August 20, 2018 – Vestal, NY – The following is the full transcript of a speech, made by M V Consulting Inc and Liberty First Foundation NY Chapter president Michael “Vass” Vasquez to the members of the Americans for Restoring the Constitution (AFRTC) and the general public at the Vestal Public Library. The speech is an in-depth review of Red Flag legislation in New York State and across the nation. Due to the length of the details and data, compiled from over 50 sources and growing in an on-going investigation, the speech is being split into 8 parts. Due to time constraints, the actual live presentation truncated portions of the original documentation, without alteration of the data, details, or context.
Any news media organization that wishes to receive this presentation in its original form or reprint these articles, including all public sources, in order to address this growing trend of legislation and inform the public of all aspects of this legislation, is given full rights to do so. To receive a copy of the original form, please contact us.
Amended (due to time constraints) speech at Vestal Public Library:
Q & A with audience after the presentation:
In a June 2018 study from the University of Indianapolis, looking at a period of time from 1981, 18 years prior to the existence of Red Flag legislation, through 2015 , 16 years after the first Red Flag law was enacted, experimental analysis was conducted on 50 States vs. Connecticut and Indiana to see if there was a reduction of gun-suicides. Based on using the synthetic-control methodology – which approximates via weighting of national averages what might have happened in Connecticut and Indiana if Red Flag legislation did not exist – found a reduction of 7.5% in Indiana, with pre-2007 Connecticut having a 1.6% reduction and post-2007 having 13.7% reduction. The cause of the difference in these values was in part due to factors not related to firearms or this legislation. The study did not look at effectiveness of the Red Flag legislation, nor breakdown real-world function of the legislation.
Further it should be noted again that Red Flag legislations heavily-implied purpose is not suicide prevention. While that is an aspect of its purpose – as is domestic abuse prevention as stated by Asseblymembers Crouch and Lupardo, as stated by various politicians in multiple States the actual purpose is a reduction in mass shootings. Therefore any reduction in gun-related suicides, which is debatable based on the dearth of studies to date, is a beneficial by-product.
There is another data set I would like to introduce at this time. The emotional reaction to the Parkland Florida shooting, and the media frenzy that followed it, lead to a surge in passage of Red Flag legislation across the nation.
Florida was the first to react with its own version of the Red Flag legislation. Since that time in March, 450 people have had their firearms seized by July, for about 75 people per month. That’s about the annual average, post- 2007 with heightened activity, for the State of Connecticut. As reported by news 100% of requests for warrants in Pinellas County have thus far been granted. Thus far, research has not identified any time that a Red Flag legislation has ever been denied a warrant when requested – though such data may not exist as no action was taken.
Now we have identified the failure in language that exist in all current forms of Red Flag legislation. We have reviewed the failure in execution of the legislation, which invites the potential if not actual abuse of ERPO’s. Further we have covered how the legislation creates, by its function, the violation of the Rights of Americans. In addition we have discussed some of the further consequences of the Red Flag Legislation. Which leads us to, as shown in the few studies done to date, question the actual viability of Extreme Risk Protection Orders in executing the core purpose they were intended for.
So what can we conclude?
Well to start with, especially for the 5 Extreme Risk Protection Orders pending in New York State this year, we would agree in part with State Senator Fred Akshar who told us. But that is only a part of the conclusion.
It’s not enough to have a single politician, or even a majority of them in a single State, stop this current set of flawed ERPO legislation in New York given that Rep. Katko, intends to release a version of the Red Flag legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives before 2019. In addition, another Red Flag Bill (S2607) has already been submitted to the Senate by Senators Marco Rubio, Jack Reed, and Bill Nelson which contains many of the same flawed language and reasoning as detailed previously in addition to new language that is equally vague and troubling:
“3) the term family or household member means, with respect to an individual, any—
(B) dating partner (as defined in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code) of the respondent;
(C) individual who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether the individual has—
(i) been married to the respondent; or
(ii) lived together with the respondent at any time;
(D) an individual who resides or has resided with the respondent during the past year;”
Therefore, I ask, are we trading the illusion of safety for violation of Rights, freedoms, and the function of law? In review, in each State and at the Federal level, Red Flag legislation can most simply and readily be summarized as using the emotional fear of an individual about a potential future outcome of another individual, as a justification to use the courts to enact an often partisan political objective.