Red Flag Law Letter 8/8/2019

Dear Governor Ducey/Congressman Schweikert:

To preface this, to say the childhood that I had was a difficult one would be an understatement. Constant beatings which crossed the threshold of regular spankings were common in my childhood, with my abusive, gun owning, and alcoholic father and his family facilitating many of these beatings.

I am writing this letter to you not only as a constituent, but also as a first generation Filipino-American immigrant and a former victim looking to have a normal life.  In the wake of the recent shootings,  I cannot stay silent as these red flag laws are reintroduced.

I am against these new red flag laws as those with trauma related mental illnesses such as combat veterans who have served our country alongside traumatized individuals such as myself are open to abuses by these laws. These red flag laws could easily twist an innocuous comment posted to social media into a threat and cause an individual’s personal right to self-protection become forfeit in the eyes of the legal system or worse.

The red flag system currently being proposed relies mainly on hearsay and rumors.  This can be easily weaponized by individuals that consider themselves to be “concerned relatives”. Alongside this, the system is already poorly set up and violates the individual’s second, fourth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments by denying an individual not only their firearm rights but their right to a reasonable search and seizure through this system. It also creates an atmosphere where a fair and speedy trial is unable to found as the trial is already unbalanced and weighs against the individual whose firearms were taken away.

This system lacks oversight and does not properly investigate threats, making verification nonexistent. In its current state, this system could easily be used as a state-sponsored harassment campaign which would allow the state to disarm an individual, and in turn leave them open to threats against their life should any arise during these legal proceedings to get their firearms back. According to the FBI, most murders are committed by people the victims know, so giving these very same people the ability to disarm their victims is unwise at best. The same laws being used to push for individuals to be disarmed for being deemed threats can become laws that allow criminals to disarm their targets.

In summary, the proposed laws compromise the right of the individual in the name of creating a false sense of security. Given that these laws were being reintroduced on the heels of our recent shootings, it is clear that they are intended for preventing further mass shootings. The caveat to this, however, is that it opens gun owners to state-approved reprisals in the name of public safety.

I look forward to hear a reply from your office regarding this letter, but understand if this is not at all possible.


Sincerely,



Ellis Parsons