Happy New Year to all!
This is a curious read. Click and hop over to the Providence Journal and see for yourself but in essence it seems to suggest that since they have used the law 33 times it is therefore a success…
I’m not convinced for a number of reasons.
Firstly, in each case, was the ‘Red Flag’ legislation the only legal mechanism by which to accomplish the goal? In only 1 of the 33 cases is this stated, at least in the piece linked, to be the case that the police had no other recourse but to ‘Red Flag’ an individual for making threats. The search didn’t turn up the alleged weapon.
In only a handful of cases were firearms recovered. In other cases, like the story presented in the opening of piece, a man giving signs of suicide (through picture and text message) was intervened with by law enforcement and he did not kill himself. That man had a weapon. However that case is hard to justify as a ‘Red Flag’ win. The police are empowered , and have the full human ability to go speak with someone showing concerning behavior, that wasn’t magically granted unto them with the advent of ‘Red Flag’ laws…
It seems to me, and perhaps I am merely pessimistic, that ‘Red Flag’ authors are chalking anything remotely resembling a use of the law as a ‘win’ and not doing so through the lens of abilities present before the law change. I also don’t think they’re going to chalk anything into the ‘lose’ column, even if something is missed, someone is wrongly flagged, or even if someone dies during the seizure.
