Ross: Arresting the gun, but not the shooter
Some states have been responding to mass shootings by passing what are called “red flag Laws.” Named for the red flags in a shooter’s background that always seem so obvious in hindsight.
These laws allow a court to consider red flags ahead of time, and if those flags are red enough, a judge can order that person’s weapons removed. Obviously, you can’t arrest a person for what they haven’t done yet. So instead, states arrest their guns. Which one man finds ridiculous.
“I basically goes after the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh amendments,” said Philip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
The league is a group that considers the NRA moderate, and that red flag laws are not only unconstitutional, but illogical.
“They’re all about gun confiscation,” he said. “If it was about helping somebody or preventing a crime, they would do something with the individual. He’s the danger.”
So where does that idea lead us? Well, if you believe that the Constitution protects easy access to powerful weapons, it means you have a choice: To accept the occasional mass shooting, or to conclude that in an armed society, if someone sends up red flags, his weapons should be left alone, but he should be confiscated.
That is, until he’s well-regulated enough to be trusted with a military-style, semi-automatic, and unlimited ammo. Shouldn’t be too hard.