Democrats

So-called Red Flag laws: An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

Published

3 months ago

January 17, 2019

DParker

So-called Red Flag laws An unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem

As with most Leftist affronts to Liberty, unconstitutional gun confiscation SWATing or so-called ‘Red Flag’ laws are based on a lie. The usual contention is that these laws that eviscerate basic constitutional protections of due process are desperately needed because there are no other means to deal with people who are alleged to be a danger to themselves or others. Our previous article on the subject dealt with this outright falsehood. There are laws and procedures for involuntary civil commitments already on the books to handle these extreme situations. In the case of Florida and the Parkland mass murder, the “The Baker Act” was already in place, but the authorities failed to take action in time. Other states such as Colorado already have procedures in place for Mental Health Holds.

The existence of these laws have been ignored in the effort to ‘enhance’ the government’s ability to confiscate guns. Its just another case of the Left exploiting a tragedy to ‘Rahm’ through new laws to deprive the people of their means of self-defense.

Laws built on lies

Most articles on what is supposedly the urgent need for gun confiscation SWATing or ‘Red Flag’ laws will make vague allusions there are no other ways of handling these situations to the point of asserting that the government has never had the authority to deal with these situations.

State governments clearly have these abilities, but the existing laws protect the Constitutional rights of the accused without having the primary purpose of confiscating guns – an intolerable situation for the authoritarian Left that sees 120 million gun owners as a threat simply because they are gun owners.

Why violate one human right when several can be attacked at once?

Leftists seem to be in some perverse competition to see which one of them can conjure up new laws to attack Liberty in as many ways as possible. For them, it’s a more efficient form of tyranny with one law doing the work of several. What better way to suppress Liberty than to confiscate guns because of someone exercising their right of free speech while destroying due process protections?

The dangerous implications to the 1st Amendment

These laws will have devastating consequences for the natural right of free speech. It will only take one concerned person in the group of people who can initiate these actions to decide an innocent gun owner is guilty of ‘thoughtcrime’ to have their property confiscated. The odds are that the Left will also expand who can initiate these gun confiscation SWATings and streamline the process.

This will only serve to further stigmatize gun owners and suppress their right of free speech. Talk too much about the human right of self-defense and the law-abiding could experience a knock on the door at 5:00 AM with property confiscation conducted at gunpoint. One would then have a protracted legal battle on their hands to prove they are innocent after being treated as guilty with all manner of legal costs and red tape just to have their property returned.

The 2nd Amendment – the primary target

In their ongoing efforts to rid the nation of Liberty, the Left has decided that it should be illegal to defend oneself. Thus they have expended copious amounts of digital ink in demanding the death of the 2nd amendment and the confiscation of guns. They are perfectly willing to do this one innocent gun owner at a time if they have to. Never mind that the common sense human right of self-defense is the bedrock of the Bill or Rights. They have no use for the limitations of their power afforded by the Constitution, much less the Liberty conserving provisions of the Bill of Rights.

But wait, there’s more – The 4th and 5th amendments also on the chopping block

These laws turn the presumption of innocence on its head, forcing the victim of one of these gun confiscation raids to have to prove they aren’t guilty of thoughtcrime before they can get their property returned. Not to mention the ‘ex parte’ nature of these proceedings depriving innocent of the critical right of due process and the right to face one’s accuser before these confiscations take place. Lastly, there is the takings clause applicable to the private property being taken for public use since not many innocent gun owners will have the means for a protracted legal battle with the government, resulting in the loss of private property.

Why the focus on firearms?-

The existing laws for Involuntary Civil Commitment are not only superior in protecting everyone’s civil rights. They also serve to keep people from harm by other means. The unconstitutional practice of gun confiscation SWATing only addresses the issue of guns, leaving the supposed danger to society free to use alternative methods to cause harm.

If safety is the point of the so-called ‘Red Flag’ or ‘ERPO’ laws, then why aren’t their proponents concerned about this issue? If someone has their guns taken away suddenly by unconstitutional means, what’s to stop them from using explosives – flour, etc.- from carrying out their deadly deeds? Suppose an alleged ‘danger to society’ no longer has their guns, but still has a motorized vehicle or the ability to make edged weaponry. What about that circumstance?

Well, if it were really the case in that these people are concerned about other people’s welfare to the point of having them committed, they would have to follow the rule of law and afford the target their right of due process, etc. They wouldn’t be able to take someone’s means of self-defense just on the word of some other aggrieved party. It wouldn’t serve their desire for gun confiscation and gun confiscation alone, so it has no usefulness for them.

Things aren’t going according to plan for the Liberty Grabber Left

The progression for the Left has always been one of control, registration and then confiscation. They used to think that it was just a matter of time before Intergalactic Background Checks would be put in place, then registration would be required – both of which would do nothing to keep people safe or ‘cut down on the carnage’. It was all supposed to happen as it did in the UK and Australia. Intergalactic Background Checks, registration, then confiscation.

