When Democrats took complete control of state government in 2022, one of the first pieces of legislation to be approved by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was a "red flag" law. When she signed SB 83 into law in May of last year, Whitmer claimed that the legislation would "save lives and keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and violent criminals." 

That wasn't the case, however, in Orion Township, Michigan this week, where a 67 year old man subject to both a protective order and an Extreme Risk Protection Order tried to kill his ex-girlfriend after breaking into the home where she was staying. 

Sheriff Michael Bouchard held a press conference Wednesday regarding the domestic violence incident. He said the 67-year-old man, identified as Galen Gavitt, was intent on hunting down his ex.

The family said the woman had a restraining order against Gavitt and an extreme risk protection order that required the confiscation of firearms. Police recovered two weapons from his home on June 12.

The woman was seeking shelter at her daughter’s home and she hid with her stepson in a bathroom after Gavitt reportedly got inside by breaking a window with an ax.

One of the flaws about "red flag" laws is that while they're supposedly aimed at preventing people who are a danger to themselves or others from doing dangerous things, they're myopically focused on guns. A dangerous person is no less dangerous because they have an axe instead of a handgun, but fans of "red flag" laws claim that once any guns have been removed from that person's presence, the danger has disappeared. 

Clearly not. In this case, however, not only did Gavitt have an axe when he broke into the home. He had managed to violate the "red flag" law and get ahold of a gun as well. 

The woman and her family had already called 911 once Gavitt broke in, but they then retreated to a bedroom. The victim's stepson was holding the bedroom door closed when Gavitt allegedly fired a round through the door. Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said at a press conference on Wednesday that when the stepson fell to the ground in surprise, the suspect was able to make entry into the bedroom. 

He pointed a firearm directly at the stepson, and said, basically, not the exact words, but said 'I'm here for her' and was proceeding to the bathroom where she had gone. The stepson fired one round, which ended the situation. 

I'm so glad that this family didn't solely depend on a piece of paper to protect them from harm. Despite Whitmer's parroting of the gun control lobby's talking points, "red flag" laws miss the mark when it comes to addressing the dangerousness of an individual. The law may have led to two guns being removed from Gavitt's home, but somehow the 67-year-old was able to illegally acquire a handgun regardless of the ERPO he was subjected to; as well as the axe he used to break into the home. 

Would Whitmer call this a successful use of the state's "red flag" law"? If not, why? The law worked as intended. It disarmed Gavitt of his legally owned guns. It prevented him from legally purchasing one while the order was in place. It just didn't stop him from trying to murder his ex. That took an armed citizen who was ready and able to protect his stepmother because he had a gun of his own. 

Yes, "red flag" laws lack due process. Yes, they're constitutionally questionable in my eyes, even if the Supreme Court appears to have given its collective thumbs up to their use in the Rahimi decision, where eight of the nine justices agreed that temporarily depriving someone of their Second Amendment rights after a judge has found them to pose a danger to others doesn't violate the Constitution. 

But even for those who like the idea of "red flag" laws in theory, this terrifying incident should be a wake-up call about the utter ineffectiveness of ERPO statutes. If someone is committed to carrying out a violent attack, a piece of paper won't stop them. A good guy with a gun, on the other hand, put a stop to this attempted murder with a single well-placed shot.