Red flag laws are the top priority of Democrats and gun control advocates. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support these measures – by margins ranging between 2-1 and 3-1. Congress recently passed legislation providing funding for states that adopted these laws.
But the polling doesn't really gauge whether Americans understand how these laws operate. The surveys generally just ask people if they support laws that “allow guns to be temporarily confiscated by a judge from people considered by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others.”
Respondents might reasonably assume that a normal legal process is being followed, whereby complaints are made and witnesses are cross-examined. With a law that almost always involves fears of suicide, they might presuppose that mental health experts are involved in the process.
To examine this premise, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey 1,000 general election voters from July 21-24, 2022. The survey began by asking people whether they supported red flag laws. It then informed respondents that there are no hearings before an individual's guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process.
People initially answered by a two-to-one margin that they support red flag laws (58% to 29%), with the strongest support coming from Democrats, the wealthy, blacks and Hispanics, and people aged 18-29.
However, after being told that there are no court proceedings before an individual's guns are taken away, and that there are no mental health care experts involved in the process, support changed to opposition (29% to 47%). Strong support plummeted from 34% to 14% and strong opposition rose from 18% to 29%.
Finally, people were asked if they prefer “involuntary commitment” or red flag laws. They were told that involuntary commitment laws provide for evaluations by mental health care experts, that an emergency court hearing takes place before a judge's decision, and that a lawyer is provided if the person can't afford one. They are also told that, under such rules, judges have a range of less extreme options, such as mandatory outpatient mental health care and weapon confiscation.
Survey respondents favored involuntary commitment by a 40%-to-33% margin. Only Democrats, the wealthy, blacks, and Asians supported red flag laws as their preferred option.
The shift in position by the strongest supporters of red flag laws when told about the laws is consistent with them being the least well-informed. But that isn't the only evidence of that problem. In April, the CPRC hired McLaughlin & Associates to survey what people thought the percentage of violent crime committed using guns was. They found that those most strongly supporting gun control dramatically overestimated the percentage of violent crime committed with guns. While the average Democrat estimates that 56.9% of violent crimes involve guns and the typical Republican gave an answer of 37%. (The actual rate is less than 8%.)
We keep being told that there is 90+% support in polls for universal background checks on the private transfer of guns. But when these measures have been on the ballot, they haven't been slam dunks. In 2016, despite Michael Bloomberg's overwhelming financial backing, ballot initiatives failed in Maine by 4 percentage points and won in Nevada by less than 1%.
The Nevada initiative had $20 million in funding behind it, amounting to an incredible $35 per vote. That's three times more than what was spent in opposition. In Maine, the opposition was outspent by a factor of 20. And in both states, the media coverage was overwhelmingly sympathetic to the gun control side.
While the Nevada initiative technically eked out a win, it wasn't able to go into effect because it had been inaccurately sold to voters as not costing taxpayers any money.
Senate Republicans passed gun control earlier this year to take guns off the political agenda for this fall, but part of the compromise entailed providing federal funding to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. Democrats continue to cite surveys seeming to show that gun control will play a role in November's election. Perhaps that's right. Or is this perception more properly understood as an example of their consultants and pollsters not understanding the issues?
Americans keep being told by the media that they overwhelmingly support gun control laws. So why don't the laws get passed? Might it be that the polls are inaccurate and biased? My own survey suggests just that.
This article originally appeared in RealClearPolitics. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. Republished with permission.
READ NEXT: John Fetterman's Absurd Argument Against Voter ID >>
I work in the mental health field. The vast majority of suicidal ideations/attempts have nothing to do with guns. People overdose on pills and illegal drugs. Red flag laws are nothing more than an excuse for the gun-grabbers to overthrow the 2nd Amendment.
All gun laws violate second amendment. To be truthful, when these maggots swear an oath of office a large part of that OATH, CONTRACT, PROMISE is to UPHOLD the constitution! ANY WHO VIOLATE THAT OATH BY IGNORING, MANIPULATING or TRYING TO REVOKE IT, have violated oath of office. That violation should result in IMMEDIATE expulsion, no trial or hearing. Breathing that contract is a felony. They should be charged, tried, convicted and spend rest of their treasonous worthless lives in GITMO.
The criminals in Washington are only doing their crimes to gain control over the country so they can rule and push us into the NWO garbage.
