Myles
All right, y'all about to talk to you about something pretty serious. Picture this, you're at home scrolling through your social media feed, and you come across a neighbor of yours suggesting that they might shoot up the neighborhood complete with a picture of a gun. Or perhaps you have an alcoholic family member that recently lost their job and keeps talking about how they want to go and shoot their boss up or something. Now, do you think the government should be able to step in and take that gun away? Well, that's part of a big debate around something called red flag gun laws, and that's what I'm going to be talking to you about today.
Myles
Okay? Now, many of you watching this video probably haven't even ever heard of red flag gun laws. I mean, to be honest, I hadn't heard of 'em until some student reporters from Black River Falls High School in Wisconsin pitched us this topic. They're pretty cool. More on them later. But basically, red flag laws also known as extreme Risk Protection Orders or e RPOs are laws that allow family members or police to request that courts temporarily take away a person's guns if that person is believed to be a danger to themselves or to others. And after the 2018 school shooting at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that killed 17 people, more and more states began adopting these kinds of laws. Currently 18 states and Washington DC have them on their books, but these laws are super controversial. Opponents argue they threaten certain constitutional rights like the right to bear arms or due process, while supporters point to their success in curbing some kinds of gun violence.
Myles
So today we're going to dig into the debate surrounding red flag gun laws. For a little bit more context on all of this, we're going to turn to those student reporters from Wisconsin that I mentioned earlier. They're a part of PBS NewsHour Student Reporting Labs. See, back in September of 2019, the Democratic governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers introduced one of these red flag gun laws, which was pretty much immediately struck down by Republicans who controlled the state legislator. And these student reporters were super interested in this whole gun control debate. So they researched, wrote and produced this episode. So let's meet the team, meet McKenna, Emma, and Bobby.
Speaker 2:
We live in Black River Falls, Wisconsin, a town of 3,500 people where gun ownership and hunting is a big deal, a part of our culture.
Speaker 3:
Not all of us hunt or participate in gun involving activities, but we care about these laws because we are in school and we want to do everything we can to prevent school shootings. With this tension between gun rights and student safety in our community, we wanted to see how students here would feel about these laws.
Speaker 4:
I've never felt unsafe with firearms in this community. I think that we have a pretty positive connection with firearms with this community because we use 'em for things like hunting, and we have the shooting program with the
Speaker 5:
School. I think red flag gun laws will benefit communities because if you feel unsafe in a community ever, you should always talk to somebody about it.
Speaker 6:
I think red flag laws should exist. You look at countries like Australia and they just did the zero tolerance, no more guns, and we saw how that benefited their society. And I think because our constitution is so important to us Americans, we're never going to be able to have that complete removal of firearms. So if we want to keep our firearms, we need to institute helpful guidelines that will keep everyone safe.
Myles
All right. Now, before we get into the pros and cons of these laws, let me explain a little bit more about how they typically work. Each state that has these laws does them a little differently, but generally it's a three-step process. Step one, if a family member or the police thinks someone might be a danger to themselves or others, they can sign an affidavit explaining why they think that person's guns should be taken away. Step two, the court can then grant a temporary removal of guns, usually ranging from two to 45 days depending on the state. For the shorter term removal, the person in question doesn't usually get a chance to defend him or herself before the judge makes a decision. This is known as an ex parte proceeding, which is typical in cases of domestic violence and temporary restraining orders. And when it comes to the temporary removal of guns, there's usually a lower standard of evidence to prove if that person is dangerous.
Myles
The thinking is you want to remove the threat as quickly as possible to minimize damage. And then step three, once the guns are removed, there's a hearing that is held in front of a judge to determine if the guns can be given back or if they should be held for longer, usually up to a year. It's typically at this hearing that the person can tell their side of the story, and the level of evidence or proof needed to keep the guns away is usually higher at this hearing compared to when the judge makes the first shorter term decision. All right. Now that you kind of have a brief understanding of how these laws work, let's dive into some of the main arguments for them.
Speaker 3:
We talked to Wisconsin's governor, Tony Evers, who is a supporter of these laws.
Speaker 7:
Well, I think every individual in the state of Wisconsin has a right to feel safe in their environment, whether it's at home or whether it's at school or at work, any place. And there's good data out there too. Some states that have implemented it in the past have seen a reductions in suicides via gun. It increases safety, and it's been shown to do that.
