Md. handgun licensing lacks historical roots, gun group tells 4th Circuit

Maryland’s licensing requirement for would-be handgun buyers infringes upon the constitutional right of people to keep arms for personal protection in their home and has no historical roots from either 18th- or 19th-century America, gun rights advocates told a federal appeals court Wednesday.

Maryland Shall Issue made its argument as the 4th Circuit considers whether the state’s handgun qualification license, or HQL, comports with the Second Amendment and its most recent interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June, the high court ruled 6-3 that gun restrictions are valid only if in keeping with the constitutional text, history and tradition of state firearm regulations when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 or when the 14th Amendment extended the right to keep and bear arms to the states in 1868.

Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh told the 4th Circuit last month that the history and tradition of ensuring gun owners are trained in firearm use dates to 1792 – the year after the Second Amendment’s ratification — when Congress enacted the Uniform Militia Act. Several states passed similar statutes shortly after, Frosh stated in papers filed with the appellate court.

In its response, MSI distinguished the militia laws from Maryland’s HQL.

“Whereas the HQL requirement requires nearly everyone to complete the firearm safety course before acquiring a handgun, militia laws required militia training only after the militia men had acquired a handgun or other firearm,” MSI wrote in its 4th Circuit filing. “No state required militia training before firearm acquisition or tied this training to firearm acquisition.”

In addition, the militia laws and Maryland’s licensing mandate were passed for wholly different reasons, stated MSI, which was joined in the HQL challenge by gun seller Atlantic Guns Inc. and two Marylanders.

“Maryland enacted the HQL requirement to encourage safer gun storage practices in the home and reduce handgun violence in urban areas,” MSI stated.

“Militia laws, by contrast, were enacted to train young men for military service so they would be prepared for armed defense against foreign or domestic threats,” MSI added. “Militia laws did not condition the exercise of anyone’s right to acquire a firearm on compliance with the militia requirements.”

Those challenging the licensing requirement are represented by MSI President Mark W. Pennak; Cary J. Hansel III, of Hansel Law PC in Baltimore; and John Parker Sweeney, of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP in Washington.

Continue reading “”

Gun makers fire back, sue states over “public nuisance” laws

Over the past couple of years a handful of states, starting with New York, have put laws on the books that allow citizens to sue gun makers over the third-party actions of criminals; an attempt to do and end-run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was approved on a bipartisan basis in 2005 in an effort to curb these exact kinds of junk lawsuits meant to bankrupt the firearms industry. The most recent states to adopt these public nuisance statutes are New Jersey and Delaware, and they’re now the subject of brand new litigation aimed at overturning the regulations on the grounds that they violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as well as many other portions of our founding document.

“These laws enacted by the Delaware and New Jersey flout the will of Congress and undermine the U.S. Constitution,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “These state laws are at odds with bedrock principles of American law, which does not hold manufacturers and sellers legally responsible for the actions of criminals and remote third parties over whom the manufacturer and seller have no control when they misuse lawfully sold products.”

Delaware and New Jersey’s laws also violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Due Process Clause and Commerce Clause. These laws would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold in other states that later find their way into Delaware or New Jersey through the independent actions of remote third parties and criminals.

Basically, any time a criminal uses a gun in the commission of a crime Delaware and New Jersey want a gunmaker to be sued for their supposed liability. Even if the gun was stolen, even if the buyer passed a background check, even if the gun had been purchased 20 years ago; if there was a gun involved, the gun maker should pay.

It’s an absurd legal standard, and one that anti-gun politicians only want to apply to the firearms industry. Brewers, distillers, and automotive makers aren’t subject to lawsuits every time a drunk driver criminally misuses their product and harms or kills someone as a result. Heck, both the New Jersey and Delaware laws specify that these public nuisance standards apply to gun makers only. If someone uses a knife in the commission of an armed robbery, the company that crafted the blade can’t be sued. But if the robber uses a pistol, then victims can fire off those lawsuits at will.

