<p>For the first time in recent memory following a horrific mass shooting, there appears to be an <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50321/republicans-move-take-most-significant-gun-control-james-barrett">emerging consensus</a> of many elected Republicans and outside conservative voices that &#8220;something&#8221; must finally be done on the issue of guns. In particular, many Republicans seem eager to consider the state-level adoption and implementation of so-called &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws — otherwise known as <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-gvro/">&#8220;gun violence restraining orders&#8221;</a> (GVROs). The popularity of &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws seemed to increase after National Review&#8217;s David French <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-gvro/">endorsed</a> them in the aftermath of the 2018 Parkland shooting, and President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/donald-trump-is-right-to-call-for-red-flag-laws/">endorsed</a> them this week in the aftermath of last weekend&#8217;s mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.</p>
<p>While specific &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws will vary in their precise statutory wording, French <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-gvro/">summarized</a> the basic statutory framework in his post-Parkland endorsement: &#8220;[B]roadly speaking, [&#8216;red flag&#8217; laws] permit a spouse, parent, sibling, or person living with a troubled individual to petition a court for an order enabling law enforcement to temporarily take that individual’s guns right away.&#8221; The basic concept of the GVRO may be fairly analogized to that of a restraining order, in the context of family law.</p>
<p>GVROs are certainly well-intentioned. Indeed, more so than merely being well-intentioned, they would likely have a greater impact on curtailing gun violence committed by mentally twisted and deranged individuals than would, for example, grotesquely over-inclusive and illogical <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/50263/hammer-conservatives-must-not-go-soft-assault-josh-hammer">calls to ban entire new sub-classes</a> of semiautomatic weaponry. Conservatives of different stripes can, and will, disagree on the prudential trade-offs and judgment calls involved with assessing a specific proposed GVRO&#8217;s policy meritoriousness.</p>
<p>But at minimum, conservatives should be <em>very, very skeptical</em> of &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws.</p>
<p>Many &#8220;red flag&#8221; law supporters twist themselves into knots to explain how purportedly &#8220;well crafted&#8221; GVROs can comport with rudimentary, fundamental principles of due process. French, in particular, has <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/donald-trump-is-right-to-call-for-red-flag-laws/">carefully prescribed</a> five criteria that he would seek to implement in a &#8220;properly drafted&#8221; GVRO. But even accepting the premise of a &#8220;properly drafted&#8221; GVRO law, there is simply no escaping the reality that the entire GVRO procedure flips due process on its head where a core <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf">constitutional right</a> is at stake. As Dana Loesch aptly <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/red-flag-laws-not-good-solution-mass-shootings/">put it</a> at The Federalist this week, &#8220;it is an abrogation of due process to invert the order of &#8216;innocent until proven guilty&#8217; to &#8216;somewhat guilty until proven innocent.'&#8221; GVRO advocates argue that the burden of proof must still fall on the party petitioning to confiscate the respondent&#8217;s firearms — but the procedural reality is that the petitioner is still the first mover and, after that initial move, the onus shifts to the respondent to demonstrate his innocence. That is hardly an exemplary means by which to dispense with a cherished constitutional liberty, and it is made even more egregious in the context of &#8220;emergency&#8221; <em>ex parte</em> (i.e., one-party) proceedings — which GVRO advocates <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/donald-trump-is-right-to-call-for-red-flag-laws/">concede</a> will be a reality.</p>
<p>It is worth breaking down the due process point a bit further, as I did in a <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1159101506920034305">tweet thread</a> yesterday. Like many conservatives, I take a <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1159102556540481536">very narrow view</a> of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In accordance with what Justice Clarence Thomas has called the <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1159102556540481536">&#8220;law-of-the-land view&#8221;</a> of the Due Process Clause, my belief is that the constitutional requirement for due process merely &#8220;requires &#8230; that our Government &#8230; proceed &#8230; according to written constitu­tional and statutory provision[s] before depriving someone of life, liberty, or property&#8221; (as Justice Thomas phrased it in his dissent in the 2017 case of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1256_5i36.pdf"><em>Nelson v. Colorado</em></a>). Under this narrow view of <em>constitutional</em> due process, GVROs are fine.</p>
