On some level, “red flag laws” make some sense. On a perhaps more important level, they are a slippery slope that slides down into totalitarianism. Take, for example, a law proposed for the state of Tennessee:
Additional Red Flag proposal seeks to target individuals on specific prescriptions
Another “Red Flag” category of legislation has surfaced on April 20, 2023. This one is written as an amendment to House Bill 768 by Representative John Ragan and Senate Bill 522 by Senator Frank Nicely At this time, we have no information to indicate that either of these sponsors are cooperating with the proposed amendment or even willing to consider it.
This bill comes from a different angle. What it seeks to do is to create a new class of prohibited persons in Tennessee who will loose their 2nd Amendment rights, perhaps permanently, based solely on whether the individual is taking one of ten (10) specifically listed prescription drugs. The drugs listed in the legislation are:
(1) Citalopram;
(2) Fluvoxamine;
(3) Paroxetine;
(4) Fluoxetine;
(5) Sertraline;
(6) Venlafaxine;
(7) Mirtazapine;
(8) Nefazodone;
(9) Bupropion; and
(10) Escitalopram.
As written, the proposed amendment would require that the individual receiving a prescription for one of these drugs would have to sign an acknowledgement that the person:
(A) Understands and agrees to be barred from the purchase of a firearm for at least the duration of the treatment regimen; and
(B) Understands and agrees that information concerning the prescription will be shared with the Tennessee bureau of investigation and that the patient waives the patient’s non-disclosure rights under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) (42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.) and other federal and state confidentiality laws for purposes of sharing information concerning the prescription with the Tennessee bureau of investigation.
All ten of those drugs are prescription anti-depressants. This article was written back in April; I can’t find whether or not the amendment has passed But the fact that it was proposed at all is Not A Good Thing. To have a natural-born citizen’s basic civil and human rights deleted at the stroke of a pen not because you’ve committed violence, not because you’re a threat to yourself or others, but simply because you’re depressed and under a proper doctors legally-prescribed care, is appalling.How about let’s start with “Have you committed arson? Shoplifting? Vandalism? Assault? Strong-arm robbery? Rioting? Looting? Then you lose the right to vote for a term of X years, along with all government benefits.” Start there, see how it goes for a generation, *then* start looking at laws against people who’ve done nothing wrong.
