Mass Shootings

---

 After looking at the 2nd Amendment it can be seen that it is diametrically opposed to the removal of those weapons that protect us from a tyrannical government in order to stop mass shootings. 

What is to be done to give the public relief from this type of dread facing adults and children alike? Can the public pass a law to remove the right to keep or own weapons? No. The right to keep weapons is inherent to each individual of the nation. This right cannot be taken away; a singular person can only relinquish it for him or herself. Think of it this way, say the Latinos, Blacks and Asians formed a voting block to remove citizenship from the White populace of the nation thus making them slaves. The law cannot stand because no group or person can pass a law to remove an inherent right from a singular person. Can the government outlaw the weapons or any of their components? No because the second amendment forbids any government from removing weapons, ammunition, or access to the same items. Can laws be passed that allow for the limiting access to weapons or confiscation of weapons prior to someone actually committing a crime (red flag laws)? Maybe!

Consider that some proposed the red flag laws that have been written to date have been broad, vague, and weaponized to remove as many firearms as possible from the public with no regards for law-abiding citizens rights to keep and bear arms. 

Which states have red flag laws?

More than 20 states, along with Washington, D.C., have passed red flag laws as of June 2023. They are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan (going into effect early in 2024), Minnesota (going into effect early in 2024), Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington. 

In Oregon the following individuals can request, via a petition, a hearing to remove all weapons from an individual. 

A law enforcement officer, Family member, Spouse, Intimate partner, Parent, Child, Sibling and any person living in the household of the person they are concerned about can request an Order from the court. 

Within 24 hours a hearing is held and a judge decides if the complaint has value and if he agrees with the complaint the weapons are removed from the individual in question. The person who requests the petition must appear in person or by video at the hearing. If the person who is at risk requests a hearing, then the court must hold an additional hearing within 21 days. If approved, the Order is usually effective for one year. (1) 

In Colorado a red flag law was put into effect in 2019. Then nearly half of the state's counties declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries.

Since the law was put in place, the shooter who opened fire with an AR-15-style rifle inside Colorado Springs' Club Q last year, killing five people and wounding 17 others, had previously been arrested for making threats. The state has a red flag law, but no ERPO was filed. In Colorado, law enforcement, family and household members, certain medical professionals and certain educators can file petitions. This shows that a red flag law is only valid if it is used. Since the shooter was known to the police, it should have stopped the shooter. (2) 

Just how many shootings have been stopped since red flag laws have been implemented? An example would be Chicago Illinois. With more than 8,500 shootings resulting in 1,800 deaths since 2020, the law was used there just four times. New Mexico had 600 gun related deaths with only 8 uses of the red flag laws. In Massachusetts, they had nearly 300 gun related homicides and just 12 uses of its law. (3) 

We must try a different form of red flag law and actually apply the law. This new red flag law would be very narrowly construed and only be used on individuals that have an actual history of “anti-social” behavior over a long period of time. In the case of a minor, the documentation would be done from childhood through the schools. As for adults a semi-covert investigation starts at the first demonstration of continuous aggravated behavior be that a type of harassment towards a co-worker of domestic abuse. The investigation would be done in days and if found to be true the individual would have access to weapons temporarily removed in order for evaluations to be completed. In the case of minors the parents would have the choice of removing the weapons from the home or removing the minor to a safe facility in order to limit access to arms. 

Any information given to authorities must have complete records kept and both the informant and the subject would be investigated to reveal motives of both individuals to ensure that false or misleading issues were used to remove the arms.. If no issues are found with the subject in question, the weapons are returned and the informant is arrested for giving false information. If the subject in question is found to be a hazard to the general public they are restricted from weapons until such time that they are found to be competent to once again have weapons. In cases of domestic abuse the individual may never obtain their rights to own weapons since recidivism is high in those types of cases. These conditions would be done for each case and be carried out with complete transparency. The merits of each case would have to stand-alone and no one else would be impacted through comparison. This type of system could not be expanded at a later time. Should there ever be a desire to use this system to remove firearm ownership from the general public then the entire system would need to be shut down first and dismantled before implementing a new system. 

The current system has gaps in both law enforcement and social systems due to non-communication. The mental health system does not get accurate reporting of information to the police in a timely manner and the police don't give information out to the health system. People slip through these gaps permitting obtainment of weapons by those who should not posses those firearms through multiple issues. he biggest issue, I believe, is due to not understanding that the rights given the people also come with duties and responsibilities. 

As for protecting the public in general and children in schools, removing concealed or open carry by permitted individuals is a step in the wrong direction I believe. Removing weapons from an area or specific place only tells a potential shooter that they should go to those sites because no one can stop them from the initial attack and they have time to do much damage before the police get there and can possibly escape. Whereas if weapons are allowed everywhere, with an exception of some government buildings, shooters will understand that they are just as likely to be standing next to an armed citizen that will return fire immediately giving them no opportunity to complete the attack.  

We have the right to keep and bear firearms and that right is purchased with the duty to keep the firearms away from anyone that should not have access to them. A weapon might be kept out for personal and family protection but if multiple weapons are in a dwelling then the others must be safeguarded to ensure they cannot be used by someone that should not have them, especially family members. The onus is on the owner of the weapons to ensure access is denied to those under age or possibly the extreme aged due to hormones, mood swings, and dementia. As it is our responsibility to ensure that no one goes out and drives drunk, it is our responsibility to stop family members from becoming a danger to others and themselves.

============