Bills to expand constitutional rights aim true

 

A frequent proponent of individual rights for their defense has cued up a couple of bills to expand these in the upcoming session of the Louisiana Legislature.

 

Republican state Rep. Danny McCormick has prefiled HB 94, which would prohibit “red flag” laws in the state. He also has prefiled HB 99, which would allow carry of firearms, even concealed, by non-law enforcement individuals on a college campus.

A red flag law is one that allows judicial interdiction to prevent someone from possessing or carrying a firearm, whether concealed, on some kind of assessment that judges the person dangerous in some fashion, typically for reasons of presumed mental health. Advocates argue that random shootings by someone not in possession of the faculties could be prevented with these laws on the books.

The problem is, research into such shootings finds little to support that judicial officials have the ability to predict the future on this, which would produce a monstrously-high amount of false positives that end up depriving an enormous number of people of their constitutional rights (which also may be politically-driven), where even mentally-ill people are highly likely not to engage in this dangerous behavior. Moreover, there seems to be little relationship between such laws and observed benefits with the exception that such laws might deter suicides, and even to implement such a law requires the herculean task (and one smacking of the potential for civil liberties violations) of accurate gun registries.

Multiple attempts have been made in recent years to impose red flag laws on Louisiana, and all were wisely beaten back. In this case the best defense is a good offense, and HB 94 heads this way by putting down a blanket prohibition on interdictions of any kind or at any level of government without a trial-like procedure involving introduced evidence, presentation of defense, and a high bar to be met to strip somebody of their rights.

HB 99 would apply to any public institution of higher education or any other that receives state funding. It would not apply to secure or sensitive areas on campus and where, if any, overlap exists with a firearm-free zone around elementary and/or secondary education campuses, at the school’s discretion. Also, institutions cannot implement rules that prevent those already permitted to carry firearms under law from doing so on campus, with the exceptions above.

Proponents of the existing ban allege that making more guns legally available on campuses necessarily must translate into more shooting. However, the facts simply don’t back up that supposition: in a decade-long study of campuses, while there were accidental discharges on the record, there wasn’t a single instance of a legally-armed individual committing a crime or threatening someone with a gun. As well, there is no instance of a person committing suicide on a campus with a legally-owned firearm.

Ban proponents also ignore that the presence of armed individuals on campus, whether if carrying concealed, will discourage use of firearms with malintent. The latest meta-data on the relationship between concealed carry without permit generally (the law in Louisiana) and a host of serious crimes shows that kind of law neither increases nor decreases these, which would apply on college campuses specifically as it does on larger society. That being the case, the bias should be in favor of expansive, rather than curtailment of, constitutional rights.

With the evidence in favor of both bills, there’s no reason not to enact either into law, and hopefully the Legislature will recognize this wisdom.