Best way to prevent mass shootings? Red flag laws

Our nation has once again been rocked by the evil of mass killings, this time in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. As I learned of these tragedies, my heart sank. I knew the horror each family would experience as they waited to learn the fate of their loved ones. For some, the day would end with tearful yet joyous reunions. For others, the day would end in the ultimate sorrow.

After each mass killing, calls for political action begin even before families learn the fate of their loved ones and certainly, well before we understand the circumstances. The desire for our elected leaders to do something — to do anything — to stop these senseless and evil acts is palpable. But can our political leaders actually do anything to stem the tide of violence infecting our culture?

The systemic failures that contributed to the preventable murder of my 14-year-old daughter, Alaina, and 16 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has indelibly marked our families. Even before I could fully appreciate the extent of these failures, I was asked to testify to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, where I expressed doubt that a legislative solution could be found. I opined that even if a political compromise could be found, would the resulting legislation be implemented with the fidelity required to make a difference? On behalf of my grieving family, I told the impaneled senators, “Forgive me, then, if I do not believe government is the ultimate solution.” My trust in our institutions and elected leaders had been deeply shaken.

As a matter of course, we can safely dismiss the often-simplistic solutions offered by the political class. This is especially true of calls for restrictions on the rights of lawabiding citizens in an effort to combat evil. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens, in this case, law-abiding gun-owners, is analogous to prescribing a medical treatment to the healthy masses. It is not the prescription for what ails us.

As I have learned more about the events leading up to these tragedies, mounting research indicates that we can identify the troubled individuals at risk to commit these heinous acts before they set into motion their devious plans. We can deny them the opportunity and the means to strike.

But how?

Risk Protection Orders, sometimes known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders or “red flag” laws, allow for the temporary removal of weapons or, as is the case in Florida, an order to temporarily surrender them to a third party. Risk Protection Orders work as follows: A request is made by law enforcement, (in some states a prosecutor or a private party may initiate the process).

A judge reviews any evidence and if there is sufficient cause — typically this means there is both intent to cause harm and the means to do so — creates a temporary order to remove weapons. A hearing is held within 14 days to make the order permanent or to vacate it. At every stage, due process is considered and protected.

We know that in close to 78 percent of targeted attacks, the attacker elicited concerns in other people and in 93 percent of incidents, made threatening statements or concerning communications prior to their attacks — a process known as “leakage.” Leakage can provide the evidence needed to initiate the Risk Protection Order process.

At least 17 states have approved some version of a red flag law, including Florida, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana and California. Before the mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas, only 5 states had these laws in place.

Are RPOs effective? Well, it’s difficult to prove a negative. For example, when an

RPO is granted, was a future act of violence prevented? It’s almost impossible to know. Experience from Connecticut and Indiana, which have long experience with RPOs, suggest they have an impact. Research from studies in Connecticut suggest RPOs are effective in doubling the number of those being treated for outpatient mental health services. The RPO process may be a gateway to the treatment many desperately need. In Florida, FDLE records indicate that RPOs have been used over 1,700 times, with just about half becoming permanent (1 year) orders. This indicates that in at least half of the cases, the threat was serious.

In the wake of the senseless tragedies in Texas and Ohio, President Trump has signaled his willingness to work with lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at denying access to weapons to would-be assailants through RPOs. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio sponsored such legislation in 2018. Sen. Rick Scott recently wrote in support of RPOs, building on the legislation he signed in Florida in 2018. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham is pushing new bipartisan legislation. Conservatives and gun owners are voicing support, including David French of National Review and Ben Shapiro. All of this inertia should encourage more states to adopt RPOs.

As with any endeavor, we should focus our efforts where they will yield results. In the case of finding and stopping the next assailant, when they share their intentions and if we act, we can add them to a growing list of averted tragedies. Risk Protection Orders provide the best opportunity to intervene before tragedy strikes.