|
?:reviewBody
|
-
In recent years, many states in the U.S. have responded to multiple incidents of mass shootings by passing red flag laws intended to provide a means by which potentially dangerous (and armed) persons could be legally restricted prior to their engaging in harmful acts: In general, red flag laws authorize courts to issue a special type of protection order that allows police to temporarily confiscate firearms from persons deemed by judges to be a danger to themselves or to others. Advocates argue that such laws can help save lives without infringing on civil liberties, while opponents maintain that red flag seizures violate constitutional due process guarantees. In February 2018, a few weeks after a mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida left 17 people dead, U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence Trump met with lawmakers to discuss the subjects of gun laws and school safety. Nikolas Cruz, the suspected shooter, had been able to legally purchase an AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle even though local police had previously received multiple calls about his potentially dangerous behavior, a subject that Trump and Pence discussed at that meeting. As can be seen in this video clip, Pence began speaking on the subject of how red flag laws were one mechanism that might provide local law enforcement additional tools if an individual is reported to be a potential danger while still allowing for due process. Trump interrupted and twice expressed the desirability of being able to take firearms away from citizens first and not involving the courts until afterward: What Trump might have meant by his interjection here is difficult to discern. Critics of red flag laws have argued that even though court proceedings may be required before firearms are confiscated from residents, those proceedings don't meet the standards of due process because respondents are not guaranteed representation in court (since such proceedings are civil rather than criminal), and they do not have the right to fully argue their cases in court before confiscation orders are issued and acted upon. Perhaps Trump meant that initial court involvement should only be cursory in such cases to facilitate the necessity of acting quickly, while fuller court hearings could wait until after the potential danger has been neutralized. But the language he used certainly sounded to many like Trump was advocating that law enforcement be allowed to confiscate guns from citizens without any prior court involvement whatsoever.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}