Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Gun confiscation SWATing: Red flag laws go national

Published

on

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.

[Our emphasis]

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.

The Takeaway

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?

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Rich

    January 11, 2019 at 9:50 am

    Red Flag Laws Mean Red Flag Rising.. Trump Opens Door For Gun Confiscation In America
    Really? We are going to let the government tell us who is crazy? Folks, this is a HUGE step on the slippery slope toward totalitarianism. Allowing the government to decide who is mentally unfit to own a firearm without due process is patently Stalinesque. Politicians and government officials are already on record as saying that people who believe in the New World Order or the Second Coming of Jesus Christ are mentally ill. Face it: In the states that pass these “red flag” laws, police can confiscate the guns of anyone they want. Period. Constitutional due process is absolutely dead in those states. And if the federal government passes a national version of a “red flag” law, constitutional due process is dead in America. Disingenuous politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who pass these Orwellian backdoor gun control laws (which is exactly what “red flag” laws are all about) are only using Marxist-style incrementalism to further destroy the Second Amendment—along with the rest of our Constitution. Rightly are these tyrannical laws called “red flag” laws, because that is exactly what they are.
    No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    https://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3719/Red-Flag-Laws-Mean-Red-Flag-Rising.aspx

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Twice convicted, thrice deported Alberto Martinez Flores captured again by border patrol

Published

on

Twice convicted thrice deported Alberto Martinez Flores captured again by border patrol

Deporting criminal illegal immigrants while maintaining such porous and indefensible borders often proves to be a fruitless expenditure. Many of them simply do their time in jail, get deported, then come back the way they came last time. Rinse. Repeat.

Such is the case for Alberto Martinez Flores, 42, who has multiple convictions, including assault, strangulation, vehicular assault, and unlawful imprisonment. This is not a very nice person. In fact, he’s dangerous, yet despite three deportations over the years, including last year, he always finds a way back in.

My Take

Why do people like Flores keep coming back? Because there are too many places without a wall. There aren’t enough border patrol agents. There aren’t enough beds for ICE to house the dramatic influx of humanity crossing our border illegally.

I’m not sure where I read it, but there’s a good case that can be made for increasing jail time on crimes when committed by illegal immigrants. This is something that should definitely be considered in light of our open borders.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Nevada to seek death penalty for illegal alien Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

Published

on

Nevada to seek death penalty for illegal alien Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

Prosecutors in two counties where an illegal immigrant allegedly murdered four people are seeking the death penalty for his crimes. North Nevada was shaken by the string of murders until the alleged killer was apprehended by law enforcement in January.

Wilber Ernesto Martinez-Guzman, 20, was arrested January 19, 2019, by Washoe County Sheriff’s department and charged with multiple offenses while prosecutors and investigators worked on charging him for the four murders. They rarely invoke the death penalty but the severity and heinous nature of the crimes warrant capital punishment, according to prosecutors.

“We reserve the death penalty for the worst of the worst,” Washoe County District Attorney Chris Hicks said last Thursday. “We use it sparingly.”

The illegal immigrant from El Salvador is accused of shooting and killing Gerald David, 81, and his wife, Sharon, 80, in Reno and Connie Koontz, 56, and Sophia Renken, 74, in Gardnerville.

My Take

Just as traffic fines are doubled in construction zones, so too should penalties be increased when illegal immigrants commit crimes. His immigration status was not taken into account, but the crimes themselves were enough for prosecutors to seek the death penalty.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report