Dear Representative Crenshaw,
I'd like to take a moment of your time to talk to you about your "Red Flag Law" proposition; specifically about two concerns that I, and every other gun owner in these United States has.
The first is that while I appreciate your assurances that there will be "robust due process protections", I'm going to respectfully opine that you are incorrect. There will be no "robust protection" of due process for gun owners, no matter what you believe.
The reasons are the same reasons that there are no "robust protections" for those persons who are the subject of Emergency Protection Orders.
You see, Representative Crenshaw, "robust protections" means nothing more than a bucket of warm rodent expectorant if the police, the District Attorneys, and the judges decide it doesn't.
If you have sanctions against malicious filing of a Red Flag order, what good are they if the police refuse to investigate allegations of misuse? And they will. Oh, if they're called on the carpet about the lack of investigations, they'll look sorrowful and tell you that they just don't have the manpower for that sort of thing.
You can't look me in the face and tell me that the San Francisco Police Department is going to do a damned thing about those damned dirty gun-owners getting screwed over by false Red Flag orders.
Where is the "robust protection of due process" if the police aren't sanctioned for refusing to investigate?
If you have sanctions against misuse of Red Flag orders, what good are they if the District Attorneys refuse to accept a case of misuse of Red Flag "In The Interests Of Justice"?
And they will. Their explanation will be that they're worried that prosecuting malicious Red Flag cases might deter someone from a legitimate filing, an explanation they'll give with a pious look upon their face.
You can't guarantee the gun owners of this nation that the Seattle District Attorney is going to think that bad Red Flag orders aren't just something those barbarous gun-owners just have to endure.
So where is the "robust protection" if the DAs aren't sanctioned for refusing to accept cases involving malicious use of the Red Flag law?
When the judges refuse to dismiss fraudulent Red Flag cases from the bench -- again, "In The Interests Of Justice" -- where is the "robust protection of due process"?
You can't tell me with a straight face that there's a judge in Boston, or Chicago, or New York City that gives a damn if gun-owners get screwed over by an unlawful Red Flag order.
And your answer cannot be: "I don't know". This is your dead albatross, Representative. "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer. You'd better figure it out right the hell now.
Second is Mission Creep.
Let us postulate that you get a Red Flag Law passed that does everything you promise it will.
Doubtful, but let's imagine this.
So, what happens next Session when the gun-grabbers find a Law That Absolutely Must Be Passed, and stick an extra line in there about expanding your Red Flag Law?
You have a bill that no congressman in their right minds is going to vote against ... and it expands your Red Flag law to allow Internet acquaintances to petition for a Red Flag order.
For better or worse this is your dead albatross, Congressman -- what are you going to do when (not if) gun-grabbers start "fixing" your Red Flag Law by adding amendments and addendums into "Can't Not Pass" bills?
"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer, Representative Crenshaw. Figure it out now.
I sincerely believe that you are trying your best in a sticky political situation, but I think your Red Flag Law is going to wind up biting a whole bunch of people in the arse.
I don't really care if it torpedoes your career, but I do care that your misguided desire to "Do Something" is going to bite a lot of American gun owners in the butt.
I doubt if you'll ever see this, but if you do, I hope you at least think about the issues I have brought up in this letter.