We the People are not as stupid as you presume. We want gun control … we are tired of our children being murdered in school, tired of being nervous to even go to the grocery store because of gun-toting maniacs. Vote BLUE if you cherish life!
I guess that means you drank the blue Kool-Ade…lots and lots of it! Did you not read the article?
We the People, at least some of us, are intelligent enough to realize that”gun control” only affects the law abiding people. The criminals, by their very nature, don’t obey the gun control laws, therefore the gun control laws only make it easier for the criminals to successfully break other laws with no fear of being stopped, caught or killed in the process since the law abiding victims won’t be armed. And the criminals don’t even need to be armed with guns. They can arm themselves with anything and have no fear of resistance or retaliation since their victims will be unarmed. Don’t believe me? Check out what has happened in Australia ever since they required that nearly all guns be turned in to the government. Prior to that law going into effect, break-ins of occupied homes were an exceedingly rare occurrence. After the guns were turned in, the number of break-ins/home invasions increased exponentially. To make matters worse, the Australian laws said that, if you were home when your house was broken into, you had no right to self defense and so, you were victimized twice, once by the criminals and again by the government that could charge you with a crime if you fought back against the criminal.
Personally, I refuse to disarm myself just to make people like you feel more comfortable and more noble. I cherish MY life, not the criminal’s. If you cherish the criminal’s life more than your own or your family mrmbers’ lives, that is your problem, not mine.
You can’t TRUST MSM OR THE DIMS AND BIDOPHILES AS FAR AS YOU CAN THROW EM. AS WAS SAID : The media said the people voted in a poll to want the Red FlagLaw, when in reality they overwhelmingly denied and voted NO 3 TO 1! ! ! MSM CAN GO TO HELL.
Federalist Paper 84, Hamilton
“Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America
For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained,
when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247
The same restrictions on Government legislating the First Amendment, press/religion/speech, also restricts Government from legislating any other amendments in the Bill of Rights.
Madison had said that America set the example of Citizens giving themselves their rights then giving government rights to govern, but only within the “powers” Enumerated.
“The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government, are “few and defined”.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0254
Hamilton asked why included a bill of rights if government can not legislate outside it’s enumeration of powers,
and Madison said that by enumerating only certain powers to governments no tribunals of justice would allow Government’s encroachment on these rights.
The SCOTUS has concurred precisely with Madison and Hamilton’s interpretation of the Constitution.
“When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.
[Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.] Supreme Court.
The Constitution “CAN NOT” be changed or altered by “LEGISLATION”, only the “AMENDMENT PROCESS” is “LEGAL”.
“as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that…..”every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights”.
I know in some of the state constitutions the power of the government is controlled by such a declaration, but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a….”double security”…. on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the state governments are as liable to attack these invaluable privileges as the general government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against”.
https://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-speech-june-8-1789.html
James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and in the Federalist paper 46 he explained the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.
Here’s a short exert:
“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of”.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper also wrote,
“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a time when the citizens might have to fight against their own government, even their own military, in order to keep their liberties.
The second Amendment was never about personal defense as it was to be the “Backbone” of a “National Strategy” written within the Constitution for armed citizens to always be the ultimate “National Defense” of their Country, Constitution, Liberties and form of Government.
Alexander Hamilton James Madison wrote the bill of rights, and in the Federalist paper no. 46 he explained the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment.
Here’s a short exert:
“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a
regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed;
and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still
it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with
the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over
the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate
governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia
officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any
form can admit of”.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist paper No. 29 also wrote,
“if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an
army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties
of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at
all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready
to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This
appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing
army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a time when the citizens
might have to fight against their own government, even their own
military, in order to keep their liberties.
The second Amendment was never about personal defense as it was to be
the “Backbone” of a “National Strategy” written within the Constitution
for armed citizens to always be the ultimate “National Defense” of their
Country, Constitution, Liberties and form of Government.
“TOO BAD” they couldn’t legislate the “BACKBONE” into people to stand up and defend their “FREEDOMS”.
Polls that supposedly show significant public support the anti civil rights proposals above mentioned don’t seem to agree with actual public vote tallies. How come these are the results actually obtained. Might media be confusing it’s desires with public opinion, as it is expressed in actual voting? It so appears.