Gun confiscations have begun, and they have already claimed the life of one victim. According to news sources, police went to the home of Gary J. Willis at 5:17 am. The suddenly woken man retrieved a handgun and answered the door, not certain who it was at such an early hour. When police identified themselves, he put down his weapon. However, when informed they were there to confiscate his weapons under Maryland's Red Flag law, a struggle ensued and a weapon was reportedly discharged. At which point, an officer fired his service weapon, killing Gary Willis.
So far, everything seems to be going according to plan. The state creates a law that allows interested third parties to petition the courts to confiscate the firearms of someone that is possibly dangerous, and the police can show up at all hours and save the day. However, it seems a few points have been missed in this scenario.The law allows the courts to order the confiscation of person's personal property, based on the word of a third party. This law is open ended and a bit vague, meaning it will create nightmare scenarios for accused gun owners that are completely innocent of any crime.
Let's take a moment to envision a hypothetical situation that is quite plausible, given the nature of the law and judicial system.
A gun owner and his ex-girlfriend have an argument, the ex-girlfriend feels scared because the man has several guns. The gun owner has never committed a crime, nor is he known to be violent, but he is quick tempered and can be argumentative and loud. So she turns to the courts, in order to calm her fears. The court determines there is reasonable grounds to confiscate the man's weapons, and the police quickly carry out the court's order. The man must now hire lawyers to represent him in court, in order to prove that he is not threat to anyone and is a responsible gun owner. He wins his case and receives his firearms from the police, in addition to a bill from his lawyer that adds up to thousands of dollars.
Who besides the man's attorney benefited from the above example? The courts and police have wasted precious time and money chasing an innocent man. The accused has lost time, his reputation, and lots of money, all because an ex-girlfriend was frightened by his demeanor. The ex-girlfriend has neither gained nor lost; she was honestly frightened by his demeanor, and is thus innocent of perjury, but was never in any real danger. The only ones that benefit from such laws are the trial lawyers that charge hundreds of dollars an hour.
In the example above, I could have been the gun owner in question. I am large, loud, emotional, argumentative, quick tempered, and I have been known to inadvertently frighten people with my demeanor. I happen to be of Greek ancestry, being loud and quick tempered is a cultural thing. I know lots of other people that are also loud and quick tempered, and most of them are of varied backgrounds. Do we qualify as being a threat to society because we are men, or because we are loud and emotional?
Some folks make the argument that this law will help prevent mass shootings, suicides, and other violent crimes, by allowing the courts to confiscate firearms based on the word of family members or closely associated persons. There is some merit to that argument, many crimes could have been prevented if the courts had been allowed to act proactively against troubled individuals. There is no doubt in my mind that the Maryland state legislature was focused on the safety of it's citizens when it passed this law; however, I don't believe this law is the correct solution.
I do not know what the correct answer is, but I do know that we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and that a whole lot of innocent people will have their property confiscated based on other people's fear. Fear is a powerful emotion, and people can act rashly when they are afraid. This law plays on the public's fear, and when a government uses fear as a tool to implement policy it becomes tyranny. Let's hope that cooler heads will eventually prevail, and draft laws that are based on reason instead of fear.
