Video: Dan Crenshaw On Red Flag Laws

[L84Cabo]

I was pretty upset this past week when I heard Dan Crenshaw came out in favor of Red Flag laws. However, what I heard about this was reported by various news sites and did not come from Dan himself.

So here is a video from Dan clarifying his position. I don't think you need a FB account to view this.

It seems to me that he is definitely NOT in support of the LEFT'S definition of red flag laws. He's open to having a DISCUSSION about these laws but states that any iteration of these laws must include...

• Respect for due process and making sure that it cannot be abused
• Clear evidence that violence is about to be committed
• Opportunity for legal representation and cross examination
• Limited standing so that not just anybody can accuse you
• Defined punishment for false accusation

He further stresses that he's only interested in having conversations about this now and has not come out in support of any specific red flag bill.

This made me feel better at least on his position on these things. But I still have major concerns that his requirements will get overshadowed by Lefts willingness to butcher the Constitution in support of these things. Because so far, I have yet to see any of these laws that have actually been implemented that provides for the above. I also have little confidence that Trump would standup for a due process version of red flag laws and that he will cave on a Leftist version of these things. I'd love to be wrong on that. Lastly, my concern is that even if a law got implemented initially that was in line with all of the above requirements, it would be real easy to "adjust" that law down the road.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=788689238200170

Read More

 

[rdb241]

He posted this on Facebook last Wednesday.

 

[Flopsweat]

Meh, after the backdoor bump stock ban, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[etrain16]

I saw the video the other day. I am cautiously optimistic because I like Dan overall and I was hopeful he wasn't all-in on these ridiculous Red Flag laws. I think he learned the hard way that calling them "red flag laws" is nothing short of spectacularly stupid if you want people to have a "conversation" on this issue. That language is emotionally charged and is guaranteed to get a negative response from gun owners.

I understand what Dan is trying to do. I appreciate that he is recognizing that people on our side simply don't trust the government to do the right thing and not abuse laws like these. He's going to have to understand that there are plenty of reasons why we should, legitimately not take the government's word when they "promise" they won't abuse power. Fact is, we have far too many examples of government abusing authority. Dan is still fairly new in Congress, and perhaps, a bit naive as to how badly government messes things up, even when the intentions may be good.

I'll keep watching, but I'm not confident the government can make this work without abuses toward law-abiding citizens.