So much going on around about "Red Flag" laws. "Oh, they're for your safety." "Oh, they're for the safety of society." "Oh, they're just a safety measure."
Bullshit.
The reason I say
so? If they're so concerned about the person
being a "threat," they only remove a tool that may be used to
exercise that threat. Just one sort of
tool, out of many. Just one prepared
tool, against so many that may be improvised by anyone who paid
attention in high school chemistry and who took shop courses (id est,
pretty much anyone with a reasonably well-rounded education.)
If the person is
such a threat, then the efforts should be focused on the person, yes? Seal up the house, and take the person
in for a 72- or 96-hour psych hold and eval, then decide what to do
with/about him. Decide if the person really is a threat, and
handle him accordingly.
Now, if I were in charge of such things, here’s
how I’d structure a “Red Flag” law. This
would (I think) maintain the rights of the accused, preserve due process, and
handle any threats at their source:
1)
The complaint is made. This must be
done by someone who knows you personally
resaonably well – not your kid’s teacher (who may have never met you,) unless
there are clear signs of abuse; or a cop who met you in passing and who has
only interacted with you for two minutes with you giving no outward “danger
signs,” or anyone like that. A relative,
or a (mental) health practitioner you consult regularly, or someone with at
least an undergrad psych degree – someone with either the knowledge or
experience to properly make such a judgement upon an individual.
2)
A court date is scheduled.
3)
You are advised of such court date – a minimum of three calendar days in
advance, and a maximum of seven calendar days in advance (you must be given an
opportunity to prepare a defense, but the assumption is that we must move
relatively quickly on this.)
4)
At your court appearance, you face your accuser, who must articulate his
concerns against you. Failure of the
accuser to appear nullifies the order with
prejudice, and the records so marked.
a.
You are given the opportunity to defend yourself, in the presence of a
judge and a psychologist or psychiatrist
(a masters-level practitioner in abnormal psychology at a minimum,) since most
judges do not hold psychology degrees, and are therefore not fit judges of the
mind. (If a judge does hold a masters-level psych degree, then that single judge will
do.)
b.
No attorneys are present. You are
defending your mind, not your legal status.
You will be doing so directly.
Yes, it will be stressful – that is the point. Induced stress will be part and parcel of the
psychological evaluation.
c.
You will have the opportunity to
examine your “accuser’s” position against you.
You will have the opportunity
to question your accuser. This is
proper, and a preservation of your rights under the Constitution – just as this
whole process will be. And if your
accuser can’t be bothered to show up, then you’re obviously not enough of a
problem to worry about.
5)
a.
Your home will be guarded while you are having your evaluation, if it is
ordered.
b.
The default position on this initial process will be the issuance of a 72-
or 96-hour psychological evaluation hold, unless you can prove you don’t need
one. If you can prove you don’t need
one, or the evaluation shows that you are stable, your home and contents will
be returned to you in the condition in which you left it, all property intact.
c.
If the result of such evaluation is that a precautionary hold is ordered,
or a period of observation is ordered, then it is time to hold property. Anything that may be used to attack another
is therefore inventoried as to kind, quantity, and condition (a written list
and a photographic record of condition is made as the property is amassed,) and
a permanent copy of such is given to the citizen (id est, a copy on optical media, such as a CD-ROM or DVD-ROM. Some format that may not be altered.) Such record is to be identical to the
“official” record maintained by the Sheriff’s Department.
d.
Any property taken is to be properly
stored, in such manner as it will not be damaged by handling, other property,
or the environment, for an indefinite period of time. A copy of the inventory of such property is
to be kept with the property.
e.
It is understood that one may not remove all threats from a given home, there are too many ways to make
various weapons to be had, if one knows how.
But, anything with a primary purpose of being used “as a weapon” (which,
sadly, includes firearms,) or a major secondary use as a weapon (including
things like field knives, baseball bats – if one is not on a team – collected
martial arts weaponry, collections of WWII war materiel, &c) can be taken
and held.
6)
Every six months, the order shall be reviewed in court. The same procedure is to be followed as the
original order, with the exception of the “psych hold” no longer being a major
potential outcome of the proceedings.
However, the original complainant must
still appear, must still articulate
his concerns (if they are still present,) and must still be made to defend his position on such. Or, he may state that there are no longer any
concerns, and that the order may be lifted.
a.
The default position on review is that the order is to be lifted, unless it
can be proven that the order should be maintained.
b.
If/when the order is to be lifted, the Sheriff’s department has ninety-six
hours (four calendar days) to return the citizen’s property to them, in the condition in which it was taken. Any property that is damaged (relative to the
condition recorded when the property was taken) the Sheriff’s department has
two weeks to make the citizen whole (but without undue delay. The two weeks is to allow a chance to find
uncommon items – common items are to be replaced immediately. If items cannot be located, the price of the
item – when new – shall be reimbursed.)
7)
At every stage, both the accuser and accused may bring witnesses to support
their position.
8)
At every stage, both the accuser and accused are aware of what is
happening.
9)
The accuser is not permitted to make his accusation anonymously Doing so nullifies the accusation.
Discuss
