"Red Flag Laws" - laws that allow the police to impound someone's firearms if they are determined, after "due process", to be a danger to themselves or others.
That presumes, of course, that the government passing and enforcing the rule has integrity and a commitment to upholding civil rights, in this case the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
It also presumes that "due process" equals "fairness and justice".
Which is, itself, a misnomer: as the late criminal defense attorney who was on my speed dialer before he passed used to say, "due process is not a guarantee of justice, or even fairness. It just means they have to check the same checkboxes for every case".
Which brings us to the updates to Virginia's "red flag" law signed by Governor Spanberger last week
VA gun rights update:
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) April 14, 2026
Spanberger has signed HB901/SB495 - which is an expansion of the “Red Flag” law.
The expansion includes various mental health professionals, doctors, designees of local community services boards, immediate family/household members, intimate partners,… pic.twitter.com/UXwO5rDvfe
The virulently anti-gun Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is all for it:
New policies include strengthened safe gun storage regulations, a ban on ghost guns, improved firearm relinquishment for persons subject to protective orders and expanded relinquishment requirements to include misdemeanor domestic violence crimes, and improvements on the Substantial Risk Order (SRO) process including an expanded list of petitioners. These laws are backed by rigorous public health research.
They're not, actually - certainly no more so than the civil commitment laws they replace. But that's another subject.
The Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s efforts led by advocacy manager Lori Haas, were pivotal in making these strides for public health in the commonwealth.
“After years of watching these bills get passed and vetoed by the previous administration, this is a major win for Virginia,” says Haas. “These laws are a long-time coming and will make life safer for all Virginians.”
Elections have consequences.
Especially if you have an anti-gun doctor or therapist, anti-gun activists as "designees" of local community service boards, disaffected family members, or ex-significant others, your kids blab in an unguarded moment to the wrong anti-gun teacher, principal, superintendent, or "designee".
The expansion includes various mental health professionals, doctors, designees of local community services boards, immediate family/household members, intimate partners, school administrators or superintendent/superintendent designee.
A massive expansion in who can facilitate a confiscation order, and have someone’s firearms seized without a trial.
Previously, it was limited to an attorney for the Commonwealth or a law enforcement officer.
Now with a civil commitment, "due process" generally involves an adversarial hearing where the person whose commitment is being discussed has some level of representation.
In most states, including Virginia, the "due" process is nothing more than an ex parte hearing where the accuser - currently cops and prosecutors, but under Virginia's new law, the shopping list of petty officials and sometimes pettier ex-romantic partners - present the case to a judge without the inconvenience of any opposition:
After receiving the petition, the court can enter a short-term, ex parte ERPO if the petitioner carries his or her burden of proof (which can range from showing “good cause” to “clear and convincing” evidence11 After a full, [sometimes, depending on the state] adversary hearing—at which petitioner again bears the burden of proof—the court can enter a lengthier, but still temporary, ERPO
The "burden of proof" is "clear convincing evidence - which, depending on the judge, means "Yep, that's evidence. Grab those guns!". And the burden of proof for the accused to clear their name and get their property back is "clear and convincing evidence" - a higher standard, likely requiring the petitioner to retain an expensive lawyer to fight against the county attorney.
Which is a lot of muss and fuss to replace civil commitment laws that did the job just fine, presuming you believe "the job" is to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others, rather than rake in a bounty of guns.
