Red Flag law saves lives
Since Virginia’s Red Flag law went into effect on July 1, 2020, the Fairfax County Police Department obtained 177 Emergency Substantial Risk Orders (ESROs), the FCPD reports.
The Red Flag law allows community members and the police to request the removal of firearms from an individual who poses a serious and immediate threat to themselves or others.
Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano released a Red Flag dashboard on June 13 that shows his office handled over 100 ESROs in the last nine months.
“Red Flag laws are some of the best tools we have to prevent future gun violence, but that all depends on community awareness to help notify law enforcement about potential danger,” Descano says. “This dashboard is part of our continued campaign to raise awareness in the community about how Red Flag laws save lives.”
In 2022, the police department assigned a coordinator to track ESROs as they progress, collaborate with the Office of the Commonwealth’s Attorney, attend risk order hearings, and provide guidance to officers and detectives during the course of their investigations.
According to the FCPD, 53 percent of all ESROs in Fairfax County involved domestic violence, and 30 percent involved individuals experiencing an urgent mental health crisis.
The commonwealth attorney’s ESRO dashboard reports 92 percent of cases where firearms were removed involved men, and 8 percent involved women. Sixty-three percent of ESROs were filed against Whites, 28 percent against Blacks, and 7 percent against Asians.
To initiate an ESRO proceeding, a family member, partner, roommate, or other community member reports a concern to the police or commonwealth’s attorney. The police investigate. If they establish probable cause, they would then seek an ESRO from a magistrate or judge.
The respondent must turn over any firearms they have to the police and are prohibited from purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms until the order expires.
An ESRO lasts for 14 days, after which the order may be extended at a court hearing. The subsequent Substantial Risk Order can be granted for up to 180 days. If the commonwealth’s attorney requests an extension, there is another court hearing and the judge can keep the SRO in place for another 180 days.
The police department offers two examples of how ESROs are being used to protect vulnerable parties, including family members:
In December 2022, a man sent a text message to his ex-girlfriend stating he was coming to her house with a gun. He arrived at her place of work, brandished a firearm at her, and said, “If you don’t come with me, I’m going to shoot everyone.”
The man and his ex went to a park where he put the gun to her head. The police arrived, arrested him, seized the gun, and had an ESRO issued.
Also in December 2022, officers responded to a man experiencing a mental health crisis. The caller reported a man said that if anyone came to the house, he would shoot them and then shoot himself. The caller also saw the man put the gun in his mouth, and the police heard him say he wanted to force the police to kill him.
He was taken for a mental health evaluation under an emergency custody order. Officers obtained an ESRO, allowing police to seize the gun and help him get mental health services.
Descano says Fairfax County has overseen 75 percent of Virginia’s ESRO cases since the state’s Red Flag law was enacted. He attributes that to coordination and prioritization among law enforcement agencies and his office’s Red Flag team to handle these cases.
In addition to raising awareness about Red Flag laws, Descano says, the dashboard will be used internally “to track cases at a glance, identify patterns, and guide our decision-making to continue keeping our community safe.”
There are too many questions surrounding these red flag seizures of guns. Does the owner get representation in court in-front of the magistrate? Does the owner have rights to contest the seizure and if so, is the protest expedited in court so that the issue is addressed prior to the seizure order expiring? Does the county have to prove mental disfunction via a mandatory mental health evaluation. If not, how can the prove the person was mentally unwell. What if the gun is required for their job, such as security guard or bounty hunter? Until these questions are answered, we should not be praising this law that circumvents the 2nd amendment.
Are you suggesting we shouldn’t take guns away from people who pose a serious and immediate threat to themselves or others if they’re job requires them to have a gun? In my opinion, they should be first on the list to have their guns taken.
I’m saying that the gun owner has rights enshrined in the constitution. Any infringement on that must be met with serious scrutiny and be carefully weighed in a balanced manner where the owner has a right to defend against the seizure decision as it is being made, not after the fact. I am also saying that the gun owner has the right to challenge the seizure decision in a court of law under expedited review so that they don’t have to wait in a court docket that is months to years backlogged. Often these challenges get dropped in court because of the delay and the judge ruling that the issue has resolved itself in the intervening months between the seizure and the day the court case was actually heard.
Rights have limits. For example, the first amendment give us the right to assemble, but there are tons of laws restricting where and when and what permits are required.
If you’re a danger to yourself and others, your right to have your favorite toy should be limited as well.
Nature Rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, have no limits. They are God given. But that is a separate discussion.
Typical gun nut speak, concerned about gun rights, but unconcerned about the potential gun violence victims’ rights to life and liberty.
If the person is so dangerous, why aren’t they being taken away and locked up, never mind the gun?
Exactly what right is enshrined in the Constitution? What about that pesky phrase “a well regulated Militia”? I never hear any gun lovers acknowledge that that phrase is part of the second amendment, let alone try to explain it.
I replied to your question in some detail, citing the authors of the Constitution and more, but the person who runs the web site is a gun-control freak and censored my post. She will censor this one too, but there is a competing web site coming that will blow Annandale Today out of the water. It will begin with an expose that (from submissions by many posters here) about how Annandale Today is a political mouthpiece masquerading as a community site. How so many posts have been censored because she disagrees with people (as opposed to the posts violating any kind of decent standards). How her poltical friends profit from the advertising. And the general corrupt nature of Annandale Today.
Of course I know this post will be censored too. Just thought you’d like the heads up about how you have publicly ruined yourself with your public deception. You must be pretty stupid to have thought this was going to go on for much longer.
Enjoy!
There is potential for significant abuse in the execution of the Red Flag Law. A man could allege that his girlfriend has been threatening him when they were alone. The police “investigate” by asking him about their interactions, and based on his comments alone, get a court order to remove her weapon. Of course, she has the right to hire an attorney and take time off of work to challenge the wrongful order, but that’s burden.
Also, the attorney general is cherry picking the data he’s releasing about the program. According to the dashboard, 108 orders have been issued since the program started. How many cases have the police investigated and found to be baseless? 10? 100? 1000? The burden of responding to baseless allegations should be considered.