Researchers, scholars, and practicing attorneys examined the recent trend of state-enacted “red flag” laws during a symposium at the Law School on Friday.
The symposium, Seeing Red: Risk-based Gun Regulation, addressed many of the most prominent issues and concerns with extreme risk protection order legislation. These laws help prevent a person in crisis from harming themselves or others by temporarily removing guns and prohibiting the purchase of firearms.
Participants discussed constitutional and due process concerns, the importance of language when discussing mental health and red flags, the success and efficacy of red-flag laws, the differences among reporting standards in different states, and current proposed red-flag legislation in Alabama.
Carolyn Reinach Wolf explored the stigma of mental illness and emphasized prevention and intervention during her session titled, “Beyond Gun Law: Mental Health and Legal Strategies for Treatment and Support.”
“It reinforces the long-standing, unfounded negative stereotypes linking mental illness with violence,” said Wolf, the Director of Mental Health at Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Formato, Ferrara, Wolf & Carone in New York. “Most people with serious mental illness are never violent toward others and are more often victims of violence than perpetrators.”
So far, seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of law allowing the courts to issue protection orders which permit law enforcement officers to temporarily confiscate firearms or otherwise limit firearm ownership and access by persons deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. Many other state legislatures are currently considering similar bills.
The symposium was sponsored by the Law & Psychology Review.
