Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Gun confiscation SWATing: Red flag laws go national



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?

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Guns and Crime

16-year-old illegal alien Domingo Marcos accused of killing teacher in head-on-collision



16-year-old illegal alien Domingo Marcos accused of killing teacher in head-on-collision

When Domingo Marcos, 16, crossed our southern border illegally in 2017, he immediately asked for asylum. He was given a date for his asylum hearing and released. When he didn’t show up for his hearing, his asylum was denied and a deportation order went out. Unfortunately, law enforcement didn’t catch up with him until he allegedly killed Alabama school teacher Sonya Jones in a head-on collision.

According to MyNBC15:

Prosecutors say Marcos is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who tried to claim asylum in Arizona in 2017. When he was a no show to his hearing, prosecutors say he was denied asylum and issued a final order of deportation. Authorities didn’t catch up with him until Monday’s crash.

My Take

Most of the stories about illegal immigrant crimes we cover here have to do with heinous acts committed by adults. This is a reminder that there are dangers posed to American citizens that come in many forms from illegal immigrants. Not all of the pain they cause is intentional, and not all of those causing the pain are adults.

Things may be very different today if more illegal immigrants who apply for asylum showed up to their hearings. This goes to show it’s often considered easier to flea from the law for the rest of their lives and hope for Democrats to give them amnesty in the future rather that risk failing the very difficult task of demonstrating a valid need for asylum. The left will say the system needs to be changed to allow more asylum-seekers to stay in the country legally. That may actually be the case, but until we stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming over the southern border, it’s really a moot point.

America is the most generous nation in the world in dealing with illegal immigrants. We can be strong defenders of our own sovereignty and still be compassionate, but it must start by securing the border. We need the wall up immediately.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Mark Geragos, lawyer to Kaepernick, Smollett, and Jackson, likely unnamed co-conspirator with Michael Avenatti



Mark Geragos lawyer to Kaepernick Smollett and Jackson likely unnamed co-conspirator with Michael Av

Michael Avenatti may be getting all the headlines, but his unnamed co-conspirator may be even more of a catch in the extortion case that got Avenatti arrested. Mark Geragos, a regular CNN analyst and lawyer to famous people like Colin Kaepernick, Jussie Smollett, and Michael Jackson, is supposedly the unnamed co-conspirator.

My Take

Avenatti is a spotlight hog. He’s the guy you call if you want the attention paid to your lawyer instead of you. He draws fire and offers cover while still getting your case plenty of attention.

Geragos is the guy you call if you need a real lawyer.

This is why people who aren’t stars call Avenatti while those who are aleady stars call Geragos. He’s a high-dollar hired gun who delivers results. This time, he may have gotten caught with his hand in the wrong cookie jar.

The fact that he’s a CNN analyst certainly adds poetic justice to this. CNN is one of the biggest culprits who helped make Avenatti a star in the first place.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

First they came for the gun owners….




First they came for the gun owners

…but I didn’t say anything because I didn’t own a gun.

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Left’s game of denying reality with their little ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ is that there are distinct parallels between their agenda and that of other socialist nations, past and present. They all have a similar process of imposing socialistic slavery with a specific national agenda. A key part being the deprivation of the means of self-defense to their citizens and those who posses these means.

Denying the right of self-defense is a fundamental aspect of socialism

It is a fact of history that gun confiscation is an integral part of implementing of a socialist national agenda. The USSR required the people to turn in their guns, as did the German national socialist worker’s party. As was Fidel Castro’s response in the question of whether the people should have guns as or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela confiscating guns from the people for their own safety, of course.

These have all taken place at the onset of socialistic slavery, but somehow the new version isn’t the same because reasons. Leftists aren’t really trying to set up a governmental monopoly on the use of force, they are just trying to protect the children* [ *unborn and under 9 months old excluded ]. Even though it has been proven time and again that their repression of Liberty does not work as advertised.