<p>But in our constitutional republic, black-letter legal exegesis is affirmatively <em>not</em> the only purpose that the Constitution serves. Consider this 2014 Yuval Levin <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/how-our-democracy-works-yuval-levin/">piece</a> at National Review, in which Levin cited University of Virginia&#8217;s James Ceaser for the proposition that there are two distinct senses in which the Constitution must be understood:</p>
<blockquote><p>The first sense — legalistic constitutionalism — understands the Constitution as a set of rules that can decide policies or cases; these rules are of a sort that can offer definitive answers and that could be employed and enforced by courts. The second sense — political constitutionalism — understands the Constitution as a document that fixes certain ends of government activity, delineates a structure and arrangement of powers, and encourages a certain tone to the operation of the institutions. By this understanding, it falls mostly to political actors making political decisions to protect and promote constitutional goals.</p></blockquote>
<p>I believe &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws pretty clearly fail the &#8220;political constitutionalism&#8221; conception of what due process entails for a societally cherished and constitutionally enumerated individual right. The Framers would have been positively aghast at the notion that a next-door neighbor or workplace supervisor could successfully petition a court to deprive an individual of his Second Amendment rights — let alone in <em>ex parte</em>, secretive fashion — for <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/red-flag-laws-not-good-solution-mass-shootings/">up to two weeks</a> before a gun owner may attempt to defend himself. To many, that may seem awfully reminiscent of the old English Star Chamber. And even more horrifyingly Orwellian is the on-the-ground reality that people have <a href="https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/11/06/maryland-police-officer-shoots-kills-man-being-served-with-gun-grab-order-under-new-red-flag-law">already died at the hands of law enforcement</a> after they have been unwilling to turn in their GVRO-stripped firearms.</p>
<p>Is this really the world that conservatives — especially those of a smaller government hue — wish to live in? How about this great question that Loesch <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/06/red-flag-laws-not-good-solution-mass-shootings/">asks</a>: &#8220;Will any considerations be given to women defending themselves against domestic abusers who might misuse the system to render their victims defenseless?&#8221; Where are the feminists here — don&#8217;t GVROs disproportionately harm women, who are generally physically weaker than male counterparts and therefore more reliant on weaponry for self-defense? What about the notion that we will never be able to come even remotely close of ridding the system of false positives, as Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz incisively <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-yellow-light-for-red-flag-laws-11565132144">points out</a> at The Wall Street Journal? &#8220;How many law-abiding people are we prepared to deprive of guns to prevent even one mass shooting?&#8221; Dershowitz asks. It&#8217;s a very good question.</p>
<p>And yet there is one even more basic objection to &#8220;red flag&#8221; laws. Conservatives must think about who will be tasked with actually adjudicating and enforcing GVROs: Courts. In what world, with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/42341/hammer-it-past-time-trump-openly-defy-court-order-josh-hammer">judicial #Resistance run amok</a> across the nation and a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/49913/hammer-conservatives-how-much-longer-are-you-josh-hammer">systemically rigged game</a> against conservatives across the entirety of the judiciary, would conservatives be willing to play this game? The potential for abuse here is astounding. In blue states especially, but also in many red states, anti-gun fanatics populate large swaths of the judiciary. These black-robed oracles will oftentimes be massively incentivized to grant very weak petitioners the GVROs they seek, due mostly to an innately held animus against gun rights. What kind of far-left blue state judge would be willing to resist a sob story from a crazy girlfriend or an aggrieved workplace supervisor?</p>
<p>Gun owners tend to be cynical folks. I know because I am one. And GVROs will simply not end well for us gun owners — <em>all of us</em>, not just the crazy folks who should indeed not possess firearms.</p>
<p>If Republicans and conservatives feel the need to &#8220;do something&#8221; after El Paso and Dayton, they certainly have options. Why not start with national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation, which is <a href="http://www.stevesachs.com/HR38_SachsBarnettBaudeLtr_20170323.pdf">clearly constitutional</a> under Article IV of the Constitution?</p>
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Why is the new GOP policy talking point not right-to-carry national reciprocity legislation (clearly constitutional under Art. IV Full Faith and Credit Clause) instead of constitutionally questionable “red flag” legislation?</p>
<p>— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) <a href="https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/1159167792182104064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 7, 2019</a></p></blockquote>
</div>
<p>Maybe somewhere out there, a Republican elected official is listening. But probably not.</p>

