A recent discussion in a different thread made me remember this conversation I had with a lawyer a year or so ago. My memory may not be perfect, but this is the jest of what he said.
All 50 states have either “red flag laws” or “yellow flag laws”. In both cases, someone could call the police and say, “He’s got a gun and is planning to shoot up a school.” In both cases, the police would arrive, take all firearms out of the situation, arrest the person who allegedly made the threats, and probably charge them with intent to commit a crime of some nature. (Obviously the exact charges will vary by state.)
Up until this point, states with red flag laws and yellow flag laws act the same. At this point, though, is where they start to differ.
In states with yellow flag laws, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. In other words, the state has to do a proper investigation and prove that the allegations are true, just as they would any other criminal case. It’s an “innocent until proven guilty” situation.
States with red flag laws are different. The burden of proof is on the accused. In other words, the individual has to prove that he / she did not make the alleged threats and is not a risk to society. It is very much a “guilty until proven innocent” situation.
I want to reemphasize that in all states, law enforcement has the ability to seize a weapon to stop a potential crime if there’s enough of a tip to act on. Where the states with red flag and yellow flag laws differ is in the courtroom and the legal proceedings that follow the arrest.
