Originally Posted by
Ed L
The big concern is where this could lead and what might be considered concerning behavior. Are people being under investigation going to be put on red flag lists or something to that effect?
And what effect does this have on any firearm licenses you have or your future ability to acquire them?
We live in an environment where gun owners and gun rights are under greater attack than ever before, and from a variety of directions.
Let's take a look at some of the verbiage from the proposal:
"For decades, a process to identify, investigate, assess, and mitigate threats has been in place to counter targeted violence. Pioneered by the U.S. Secret Service, behavioral threat assessment and management has proven successful in protecting our presidents and foreign dignitaries. If this process works to protect the president, elected officials, foreign dignitaries, and even celebrities, why aren’t we using it to protect our children and local communities?"
In the cases listed above the individuals investigated come under attention due to threats or suspicious contacts they made, or statements they made to other people that make them seem like potential threats, or stalker-like behavior.
I think In this case many gunowners are worried about who decides what innocuous activities might be considered grounds for investigation. Things like displaying a heavy interest in or owning a lot of firearms might be considered by some to be a warning flag.
"(A) identifying individuals who are exhibiting patterns of concerning behavior that indicate an interest, motive, intention, or capability of carrying out an act of violence; (B) investigating and gathering information from multiple sources to assess whether an individual described in subparagraph (A) poses a threat, based on articulable facts; and (C) the subsequent management of such a threat, if necessary."
In some cases like the Parkland, Florida school shooter this makes sense, since there was more than enough information out there about him--from multiple visits by the police to his house to multiple people calling the police and FBI and warning them about him. If I remember correctly he even made statements that could be considered terroristic threats on social media prior to his acting.
However, we also see overextension of this. Look at the Red Flag laws in general or specifically California. If a co-worker or supervisor considers you to be angry and knows that you own firearms they can complain to the police and get your guns confiscated, and then you have to spend the time and money to get it back. It violates due process and opens the door for abuse. Or maybe you get into a debate with an antigun co-worker or relative, and they decide to report you. Or someone who doesn't like you and decides to do so out of spite. I could see this whole threat assessment/pre-crime thing headed in the same direction.
I think people are concerned that laws might be moving in this direction on a variety of fronts, and that this is just another well-intentioned program that could have some applicability in some cases, but could also turn into something that would be a threat and nightmare to gunowners, and make them live in fear of modern day witch hunts.
Reply With Quote