The red-flag gun bill in our state has been altered to allow only law enforcement officials and not family members to petition for confiscation of guns from other family members who are a danger to others or themselves. Prior to this change in the bill, Donald Burleson was concerned meddlesome neighbors could contact law enforcement to initiate said confiscation.
His “plausible example” states he is worried law enforcement could be allowed to confiscate an individual’s firearm if the individual is observed yelling at his own dog by one of his neighbors, who then reports this to police. This is a ludicrous example. Does Dr Burleson really believe a discerning judge would dispossess a citizen’s gun for something this absurd? A more plausible example would be if multiple neighbors had been threatened by a known gun owner. In this case, the red-flag law seems justified.
I do understand that the mishandling of this law, if enacted, is something to be concerned about. My personal view is that extreme conservatives should at least empathize with/understand this legislative attempt to stunt the exceedingly high proliferation of gun violence we see nowadays. Would the far right prefer lawmakers stand idle while mass shootings continue unabated?
I wonder if Dr. Burleson still opposes current version of the red-flag bill now that family members (neighbors were never part of the language in this bill to my knowledge) are excluded from the bill?