Joe Biden has made the repeal of the PLCAA a regular part of his gun control talking points, but now that Republicans have secured a majority in the House of Representatives that’s off the table. Instead, expect to see a flood of blue states create their own “public nuisance” laws in the coming months to get around the PLCAA’s prohibition on these junk lawsuits.

The NSSF has already filed suit against New York’s law, and the case is currently in the Second Circuit. Attorney Paul Clement, who successfully argued for the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association in the Bruen case, is representing the firearms industry trade group and individual gun manufacturers in both the New York case and the new lawsuit taking on the Delaware and New Jersey statutes. Clement is a brilliant legal mind, and his initial complaint in the latest lawsuits are fun reads with solid arguments in favor of overturning the laws and preventing them from being enforced while the issue is litigated.

Here’s a taste (emphasis is mine):

A1765 is breathtaking in its scope. Although criminal misuse of a firearm triggers the statute’s application, A1765 does not regulate the use of firearms. Nor does A1765 impose liability on individuals who misuse firearms to the detriment of themselves or others. Instead, the statute regulates selling, manufacturing, and advertising lawful (and constitutionally protected) firearms and related products. In other words, A1765 regulates commerce in and speech relating to arms—even when it takes place entirely outside of New Jersey, as will often be the case.

The statute also removes traditional elements of tort law that ensure that judges and juries do not impose liability on private parties for constitutionally protected conduct. For instance, speech-based torts traditionally required proof of reliance. A1765 not only does away with that bedrock requirement, but allows judges and juries to impose liability based on truthful, non-misleading speech about lawful products. Making matters worse, A1765 redefines proximate cause to include criminal misuse by third parties with whom a defendant never dealt—which is not proximate cause at all.

None of this is constitutional, argues Clement.

The Commerce Clause prohibits states from regulating commerce (selling, manufacturing, marketing, etc.) that takes place beyond their borders, even when that commerce has effects within the state. The First Amendment prohibits states from punishing wide swaths of truthful speech about lawful products, even if the products are dangerous or the speech is unpopular. The Second Amendment protects commerce in arms. And the Due Process Clause prohibits states from punishing one private party for the conduct of someone else.

All of that is reason enough to invalidate New Jersey’s new statute. But there is an even more obvious problem with A1765: It is squarely preempted by federal law. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, several state and local governments sought to use novel applications of common law theories like negligence and nuisance to impose civil liability on manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition when third parties misused their products. Congress saw these lawsuits for what they were: unconstitutional efforts to stamp out lawful and constitutionally protected activity. To end such incursions, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (“PLCAA”) in 2005 by wide margins on a substantially bipartisan basis. The PLCAA expressly prohibits and preempts state-law civil actions “brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of [firearms or ammunition] … for damages, punitive damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution, fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of [firearms or ammunition] by the person or a third party.”

These public nuisance statutes are intended to go around the PLCAA, and lawmakers have explicitly acknowledged that. As Clement pointedly notes, “while the state may get credit for its candor, that does not make its law any more consistent with the protections afforded by Congress and the Constitution.”

These public nuisance laws have been a giant middle finger to the gun industry, the Constitution, and Congress, and as long as the courts New York, New Jersey, and Delaware to get away it more Democrat-controlled states will decide to do the same. The end goal isn’t about accountability for those responsible for criminal acts. It’s an end to the firearms industry, one blue-state verdict and gun company bankruptcy at a time.

Selected Source Materials on Federal Firearms Law.

Selected Source Materials on Federal Firearms (2022 Edition) law collects selected primary sources useful for reference in a law school class in firearms law. In addition to containing selected Federal statutes of particular relevance to law students examining the civil right to bear arms, the text contains a few sections from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Sounds fine to me

More U.S. adults carrying loaded handguns daily, study finds

The number of U.S. adult handgun owners carrying a loaded handgun on their person doubled from 2015 to 2019, according to new research led by the University of Washington.

