Florida’s version of the red flag law:
*Guns can be taken away if you do something dumb like point it at your family, blow off steam by shooting out your front door at nothing in particular, posting things about how you’re going to wipe out the entire 8th grade class, things like that. (Actual cited cases)
*Right now, only LEO can file a “Risk Protection Order” (RPO) if they feel the person is an immediate danger to themselves or others.
*The filing LEO has 14 days to submit justification for their concern.
Here’s where things get a little murky. The subject has no opportunity to defend the concerns during this initial 14 day period. On the one hand, this sure feels wrong. On the other hand, I kinda get it as an unstable person could just hide everything.
Also murky is that after the 14 days, if the subject wants to contest it, they have to pay for their own attorney. Ok, continuing…
*The RPO automatically expires after one year. During that time, the subject has due-process opportunities to demonstrate to the court that they are not a risk. (Logically, you cannot prove a negative, but OK…)
Again, on the face of it, if you make some adjustments, this might seem workable. I know, staunch 2A defenders will decry anything that takes guns away from anyone - however, I highly doubt my 87 y/o dad with Alzheimer’s should have a gun. But that’s another debate.
The RPO law was passed in 2018. Since 2018, 65 people have been killed in Florida in mass shootings. Hmmm, doesn’t seem very effective, does it?
At the same time, having guns out of the hands of people who do really dumb things with them like point them at their family (I had one patient who did this) doesn’t sound all bad.
If we fixed Florida’s seemingly ineffective red-flag law to help people feel good 
, while at the same time hardening schools and other public places against attacks (which could be done effectively at a fraction of the costs of helping defend Ukraine, and I personally support helping Ukraine), do you think it would budge the needle? Why or why not?
The current proposal in the US House is worthless.
*Ban high capacity magazines? Only relevant in situations where a lot of rounds/minute are being expended. None of the recent incidents would have changed with lower capacity mags. No change.
*Ban bump stocks? While I personally don’t understand the value of these in private ownership, bump stocks were not used in any of the recent incidents. No change.
*Raise the age to legally purchase a firearm to 21. Honestly, I still think there might be some merit to this, but that’s because in my field of work, I have to be aware that our rational capacities are not fully developed until we are about 25 in the best of cases. And our current society is NOT the best of cases.
*Waiting period under a certain age? Again, this might help reduce impulsive acts of violence. Maybe. But if a truly deranged, pissed-off person really wants to kill a bunch of people, they’ll find a way. I’m on the fence with waiting periods.
Ok folks, let’s discuss!