of warning given to the people whose weapons may be seized, and points to the Second Amendment to support his claims. Although this is not to say that the Constitution ought to be ignored, modern governments, as well as citizens, must be mindful that the document was created during a completely different time period, and its stipulations should be adapted for the 21st century. Firearms in the 1700s pale in comparison to today’s guns in terms of sheer power and accessibility, and this is something that lawmakers must be keenly aware of when interpreting the Constitution in this contemporary era. Ultimately, Sheriff Reams has made it blatantly obvious that an object in the form of a gun takes precedence over the potential loss of human lives.
On one hand, it’s understandable that people might be concerned that their property would be taken from them without good cause or warning. However, the bill declares that a judge must determine whether or not the claims are well-founded or not. Ergo, if there’s no reason the person’s firearm should be taken away, then they have nothing to worry about. Additionally, if someone is truly a danger to themselves or society, then giving them a heads-up would be simply illogical, as it might only further prompt harmful actions.
In the other 14 states that have passed similar legislation, it was largely law enforcement who requested the weapons seizures, with 159 gun confiscations taking place in California in 2016 and just over 300 requests for possible seizures being submitted in Maryland within the first three months following the law’s implementation. Given that about half of the requests were followed by actual seizures, it’s clear that some people did pose real threats to their communities. This is evidenced by the fact that over half of the requests came from family members, those who likely know the gun owners best. Additionally, of those whose weapons were confiscated, there were also a number that displayed “significant threats” to places of education in the area.
However, after Maryland joined the list of states with a “red flag” law, there was an instance of violence that rose from the law’s enactment this past November. Police officers attempted to seize the guns of a man who had been reported as a potential “threat,” but he answered the door already holding a handgun, firing it after refusing to hand it over. The man was then shot and killed by the officers serving the seizure. One might try and suggest that the “red flag” law brought about violence, and strictly speaking, they would be correct. But, as the local chief of police stated, the fact that the man attempted to shoot the officers just goes to show that, without their intervention, he may have harmed others. With no intent of insensitivity, it must be acknowledged that someone willing to fight and die over a gun may not be the right person to own such an object.
The approval of this law in Colorado would only serve to benefit the Colorado population, protecting citizens from potentially encountering a dangerous person wielding a gun. The fact that other states have already successfully passed and implemented measures such as this one is only further proof that citizens would become safer with its enaction.