Data come from the 2019 National Firearms Survey (NFS), an online survey of U.S. adults living in households with firearms, including nearly 2,400 handgun owners. Compared to estimates from prior UW-led research, the new study suggests that in 2019 approximately 16 million adult handgun owners had carried a loaded handgun on their person in the past month (up from 9 million in 2015) and 6 million carried every day (twice as many as carried daily in 2015).

Published Nov. 16 in the American Journal of Public Health, the study also found that a larger proportion of handgun owners carried handguns in states with less restrictive carrying regulations: In these states, approximately one-third of handgun owners reported carrying in the past month, whereas in states with more restrictive regulations, only about one-fifth did.

“Between increases in the number of people who own handguns and the number of people who carry every day, there has been a striking increase in handgun carrying in the U.S.,” said lead author Dr. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, a professor of epidemiology and Bartley Dobb Professor for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the UW.

Among the other findings reported in the new study:

  • About 7 in 10 handgun owners said they carried a loaded handgun as protection against another person, dwarfing the number who said they carried as protection against an animal, for example, or for work
  • 4 in 5 handgun owners who reported carrying were male, 3 in 4 were white, and a majority were between the ages of 18 and 44

Researchers pointed to some limitations of the study: Respondents were asked if they carried, and how often, but not where. It is possible that a person residing in a state with one type of permitting restrictions (or none) could have carried their handgun in another state with different laws. The study also did not ask whether the respondent carried a handgun openly or concealed.

While the data are from 2019, researchers say the findings are timely, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a New York state handgun-carrying law. States, in general, have become less restrictive over the years regarding handgun carrying — more than 20 do not require permits to carry today, compared to only one such state in 1990. The differences highlighted in this study suggest that this behavior may be responsive to the types of laws governing carrying that pertain in a state.

“The Supreme Court ruling has already resulted in some states’ loosening of laws related to handgun carrying,” Rowhani-Rahbar said. “In light of that ruling, our study reinforces the importance of studying the implications of handgun carrying for public health and public safety.”

The study was funded by the Joyce Foundation and the New Venture Fund. Co-authors were Amy Gallagher, now of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, previously of the Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program at the UW; Deborah Azrael of Harvard University; and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University.

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Washington. Original written by Kim Eckart. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

2 people stabbed, including 9-year-old boy, by man in downtown L.A. Target

A security guard fatally shot a man who stabbed a 9-year-old boy and a 25-year-old woman Tuesday evening at a Target store in downtown Los Angeles, police said.

The attacker was declared dead at a hospital, said Officer Luis Garcia, a Los Angeles Police Department spokesperson. He appeared to be homeless, police said.

The 25-year-old woman was in “critical but guarded condition,” on Wednesday morning, and the boy was in stable condition, an LAPD spokesperson said. The two victims are not related, police said.

The incident was reported just after 6:20 p.m. at the Target location at 7th and Figueroa streets in the FIGat7th shopping mall.

The boy was at the store with his mother, who was not present at the time of the attack, Chief Michel Moore said in footage of a news conference broadcast by KCBS-TV Channel 2.

The attacker, identified by Moore as a 40-year-old man, confronted the boy and told him that he was going to stab and kill him, the chief said. The child tried to flee but was stabbed in the back, suffering a laceration to his right shoulder.

Bystanders tried to come to the boy’s aid, and the attacker headed down an aisle where he came across a group of women and stabbed a 25-year-old woman in the chest, Moore said.

Others pulled the woman into a pharmacy, and the attacker moved toward the front of the store where he was confronted by an armed security officer, the chief said. The security officer opened fire at least once, hitting the knife-wielding man in the stomach.

Natural Law, Scripture and the Right of Self Defense

Now that Republican leaders have fended-off the widely anticipated Red Wave, Left-leaning politicians who are keen on relieving Americans of their constitutional rights can pursue their previously unspoken agenda.

Gun control wasn’t a big issue in the midterm elections, largely because most Americans don’t like it. But now that the dust has settled, the American Left is free to seek more gun control.

Congressional Democrats and the Biden administration are emboldened to renew their efforts to impose gun control. In Oregon, new gun restrictions are being celebrated by the Left because people must now receive permission from the government before being allowed to purchase a firearm for self defense or sporting. Regrettably, this law was widely promoted by a number of churches and synagogues in the state.

