No Effect from "Red Flag" Law in California: JAMA Study

[Charlie T Waite]

On April 5, 2022, the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Network Open published a study attempting to find a reduction in firearms fatal and non-fatal injuries associated with the very aggressive implementation of a “Red Flag” law, also known as a gun violence restraining order or GVRO, in San Diego County, California.

The results surprised and appear to have shocked them. No statistical association existed, although the data was the most comprehensive to date, and the study was designed to find such an association.

No such association existed.

The study was funded by various contributions from philanthropic and government sources.  Dr. Garen Wintemute is the most well-known of the authors. It appears most of the analysis was done by Dr. Veronica A. Pear.

Author Contributions: Dr Pear had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

It is clear the authors expected to find a statistically significant drop in fatal and non-fatal firearm injuries, both from assault and self-harm. If there were an association, this study had the best chance to find it.  From the abstract:

Key Points

• Question
  • Has implementation of the gun violence restraining order law, beginning in 2016, been associated with a reduction in firearm assault or firearm self-harm in San Diego County, California?
• Findings
  • In this cross-sectional study, the gun violence restraining order law was not significantly associated with a reduction in firearm violence of any kind during its first 4 years of implementation, 2016 to 2019.
• Meaning
  • These results suggest that gun violence restraining order implementation did not reduce population-level rates of firearm violence in San Diego County, but future studies should investigate whether there were individual-level benefits to those directly affected.

This correspondent applauds Dr. Pear and her associates for publishing this null result. It shows integrity on their part.

Analysis:

There was no examination of the costs of the legislation, which can be significant. JAMA consistently ignores the costs of legislation.

Hundreds of people were stigmatized by the Red Flag laws. Many likely lost jobs. Increased depression and loss of trust in the legal system and the rule of law were likely results. The financial cost was likely substantial.

At the minimum, a correlation between the law and reduced firearm injuries and fatalities has to be shown, or there is no reasonable reason for the law to exist.

There was no correlation.  

Our government was not designed to be run by technocratic “experts”. Experts can be found to provide reasons for any desired policy. The COVID years show we are continually lied to by “experts” “for our own good.”

This means we are lied to by experts for their own reasons. Public trust in government “experts” has dropped to historically low levels. The philosophy of limiting government power is showing its merit.

Many excuses were given as to why no correlation was discovered. The usual refrain was brought out. Give us more money and have us do more studies.

The cynical side of this correspondent whispers, that if your grant funding depends on finding a correlation, a correlation will be found.

A recent editorial in JAMA Newt  Open fairly drips with condensation for those who oppose unlimited government power.  JAMA is a quintessential Progressive organization. It sees government action as only in one direction – to do good things. Of course, only Progressives are allowed to define what is good, what is truth, and what is not, either good or true.

The editorial acknowledges a large number of GVROs in San Diego county were driven by “the enthusiasm of the local city attorney,” which shows the policy was driven by one person’s emotion, ambition, and bias.

Governments and the leadership of JAMA are not made of angels.

They are humans. Humans are fallible. Humans are swayed by ambition, pride, power, money, and peer group bias.

The Constitution limits government for broad reasons of human nature. By the nature of limited government, some approaches are taken off the table.

Violating due process is one of the approaches which is supposed to be off the table.

This study shows any gains from this approach are immeasurably small, if
they exist at all.  It is equally possible red flag laws do more harm than good.

Even pure, limited view pragmatism cannot justify this law.

More deference to due process of law should be required, when the law involves the exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right.

The red flag or GVPO laws are invitations for abuse. The courts, thus far,
have claimed there is no violation of due process, if Second Amendment
rights have only been removed for a year.

Progressives have never valued due process or limited government. Because the Second Amendment limits what governments are allowed to do, antipathy to the Second Amendment is in Progressive DNA.

This correspondent expects more court cases.