<script async src="https://www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script async src="https://www.tiktok.com/embed.js"></script><div data-widget-host="revcontent" data-pub-id="165152" data-widget-id="290588"></div><script src="https://delivery.revcontent.com/165152/290588/widget.js"></script>

HAMMER: Conservatives Should Be Very Skeptical Of ‘Red Flag’ Laws

CONTINUE READING

HAMMER: Conservatives Should Not Oppose Stop-And-Frisk Policy

Top Pollster: Only 45% Of Americans Would Vote For A Socialist For President

Who Will Win The Democratic Primary? The Latest On 2020 Presidential Primary Polling.

HAMMER: What To Watch For During Tonight’s New Hampshire Primary

Abbas Embarrassed: Trump Admin Secures Key Victory At Hostile United Nations

Will Trump Win? The Latest On Trump’s National And State-By-State Approval Ratings.

News and Commentary

Constitution

Donald Trump

Fourteenth Amendment

Gun Buybacks

Gun Control

Guns

Second Amendment

A video goes viral showing a baby being refused his mother by two gay "dads". This is just the tip of the iceberg, which is why we will have an important discussion today about surrogacy. 

Hour 1

The Matt Walsh Show

Ep. 1765 - This Video Is One Of The Worst Things I've Seen In A Long Time 

The Strait of Hormuz officially opens for business (kind of), the Pope makes “shocking” comments on immigration, and President Trump promises UFO disclosure at TPUSA. 


The Michael Knowles Show

Ep. 1956 -  Pope Leo's "SHOCKING" Immigration Comments EXPLAINED

A false miscreed has corrupted our leadership class.


The Andrew Klavan Show

Ep. 1275 - Dumb, Dumber and Progressive

President Trump announces a 10-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel, a murder-suicide involving former Democratic Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax shakes Virginia, and France and Britain hold a conference to secure the Strait of Hormuz – after the Iranian conflict ends. Get the facts first with Morning Wire.

- - -

Ep. 2738

- - -

Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3

- - -

Today's Sponsors:

Alliance Defending Freedom - Visit https://JoinADF.com/WIRE or text 'WIRE' to 83848 to learn more.

Pocket Hose - Text MORNING to 64000 to get a FREE pocket pivot and their 10-pattern sprayer with the purchase of ANY size Copper Head hose. Message and data rates may apply.

Morning Wire

U.S. Expands Hormuz Blockade & VA Fairfax Deaths Investigated | 4.17.26

U.S. Expands Hormuz Blockade & VA Fairfax Deaths Investigated | 4.17.26 [Member Exclusive]

A ceasefire goes into effect between Israel and Lebanon, a tragic murder-suicide rocks Virginia, and Dairy Queen deploys AI in the drive-thru. Get the facts first with Evening Wire.
- - -
Ep. 2737
- - -
Wake up with new Morning Wire merch: https://bit.ly/4lIubt3 
- - -
Today’s Sponsor:

Alliance Defending Freedom - Visit https://JoinADF.com/WIRE or text “WIRE” to 83848 to learn more.


Evening Wire: Lebanon Ceasefire Begins & Murder-Suicide Rocks VA | 4.16.26

The Pendragon Cycle

Menu

— News and Commentary —

HAMMER: Conservatives Should Be Very Skeptical Of ‘Red Flag’ Laws