The authoritarian Left in America hates the Second Amendment. One of their arguments theorizes that our gun rights should be eliminated because AR-15s were not available to the Continental Army at the Battle of Yorktown, just muskets and bayonets.

Extending this logic to the First Amendment, perhaps we should ban cable news and Facebook because they too did not exist in the mid-18th century. I’m not convinced that would be proper but it might be kind of fun to do it for a couple of weeks just to see what happens.

We’re led to believe that our Second Amendments rights are a freakish aberration in our Constitution, that guns are the root of much evil. In truth, the principles behind the Second Amendment are really old. Ancient, in fact.

In his 1754 treatise on The Absolute Rights of Individuals, the distinguished English jurist William Blackstone wrote of “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and the importance of “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence (sic).”

Blackstone’s writings were designed to improve upon the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which included the right for some people to bear arms, though it was not a universal right.

Before legal and political thinkers specified the right to bear arms, scholars and theologians were promoting the concept of the right of self defense and the right to resist tyrants. During the Great Reformation, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon and others affirmed the right of self defense, which was a very scary idea for 16th century European theocrats.

In affirming self preservation, the Reformers did not contemplate the people defending themselves with strongly worded letters to Rome protesting public disembowelment. They presumed people would be armed with weapons of the day.

The Magna Carta did not guarantee the right to bear arms but it did provide the right of resistance should the king not abide by its terms. This also presumes the right to bear arms. It’s no coincidence that when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, the English nobles who attended the ceremony carried swords.

The Dooms of King Alfred required Anglo-Saxon landowners to provide men, ready to fight, in defense against the 9th century Viking raiders who frequented England’s shores. Like the Magna Carta, Alfred also presumed the men of his kingdom would be armed.

This acknowledgement of self defense as a God given right isn’t limited to the Anglo-Saxon or European traditions. Going back as far as 124 BC, Chinese Emperor Han affirmed the right of people to arm themselves, “to prevent tyranny and to punish evil.”

Ancient as these civic traditions of self defense are, most are predated in scripture. The Gospel of Luke records Jesus Christ telling his disciples before his betrayal, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” Whether Jesus meant this literally or figuratively is subject to debate but the underlying wisdom is unambiguous: be prepared because the future is dangerous.

Biblical Christianity doesn’t merely permit us to defend ourselves, it demands we defend our families. Paul’s first letter to Timothy reads, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

This involves more than providing food and shelter; it also means protecting our loved ones from assault, rape, and murder. Apparently, some of Oregon’s so-called faith leaders are not familiar with this New Testament passage. More’s the pity.

By comparison, men’s fellowship at the church I attend in Texas includes presentations from local theologians and Bible scholars, group discussions on church doctrine, study of scripture, prayer, and range time with pistols and rifles.

When modern politicians seek to relieve us of our Second Amendment rights, they are contradicting millennia of common law, natural law and scripture. They are embracing the policies of tyrants who know that unarmed people are docile subjects rather than free citizens.

If we are denied the right of self defense, it’s only a matter of time until we’re denied others.

Sleeping Poughkeepsie Man Wakes, Shoots Home Intruder in the Face

In a bizarre case of self-defense, a home intruder was sent to the hospital after waking up the wrong person.

Just after 8 PM on Saturday, Poughkeepsie police received a call saying a man was shot inside an apartment on Main Street in the city. After racing to the scene, officers were met in the hallway before they were even able to reach the apartment by a man who greeted them with a weapon.

The unloaded handgun was laid out on a table by a 46-year-old City of Poughkeepsie resident. Inside the apartment, police discovered another man suffering from a gunshot wound to the face. The injured 39-year-old was on the floor and police say it appeared the bullet entered the man’s face and exited out of his neck.

The shooting victim was transported to Mid Hudson Regional Hospital and later transferred to Westchester Medical Center. Police say that even though the man was shot through his face, he only sustained soft tissue damage. As a result, the wound was not considered life-threatening.

