It’s back — the lie that President Trump made it easier for the “severely mentally ill” to purchase firearms is back and making the rounds of social media again. Dana Loesch helped debunk that conspiracy theory in 2017 when it was being pushed by everyone from Cher to Rachel Maddow to Kurt Eichenwald to Shannon Watts to Bette Midler. Midler even canceled that donation she’d sent to the ACLU after finding out the civil rights organization was backing Trump on this one.
Now there’s a lot of talk about “red flag” laws, and Loesch once again has stepped forward with a thread explaining what’s really going on and why red-flag laws might themselves be red flags. The president has brought them up since the El Paso mass shooting:
#NEW: Pres. Trump outlines possible steps to combat mental illness & prevent potential mass shooters:
-implement "red-flag laws" to better identify mentally ill people who shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms
-cultural changes (i.e. regulation of violent video games)
— Jennifer Franco (@jennfranconews) August 5, 2019
And Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to be a huge supporter:
El Paso shooting is sick and senseless.
Time to do more than pray. Time to enact common-sense legislation in Congress to empower states to deal with those who present a danger to themselves and others — while respecting robust due process.
(1/2)
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) August 4, 2019
May not have mattered here, but Red Flag laws have proven to be effective in states that have them. (2/2)
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) August 4, 2019
Read more on Red Flag / Extreme Risk Protection Orders.https://t.co/vkV5kRcUQv
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) August 4, 2019
Here’s an excerpt from Graham’s statement:
The use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders also known as “Red Flag” orders have shown promise in the states.
While no two state laws are the same, Red Flag laws generally work by a family or household member or law enforcement officer petitioning a court to temporarily restrict an individual’s ability to buy or access firearms. The burden of proof is placed on law enforcement to prove the person in question has become an imminent danger and there is a Due Process right for the individual to challenge the determination.
This is not a red or blue state issue. Politically, these laws are found in red, blue, and purple states.
In March 2018, the Trump Administration called on every state to enact Extreme Risk Protection Orders. President Trump also directed the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to states – at their request – regarding establishing and implementing Extreme Risk Protection Orders.
Outside groups with opposing views of the Second Amendment – the National Rifle Association and Giffords Law Center – have also expressed support for Red Flag legislation.
We like the part about robustly respecting due process — something the law tying “severe mental illness” to Social Security failed to do — but read on for more:
A lot of discussion re: “red flag laws.” A short thread here, done in good faith, explaining how this proposal looks to those nervous about due process.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Many questions about this. Who can petition for ERPO/red flag? It varies state by state. Are there protections for abuse? I haven’t seen any in the legislative proposals I’ve read. It takes months, perhaps years even to clear one’s name if falsely accused …
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
If the penalty of confiscation is given before any evaluation or a court date, which is typical with these proposals, does this seem like an inversion of “innocent until proven guilty” to anyone and if so, does it concern you?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Regardless your perspective on it, there are many concerned about corruption in laws enforcement and failures within the justice system. How does what I’ve detailed help that situation, since there is no protection against abuse?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Say an ERPO/red flag order is served on someone presumably mentally unwell to the point of being a danger to themselves or others. Does removing the weapon solve the issue? There are no mental health provisions in any proposal that I’ve read.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Presumably, warrants must be obtained in order to serve red flag/ERPO orders. Are there any concerns for Fourth Amendment protections?
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Lastly (I think) are there concerns for evaluating cases to prevent things like this from happening? https://t.co/C4O99YuNO6
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
(Ok not lastly) … how do red flag laws provide protections that our current processes do not? Civil commitments, TROs, etc? Beyond removing due process, many do not understand what isn’t offered with our current legal options.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
There are absolutely solutions for this awfulness. I just hope people, such as the lawmakers floating these ideas, are really considering everything here — and I hope people understand the reservations others have without malice.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 5, 2019
Believe it or not, conservatives, Republicans, NRA members are all concerned with stopping any more mass shootings. But the opposition always seems to make the immediate jump to gun confiscation and mandatory buy-backs.
The issue here is twofold. One, (potentially) taking away rights from law abiding citizens in the hopes of stopping criminals is ludicrous. Two, until we acknowledge the true problem of the degradation of the moral fabric of America, we are whistling in the wind.
— jcope (@jtcope4) August 5, 2019
All it takes is one pissed off, vindictive neighbor, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc, and an activist judge.
You're done.
Not just no. HELL, no
FISA court "trust us"/protections anyone?
— tree hugging sister (@treehuggingsis) August 5, 2019
When people start talking about "anonymous tips" and "red flag laws", I turn off. Anonymous reports from nervous ninnies serve nobody and will be abused ad nauseum
— ????? ???? (@ComeTakeThem) August 5, 2019
I understand all of your points Dana. All very good and thought provoking. The key element to me ( as you pointed out) are we willing to give up some 4A for red flag enforcement. I am willing but realize others may not.
— God’s Reality Check (@reality_du_jour) August 5, 2019
I don’t support any red flag laws that remove a person’s property (firearms, etc.) and deprive them of their rights without due process FIRST, and without a method for quickly (not months or years!) returning/reinstating their rights & property. The Constitution is clear on this.
— Jason W. (@cobalt5050) August 5, 2019
It's a knee jerk, virtue signaling sneaky a** attack on the 2nd amendment and due process.
No way will it happen— G Sullivan Shaw (@GSullivanShaw1) August 5, 2019
Related:
'Every time': Blue-checks and firefighters re-up lie about Trump admin making it 'easier' for severely mentally ill people to buy guns https://t.co/Lbyj0ivJnq
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 5, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member