After the United States experienced two mass shootings in less than as many weeks, conversations regarding mental health and gun ownership have been prevalent on the airwaves and interwebs. But now, it appears the issue has prompted deeper discussion in the halls of government as to legislative solutions to prevent mass shootings and other types of gun violence.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress have begun negotiations on a legislative proposal to address the problem. The Democrats have been pushing a radical anti-gun agenda since the beginning of the year, but the GOP is not likely to sign on to anything extreme regarding gun control. Still, there might be one area on which at least some Republicans might be willing to bend: Red flag laws.

Each time a mass shooting occurs, left-leaning politicians inevitably bring up red flag laws as a way to prevent atrocities like what happened in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York. These measures allow law enforcement or family members to petition a state court to order the removal of guns from an individual deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. The judge then makes a decision based on statements and actions made by the gun owner. Then, the authorities would return the firearms to the person after a set period of time or when it is considered safe to do so.

Red flag laws have different names depending on the state that has implemented them. For example, in Oregon, Washington, Maryland, Vermont, and Colorado, they are known as “Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” But in Connecticut, they are called “Risk warrants.”

Prior to the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, only five states had passed red flag laws. But now, 19 states and the District of Columbia have enacted these measures. The states that passed the laws are Florida, Vermont, Maryland, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York, Colorado, Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, Virginia, Connecticut, Indiana, California, Washington, and Oregon. Other state legislatures have at least introduced legislation that has either been stalled, voted down, or vetoed. In 2020, Oklahoma became the only state to pass an anti-red flag law, which “prohibits the state or any city, county, or political subdivision from enacting red flag laws.”

While most support for red flag laws comes from the left, some conservatives – from columnist David French to former President Donald Trump – have expressed support for these preventative measures. Those arguing in support claim they have the potential to stop mass shootings from occurring by identifying potential shooters before they carry out their crimes.

In a piece for the New York Times, author Timothy Williams acknowledges that “[l]aw enforcement officials say it’s difficult to quantify how effective red flags laws are, because no one can say for certain how many killings were prevented.” However, he also notes that “[s]everal studies suggest that the laws have a substantial effect on suicides,” which makes up the majority of gun deaths in America. “Research in Connecticut and Indiana found that for every 10 to 20 confiscations under the laws, there was one fewer death than would otherwise have been expected,” Williams explained.

The editors at Bloomberg noted that “[a] California study looked at 21 orders issued against individuals who’d made mass shooting threats and found no violence subsequently attributed to any of them.”

Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, claimed one life is saved for every ten to 20 gun confiscations under the state’s red flag law. “Here in California, we published a series of 21 cases in which these orders were used and the circumstance was a threatened mass shooting. Not one of those threatened 21 mass shootings occurred,” he said.

On the other side of the issue, those opposing red flag laws contend that they have not proven to be effective at preventing mass shootings and could easily be abused. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wrote an op-ed for National Review in which he made the case against these measures. He wrote:

“Depending upon the state, anyone from a family member, intimate partner, or ex to house- or apartment-mates or a police officer can file a complaint. Under Colorado’s recent law, anyone at all can make a phone call to the police. They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before him is the statement of concern.”

Massie also points out that “[l]ittle certainty is needed” when getting a court to order the confiscation of firearms. He notes that it requires only a “reasonable suspicion,” which could be “little more than a guess or a hunch.” In cases in which the laws are not applied accurately, it could cause problems for the gun owner in question. He wrote:

“Little certainty is needed. Initial confiscations often require just a ‘reasonable suspicion,’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch. When hearings occur weeks or a month later, about a third of these initial orders are overturned, but the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher. These laws make no provisions to cover legal costs, and many people facing these charges do not retain counsel.”

The lawmaker also notes what many have pointed out: All states already have measures that allow for someone’s guns to be confiscated. The difference is that, in these situations, the courts require testimony from a mental health professional before removing the firearms. This is not the case with red flag laws, which don’t even require the gun owner to be notified that his firearms will be taken. In many situations, law enforcement will conduct raids to acquire the weapons.

(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Massie also pointed to the shooting in Buffalo, noting that New York already has a red flag law, and it did nothing to stop the terrorist from committing his assault on Tops Supermarket. The gunman had already shown up on law enforcement’s radar and had undergone a mental health evaluation. Still, he was able to purchase the firearm he used in the attack.

The lawmaker also cast doubt on the claim that these measures actually save lives. “Despite the sacrifices, the evidence shows no benefits from red-flag laws. Looking at data from 1970 through 2017, these laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, mass-public-shooting fatalities, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. These laws do not save lives,” he wrote.

Right now, it is not clear whether Democrats will be able to get enough Republican lawmakers on board with red flag laws or other gun control proposals. While some have signaled they might be willing to support this type of bill, most have firmly rejected the idea. But if Democrats are going to get any gun-related legislation passed, this would be their best bet.