Police interviewed the 46-year-old shooter in an effort to put together the pieces of what actually happened. According to their report, the Poughkeepsie resident says he was fast asleep in his apartment when a man jolted him awake by pointing a gun at his face. He said the intruder explained that he wanted money and threatened him with the weapon.

The awakened man said he was “scared to death” and thought he was going to be shot, so he grabbed at the gun. A struggle began between the intruder and the resident when the gun suddenly went off, shooting the 39-year-old burglar in the face.

After hearing his story, police released the shooter from custody and no charges have been filed. Meanwhile, the 39-year-old who was injured after allegedly breaking into the apartment has disappeared. Police say he left Westchester Medical Center where he was being treated and his whereabouts are now unknown. The investigation is ongoing.

DRGO Study Says NO Link Between Legal Gun Sales & Violent Crime

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO)—a project of the Second Amendment Foundation—has released a new study showing there is “no association between increased lawful firearm sales and rates of crime or homicide.”

The study, by DRGO member Mark Hamill, MD, FACS, FCCM, is titled “Legal Firearm Sales at State Level and Rates of Violent Crime, Property Crime, and Homicides” and is published in the Journal of Surgical Research. Dr. Hamill worked with a team of nine other doctors to reach their conclusions.

Dr. Robert Young, Executive Editor of DRGO, says “This confirms what those of us already know who follow all the research by medical, criminology and economic experts,” said DRGO Executive Director Dr. Robert Young. “Lawful gun possession is in no way related to homicide or other crime rates, and the constant drumbeat of anti-gun researchers and activists is a house built on sand.”

“DRGO is an important project of the Second Amendment Foundation,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because anti-gun billionaires such as Michael Bloomberg are funding research that tries to portray guns and gun ownership as a disease.”

The new report is based on a detailed, objective 50-state analysis of data from the National Instant Background Check System, the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reporting program, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System covering the years 1999-2015.

Dr. Hamill is an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Nebraska, a longtime gun owner, and a law enforcement officer in his previous career. His experience, expertise and thoroughness makes his team’s findings unimpeachable. In 2019, he published earlier research, “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime” in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons. In this, he and his co-authors do the same careful work analyzing 30 years of data state-by-state.

“The take-home from these two studies is that neither lawful gun ownership nor concealed carry regimes can be correlated with rates of homicide or other crime,” Dr. Young said.

Read more at DRGO: “Dr. Hamill vs. the Empire (Again)” and in Hamill et al’s two papers.

Man survives shooting in the head; charged after Greene County investigators say he strangled woman

GREENE COUNTY, Mo. (KY3) – Investigators say a man survived a gunshot to the head moments after he was strangling the shooter’s mother at a home in Greene County.

Steven Bailey, Jr., is charged with domestic assault and first-degree burglary. He is hospitalized and recovering from his injuries. A judge set bond for Bailey at $500,000.

Greene County deputies say this was not the first time he was at that house on North Farm Raod 143. They say Bailey was the suspect in an Arson incident at the same home in April.

Deputy Paige Rippee said the teenage boy has not been arrested or charged. The teenager told investigators during the assault that Bailey told him, “You’re next, boy.”

“What he was doing was acting in self-defense for a victim,” said Deputy Rippee. “He saw a crime occurring, jumped into action, and did what he had to do to save the victim.”

The boy told deputies he fired the shotgun after begging Bailey to stop choking his mother.

“He (Bailey) has a history of dealing with law enforcement, specifically with domestic assault,” said Deputy Rippee.

Investigators say Bailey has been involved in 15 reported domestic assaults in Greene County since 2006.

A Leader of the Victim Center in Springfield, Brandi Bartel, said the next step for kids in this situation is to not deal with it alone.

“Create a safe space for that child to feel comfortable talking about what happened. Believe the child,” said Bartel.

Bartel said believing in kids is the first step in helping. She said kids who go through trauma might have significant mood changes, sleep issues, or show disinterest in things they used to like.

