Editorial Counterpoint: Red-flag law will harm, not help

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The Jan. 9 editorial, "Public awareness is key with red-flag law," contains misleading statements while neglecting to address broader issues with the new law.

The first is where it was stated that the red-flag law "might have made a difference in the Minneapolis case," referencing a tragic incident where an 11-year-old was shot on New Year's Eve.

The perpetrator of this crime was a four-time felon who was already prohibited under both state and federal law from possessing a firearm. He should have been in prison, but because of a downward sentencing departure by Judge Dyanna Street in 2022, he was not.

In this instance, law enforcement would not have needed a red flag gun confiscation order to take the offender's illegally possessed firearms. His mere possession of firearms and ammunition violated multiple state and federal criminal laws. Situations like this are not even the intent of the red flag gun confiscation law, according to its authors in the Minnesota Legislature.

If anyone in this individual's life had been willing to report his criminal actions, they could have easily called the sheriff's office, or the local police, and alerted them to the fact that a prohibited person was in possession of a firearm. But apparently, no one did so.

This irresponsible editorial leads the public to believe that seizing firearms from prohibited persons, like the perpetrator in this case, wasn't possible until the implementation of Minnesota's new red-flag law. This is blatantly untrue.

Not only would the new red-flag law have failed to stop this tragedy, as the editorial asks, but another newly added gun law also failed to stop it.

Minnesota's universal background check law has been in effect since Aug. 1, 2023. The law is intended to stop the transfer of firearms to prohibited persons, something that was already illegal prior to the passage of this law. In this case, the new law failed to stop the transfer of the rifle to the perpetrator of this crime. And the perpetrator in this case hasn't even been charged with violating the new law.

Last year, Rep. Dave Pinto, chief author of the new universal background check bill, insisted in debate that two criminals who met up behind the "Gas-n-Sip" for an illegal firearms sale would conduct a background check before a sale and would "be held accountable" if they didn't.

Minnesotans who, like us, are concerned with preventing tragedies similar to this shouldn't be looking to Minnesota's new red-flag gun-confiscation law for solutions. Rather, they should ask why someone with the perpetrator's criminal history of stalking, domestic violence and firearms charges isn't being sentenced to prison.

The editorial also argues that this new law could reduce Minnesota's suicide rate. The data from every single other state that has instituted similar laws refutes this. Not one state that has implemented this law has seen their overall suicide rate decrease. There's no reason to believe Minnesota's results will differ.

The fact is, when someone is "red flagged" under this new law, they are left in their home with many other means of suicide or violent attack left to them. They're not offered any other support under this law. The law does not get struggling Minnesotans the help that they need, and it's wrong to pretend otherwise.

On the contrary, an unfortunate consequence of this law is that Minnesotans who are worried about losing their rights may avoid seeking mental health treatment in the first place.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus encourages all Minnesotans who are struggling with their mental health to talk with professionals and get the help that they need.

Nick Majerus is the communication director for the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.