Myles
And that's perhaps one of the biggest arguments for these types of laws. As governor ever says, they've been shown to reduce gun violence, particularly when it comes to death by suicide. For example, a study from the University of Indianapolis found that after Indiana enacted its red flag law, there was a seven point a half percent decrease in suicide by firearms. And similarly, after Connecticut started enforcing its law in 2007, there was a 13.7% decrease in gun suicides.
Speaker 7:
Obviously, there's some national ones with school violence where we've had lots of school, high school kids murdered. And it's obvious that the person that did this was not well and had significant mental health issues that easily could have were documented. And if there was an her log and someone made a case around this with their individual children wouldn't beat dead.
Myles
And according to researchers at uc Davis, who analyzed the effects of California's ERPO law between 2016 and 2018, there were 21 instances where firearms were taken away from someone who had made threatening statements about mass shootings, so that could have potentially prevented 21 mass shootings. Of course, there's no way of knowing if those people would've actually committed those acts had they not had their guns taken away under this law.
Speaker 2:
When it comes to concerns that these laws would lead to people's guns getting taken away, supporters of red flag gun laws point out that a judge must have evidence that someone is in danger to themselves or others,
Speaker 7:
Whether it's a family member or a law officer. They have to have evidence that threats have been made and that behavior has been such that it concerns them. They just couldn't come in there and say, Tony's, we want to take away Tony's gun and just leave it at that.
Speaker 3:
And the majority of Americans support these laws. A 2019 American public media poll found that 77% of Americans supported family initiated red flag gun laws, and 70% of Americans supported police initiated red flag gun laws.
Myles
But on the flip side, there are a lot of people who oppose these laws. One of the main arguments against them is that someone could unfairly get their guns taken away, like if a family member lies about feeling endangered. Critics are also concerned that these types of laws may violate constitutional rights to due process. Due process means the government can't take your life, liberty, or property without a fair hearing, which is written in the Fifth Amendment. Like we said earlier, a person doesn't get a chance to fully defend themselves in front of a judge until after their guns are taken away. And this is one of the main reasons why Tom Tiffany, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is against these laws. The students interviewed him to find out more,
Speaker 3:
Tell me why are you against red flag gun laws
Speaker 8:
By taking the guns from someone without giving a reason for doing it, and then having a court or whatever official body review that? I believe that, I believe that that presumption of guilt turns our jurisprudence on its head, and that's not how our system works in the United States.
Speaker 3:
Instead of red flag gun laws, some opponents feel like there are better ways to protect public safety.
Speaker 8:
I think one of the things that's really important is that law enforcement use the tools that they have currently use the laws that they have, because you'll see some jurisdictions around the country, they're not using the laws that are already on the books. Let's make sure and use the laws that are currently in place before we create new laws. I'll give you an example. The Parkland shooter law enforcement had the ability to take him off from the streets, and they did not do it with existing laws. Why create new laws when you're not using the existing
Myles
Ones? And just to elaborate, when it comes to existing laws and the parkland shooter, some experts say that some of the shooter's behavior should have gotten him arrested before the school shooting, which would've resulted in his guns being taken away. A lot of opponents of red flag laws, particularly in Wisconsin, feel that there should be more of an emphasis on mental health. Instead,
Speaker 8:
I think there's other things that we should be doing in particular as a state in terms of like better mental health counseling.
Myles
In fact, governor Evers just signed a bill expanding mental health programs in schools. The debate surrounding these laws aren't always an all and nothing scenario. Instead, it often boils down to one, what level of proof for evidence is needed to temporarily remove someone's guns? Two, how long should the guns be removed for? Three, who can make that recommendation? Just family members, law enforcement, both. And four, what kinds of penalties are there to make sure that people don't just make stuff up to get someone's guns taken away? It becomes a balancing act to figure out how to protect personal and public safety without infringing on civil liberties like due process. So now we want to hear from you. When, if ever, do you think the state should be allowed to take away someone's guns under these types of laws? Let us know in the comments below. Thanks for watching everyone. If you want to see more from student reporters, check out this video and be sure to check out some of our other great content too. As always, show us some love by liking and subscribing. And if you're a teacher, get your students talking about this topic on our classroom website, KQED, learn. Until next time, I'm your host. Miles Best peace out.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdRrQNemFoQ&t=1s
Credit: Myles BessAbove The Noise