The liberty grabber left is now celebrating the destruction of basic civil liberties

Where this subject not so deadly serious, it would be comical to still witness leftists parroting the ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or a variant thereof. Meanwhile they can scarcely contain themselves in the glee over New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seizing on their ‘serious crisis’ to confiscate guns with tweets looking to replicate the destruction of a basic human right in the states.

It is more than a coincidence that the tempo of the drum beat for liberty control has increased while the ideological fraud of socialism is being forced on the people. After a long winded piece gloating about leftist victories over liberty, an opinion piece in Bloomberg has even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts seize on the serious crisis in New Zealand, using it to destroy this basic civil liberty.

Citizens turned into subjects with a change in the relationship between the people and the government

The genius of the founding fathers is that they recognized that down through history, people have had varying relationships with government. In most cases it was one of the government having a monopoly on the use of force. On occasion the people would challenge this monopoly and change the government, but only after an ensuing orgy of carnage and death.

The founders set forth a new paradigm, that of government by the consent of the people with a semblance of parity via a distributed ability to use force. The nation’s Socialist-Left would like to change or ‘reform’ that paradigm back to the old-fashioned version of the government being the sole purveyor of force. Please note that we are dispensing with the tired old line of the left that this is not what they want. They have made this quite clear over the past few years to the point that anyone that is informed of the issue recognizes that this is just another lie on their part.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

Relegating gun owners to 2nd class citizenship

Those of us who haven’t traded, sold or lost all of our guns in a boating accident are a persecuted class these days. The situation is much akin to a baseball pitching machine throwing fastballs over and over again without let-up. With all kinds of new laws being proposed at state and federal levels that range from invasive Intergalactic Background Checks, liability insurance requirements, gun registration and of course, gun confiscation SWATing legislation.

The destruction of basic civil liberties will only begin with gun owners

Every citizen of the nation is protected with basic Constitutional principles and civil rights including due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.

The gun owner has been excluded from these basic civil liberties in some states, and if the liberty grabbers had their way, such would be the case nationwide. With just the flimsiest insinuation of being ‘dangerous’ a gun owner [or those who are merely accused of being a gun owner] will be subjected to gun confiscation raid from the authorities.

This will be just the beginning of the ordeal – if they survive the SWAT team coming at 5:00 AM without warning. Our 2nd class citizen will have to prove they aren’t ‘dangerous’ after they have effectively found guilty in a star chamber. It will only be after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that they may get their property back in less than stellar condition. The trend is to set gun owners below the legal status of accused criminals in the eyes of the justice system.

We’re just starting on the slippery slope

Fresh from their moves against the basic human right of self-preservation, the chief censor of the government of New Zealand has arbitrarily decided that certain ideas are beyond the pale, sparking a debate over free speech as reported by the Associated Press. This of course is another ongoing controversy in the states over the issue of political correctness and ‘Hate speech’. This shows that isn’t just about ‘military style assault weapons’ or whatever is the phrase at the moment, this is a question of liberty, something the people who use a similar sounding label used to pretend to support.

Make no mistake, the legislative mechanisms and regulations used to deprive gun owners of their commonsense human and civil rights will be used on others if they are allowed to stand. A civil liberties group in California made the point that one doesn’t have to be a gun owner to be subjected to gun confiscation SWATing. If they can go after the property of a gun owner in one instance, because they don’t like their attitude, what’s to stop them from going after a journalist or other type of activist? These orders only have to allege someone is dangerous with little evidence, much less proof that they own a gun. What’s to stop them from deciding free-speech is dangerous or ‘offensive’ necessitating that their computers or cell phones should be seized – at gunpoint no less?

The Takeaway

The whole point of the ‘first they came for’ series is that authoritarians rarely go after everyone at once. They are very careful in picking their targets for their oppression with the tactic of divide and conquer. Today it’s the people who own guns, tomorrow it will be those who don’t conform to the precepts of ‘political correctness’.

This is why President John F. Kennedy stated that: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This is why everyone should be concerned at the headlong rush to denigrate the right of self-defense. And why everyone should be horrified that the government could even consider jettisoning the basic civil liberty of due process and the presumption of innocence. The loss of basic civil rights for some will mean the loss for everyone.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report