A Video from attorney Alex Kincaid makes the crucial point that laws for involuntary civil commitment already take of the issue addressed by so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws.
So-called ‘Red Flag’ laws or ‘Extreme Risk Protection Orders’ are all the rage in the far left’s gun confiscation agenda. A new video from attorney Alex Kincaid points out that there are already laws on the books to cover situations such as the Parkland mass murderer. That ‘Every state in this country already has a set of laws that allow law enforcement to take away firearms from people by civilly committing them’.
I discuss HR 6747, Congress’s answer to making sure your state imposes a red flag law, if you don’t already have one. Congress holds out the proverbial, governmental carrot, by offering $$$$$$ to each and every state that enacts a red flag law. Learn the facts that you need to know to make sure your legislators don’t grab money from this bag and dismantle the Constitution.
Auto-generated transcript excerpt:
I know that we already have a system to take guns away from people without violating the right to due process because I used it for the first ten years of my career. I was in court each and every day in the criminal justice system.
I know this may be a shock to you but I actually represented the government the state in going forward and prosecuting criminals and in taking rights away from people who were mentally ill to protect them and to protect society.
Every state in this country already has a set of laws that allow law enforcement to take away firearms from people by civilly committing them, but currently they have to do it by validly following the other protections in our Constitution. Mainly the right that Americans have to due process of the laws. In other words, if somebody accuses you of a crime or if somebody wants to deprive you of life liberty or property you have the right to go to court and tell the judge your side of the story.
Existing laws protect our rights
The problem for the Liberty grabbers on the Left is that the existing laws for involuntary civil commitment protect our constitutional rights of due process and the right to face one’s accuser. Therefore there is no urgency to pass these new laws in the heat of the moment. That for years, there have been means to protect those who are a danger to themselves and to others that protect our Civil Rights. However, they don’t serve the purpose of being able to easily confiscate guns.
Parenthetically speaking, wouldn’t be better to confine someone who is a danger to themselves and others than to merely take one set of tools away from them? If someone is so dangerous that they need to have their guns confiscated, wouldn’t they also pose a threat by other means?
So what is the true agenda here with the clamour for these laws to solve a non-existent problem? If existing laws already can address the issue, why is there a rush to make these laws that trample the Constitution?