“Children often feel like it was their fault,” said Bartel. “It’s heartbreaking to know that’s something that a child will believe to be true, based upon something they have no control around, happened to them.”

Bartel said in similar situations, such as the incident on November 15, speaking up is the best thing you can do.

“Those are things that people can recover from and go on to live very resilient thriving lives,” said Bartel. “But it’s” just almost impossible to do that alone. Children need a safe space.”

Greene County Deputies said the woman did not go to the hospital.

Former Marine shoots, kills man suspected of two Limestone County robberies

A man suspected in two Monday night robberies was shot and killed by a witness, according to the Limestone County Sheriff’s Office.

James Lee Henry, 53, of Collegeville, Pennsylvania, is accused of robbing a Circle K in Athens before heading to a service station in Ardmore and ordering the clerk to give him money at gunpoint.

According to the sheriff’s office, “a Good Samaritan (former U.S. Marine), legally armed with his personal protection weapon, observed the robbery outside the front door. Upon Henry exiting the store, the Good Samaritan gave several verbal commands for Henry to drop his gun; however, Henry did not comply. Instead, Henry pointed his weapon at the Good Samaritan and, upon doing so, was immediately shot.”

Henry died at the scene.

Citizens in Ardmore are thankful for the veteran’s quick actions. One worker at a nearby restaurant told WAAY 31 that he feels safe knowing people can use their right to bear arms to protect others.

“I left here two hours before it happened. … I found out when my wife got home from work,” said Kevin Bartlett, who works across the street from the Shell Quik Mart in Ardmore. “Then I talked to one of the guys that had closed last night, and he told me what had happened. My first reaction, like I told you, is just, ‘God bless the Second Amendment.'”

All stolen funds were recovered and the investigation is ongoing, the sheriff’s office said.

Well, if you have a population you have problems controlling, since they were raised on the American values of liberty and freedom, and they won’t reliably vote to keep your party in power……replace them.

By the way, there are more than 11 million illegal aliens. That number has been used for a decade or more. With the number that have been coming in during that time, it’s probably 20 million.

By 2024, there will be 30 million. and that would mean 30 million more voters, and they will vote demoncrap. How do I know this? Because if illegals voted for Republicans, you would be able to see the wall from space, and Schumer would have been the one to have it built.

Well, the false front gun control group led by, among others,  Richard Aborn of Handgun Control Inc/the Brady Campaign (name subject to change without notice), has finally gotten off the dime to post their list of tired talking points we’ve seen before

97Percent’s New Research-Based Policy Roadmap Reveals New Path to Dramatically Reduce Gun Violence

97Percent Policy Roadmap
The Policy Roadmap is a research-backed package guided by a simple core principle – gun safety policies should ensure that people who are at high risk for violence cannot access guns while simultaneously respecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. The package includes:

  1. Closing the Violent Misdemeanor Loophole. New federal and state policies would set violent misdemeanor crimes as the threshold for excluding people from purchasing or possessing a gun. The current felony threshold does not capture many violent crimes, including assault, battery, and stalking; lowering this threshold is the single most-effective measure to reduce crime and may reduce overall gun-related homicide rates by as much as 19%. Only four states currently have violent misdemeanor laws.

  2. Implementing State-Level Gun Permit Laws. States would create a gun permitting system with two permits – a general one and one for concealed carry – both of which could be issued at the same time. Permits would be checked using a new background check system, as outlined below, and be valid for a period of years. Only 12 states currently require a permit to purchase a firearm.

  3. Simplifying Universal Background Checks. New, simplified background checks as part of the gun permitting process would utilize both federal and state databases to ensure a potential permit holder has not been convicted of a violent misdemeanor or felony. Currently, only 11 states search state and local records as part of the background check process, even though many violent crimes are only tracked in state databases.

  4. Implementing Red Flag Laws with Strong Due Process Protections. State-level laws would allow family members or law enforcement officials to petition a court to remove firearms from a person who is a threat while including strong provisions protecting gun owners’ due process. Only 19 states have red flag laws and only 12 allow family members to petition for a protective order.