In recent weeks, we have seen Trump’s new DOJ file lawsuits against many of the “assault weapon bans” plaguing gun owners across the country. We must ask how effective this action will be and consider the convenience of the timing. The Supreme Court, for example, has been denying certiorari to several pending cases for some time, and Trump’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. Some people claim there is a grand strategy unfolding, and we will soon see an end to all gun bans. This was the general attitude after the 2022 Bruen decision, and yet, here we are. Many states, instead of complying with this decision, have doubled down on their gun control efforts. One of the more pressing problems in the realm of gun control is the propagation of red flag petitions and the use of coercive mental health laws to deprive people of their rights. While the Bruen decision was supposed to end all gun laws, the 2024 Rahimi decision, which was praised by many, reversed that decision in many ways that people are unaware. For example, Justice Roberts, when writing his opinion, stated the Bruen decision wasn’t absolute and historical laws didn’t need to be exact matches. What was once supposed to be solid doctrine became open to interpretation. Secondly, the court, using the Bruen method they established, found that the government can disarm people deemed to be a danger to themselves or others by citing the nation’s safety and going armed laws that existed at the time of the founding. This case failed to address the due process requirement before depriving people of their rights, leaving red flag laws open and unaddressed.

As long as red flag laws exist, the Second Amendment isn’t a right as much as it is a privilege. The government is usurping the power to determine who can own firearms. Truthfully, the same is true with background checks, permits, and any other obstacle that someone must overcome to own a gun. None of these restrictions existed at the time of the founding, and honestly, even the laws cited in the Rahimi decision didn’t disarm anyone as much as they forced people considered to be dangerous to post a bond on their own behalf. Does this imply that people considered dangerous should carry weapons? No, however, if they are dangerous enough to be deprived of their rights, shouldn’t they be in prison? Under red flag laws, a neighbor or a family member can file a petition based on what they deem to be questionable behavior, leading to a person being disarmed. A judge reviews the petition and can sign it without the individual’s knowledge. If the judge determines, based on this petition alone, that the person is a threat to themselves or others, the order will be signed. Unfortunately, this is an issue that seems to be accepted by most people. The reason is that it revolves around mental health and the safety of the community.

People tend to grant the government coercive power for matters of health and public safety. Look at what happened during COVID, for example.  Millions of people were perfectly fine with the government stripping society of its freedoms so they could feel safe. The term mental health has been associated with the image of crazed mass shooters; therefore, the infringement of constitutionally protected rights becomes justified in the name of public safety. According to the book Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry, by Thomas Szasz, health values have crossed a defining line and merged with moral values to the point where there is an incentive to suggest that anything concerning public health is now a moral issue. With so-called gun violence being described as a public health crisis, this distinction in morality has been blurred. Studies concerning health-related messages and framing have also found that people will surrender their own personal values if they perceive it will benefit the community in a health-related way. Many people adopted the behavioral interventions during COVID despite their personal views because they believed they were contributing to the health of the community. It became an issue of morality. From this perspective, it becomes justifiable to disarm anyone who has been deemed a threat to public safety for two reasons. One, gun violence itself is framed as a public health issue, and two, health values are equated to moral values.

Another problem with red flag laws is the power granted to people who have no defining criteria of what mental health is, while also claiming the right to define it on their own terms. Even the authors of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders readily admit that the term mental health “lacks a consistent operational definition that covers all situations” (Stein et al, 2011). There is, however, an attempt to define mental illness that can apply across the board. This definition, according to Stein et al (2011) would be based on behaviors that are clearly observable as causing some kind of debilitating distress while deviating from what may be considered normal. Furthermore, the idea of debilitating stress or impairment may be anything affecting the day-to-day functioning in a person’s job, schooling, relationships, and even ‘traditional role functioning.” What is even more concerning is the use of the term “clinically significant” in the proposed and existing definition. This is a very subjective term that is found useful, according to Stein et al (2011) in “differentiating disorder from normality.” What does that mean? The criteria used to judge the mental health of an individual will differ according to the perceptions of the doctor providing the judgment. The field of psychiatry and mental health has done a poor job of drawing a distinction between true psychopathology and normal behavior caused by the stresses of everyday life (Stein et al, 2011).

So-called mental illnesses are mistakenly treated in much the same way as other known diseases. Just as there are no definable criteria for what mental illness is, there is also no identifiable anomaly that is found in the brain that proves it exists at all. Let’s consider the existing definition for a moment. “A clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual” (Stein et al, 2011). There is nothing in this definition that points to a standard for identifying what mental illness is. It is a very subjective statement, open to many interpretations and judgment calls. This doesn’t suggest that people don’t have behavioral or emotional problems; they certainly do. However, they can be described, as Thomas Szasz states, as problems of living. According to Psychology Today, the idea that conditions like depression are caused by a chemical imbalance and effectively treated with drugs has not produced any real evidence. Rather, depression is now being viewed as something caused by environmental factors or traumatic life events. People exhibiting normal everyday problems may be viewed as experiencing a mental health condition and prescribed powerful drugs to treat it in the same way a patient is prescribed drugs to treat identifiable, biological anomalies that cause actual disease.

The problem with red flag petitions, as stated earlier, is that they not only deprive a person of their Second Amendment protections but also guarantee of due process as well. The language “danger to themselves or others” isn’t new. Thomas Szasz wrote in Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry in 1963 that the law supported the idea of relatives or “other responsible people” filing a petition against an individual seen as acting abnormally. Two doctors were responsible for evaluating the individual and testifying before the judge why it was imperative that the individual be committed or deprived of his liberty. From this point, and this is where it differs from a red flag petition, the individual was given a hearing where a judge decided the outcome based on solid evidence. Another big difference here is that no one was stripped of their property before this decision was made. With red flag laws, the decision to confiscate someone’s firearms happens without a hearing. Once this is done, it is up to the individual to prove their innocence to the judge. They must prove that the accusation is unfounded. This violates the cherished principle of being considered innocent until proven guilty.

Many people, despite the suspect timing behind it, will view the DOJ’s feigned attempts to end assault weapon bans as a move in the right direction. The one issue no one is addressing is red flag laws. If the government can deem someone to be dangerous on such speculative and subjective terms under the guise of mental health, and disarm anyone under that claim, does the 2A even exist? If anyone can file a fallacious petition with no evidence, claiming that you are exhibiting abnormal behavior, is there any such thing as liberty at all? In this article, we looked at some disturbing truths surrounding mental health and the questionable criteria that define mental illness. We also saw how health-related values have been equated to moral values and how people show a willingness to surrender their own judgment in the name of health and public safety. Coercive mental health laws being used to deprive people of their rightful liberty is perhaps the most pressing issue of our time.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to look out for my latest book, The Psychology of Persuasive Propaganda: The Things You Should Know. In the meantime, you can check out –

Without a Shot Indeed: Inducing Compliance to Tyranny Through Conditioning and Persuasion.

and A Critical Look at CRT in Education, Research and Social Policy

Article posted with permission from David Risselada