But that isn’t happening, despite the baseless polling to the contrary, everyone isn’t clamoring to have the government control their private property. Most of the Pro-Liberty see the danger in this control, with it leading to registration, followed by confiscation. Most on both sides have already admitted that Intergalactic Background Checks don’t work, that the dirty little secret being that these have no other purpose than as a stepping stones to confiscation.

The Takeaway

As others have indicated, Leftists aren’t anti-gun, they are anti-Liberty. They love to see them in the hands of the ‘politically correct’, but cannot deal with them in the hands of the right people.

Leftists desperately want to deprive the Pro-Liberty Right of their guns. These firearms represent a vitally important and final check on unlimited governmental power. It’s the primary bulwark against them attaining government power to attain their wondrous utopia they desire. They are so desperate to remove it that they will confiscate them one innocent person at a time, without a care for its effects on safety or Liberty.

Mixi.Media News

1 Comment

Gene Ralno

January 18, 2019 at 9:45 pm

Fact is, red flag laws are intended to remove firearms from the hands of deranged persons but aren’t crafted to succeed. No state thus far has crafted a law that ensures the disarmed person is deranged. Seems they empower mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence. Bills in other states would allow classmates to partner with judges to the ones they don’t like.

Until two independently chosen psychiatrists, one from each side of the dispute, analyze and formally issue an opinion, these confiscations are devoid of due process. Besides, judges and police officers don’t wish to be saddled with the responsibility and potential litigation because they know they’re not qualified. It’ll never end with these radical leftists. Perhaps under the choke-point strategy, mortgagees, auto lien holders and insurers will be empowered to confiscate. Think about those notions when you vote and carefully consider the consequences of not voting.

Reply

Democrats

When Joe Biden first ran for president, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hadn’t been born

Published

3 hours ago

April 25, 2019

Lorie Wimble

When Joe Biden first ran for President Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hadnt been born

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born in October, 1989, well into George H.W. Bush’s term in the White House. Had then-Senator Joe Biden had his way, he would have been sitting in the Oval Office around the time the young Congresswoman was born.

Biden’s first run for president wasn’t much of a run. He had plagiarized components of speeches made by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. What made it worse is that he even mimicked personal details of Kinnock’s speeches that talked about family, something that drew ridicule and condemnation as it seemed likely he fabricated aspects of his life to match that of Kinnock.

But that’s not going to be the issue for Biden in 2020. His real problem is his label as a moderate without any leftist-favored intersections of race, gender, or sexual preference. This isn’t the time in history for a Democrat to win the nomination by relying on the Establishment wing of the party. Many Democrats still blame the DNC for supporting Hillary Clinton as the reason Donald Trump is President today. Had they backed the favorite Democratic-Socialist of 2016, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), his supporters believe he would have been able to defeat Trump. We’ll never know, but that won’t change the challenge Biden has with his reputation of being in the murky middle.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Biden may be the best chance the Democrats have of defeating Trump, but he doesn’t really stand a chance in the primaries. This may be true despite his frontrunner status. Since most of the candidates are pushing further and further to the left with their radical policy proposals, whichever one emerges as the last hyper-leftist radical progressive standing will draw in the support from the others with very limited upside for Biden once the radicals start falling off.

No matter which way you cut it, Biden is going to have to lurch to the left to try to suspend disbelief among the primary voters who want to see more Justice Democrats and fewer Establishment Democrats in office. Biden may have too much history as a moderate to suddenly paint himself as a progressive, but that won’t stop him from trying.

Will age and a long history of White House ambitions harm Joe’s chances? Absolutely. The New (Justice) Democratic Party of AOC doesn’t want an old white guy representing them. They will do whatever they can to make him leave the race.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Democrats

Joe Biden invokes Charlottesville to announce his presidential campaign

Published

4 hours ago

April 25, 2019

Blaine Traber

Joe Biden invokes Charlottesville to announce his presidential campaign

The worst kept secret in DC has finally been made official. Former Vice President Joe Biden has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President. The Establishment wing of the party is mostly rejoicing.

Unlike many who have already announced their candidacy by going on talk shows for the audience energy, Biden’s announcement came in the form of a video, reminiscent of how Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy in 2015. In the video, Biden claims to have been driven to run against President Trump following the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally and protests in which counter-protester Heather Danielle Heyer was killed by a white supremacist. It wasn’t the event itself but the President’s infamous reaction to the incident that Biden claims was his inspiration to run.

He joins a crowded field as one of the two frontrunners. Former candidate and current Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ahead in some polls, behind in others, but the two are far ahead of the rest of the field.

Some doubts sprung up about whether or not he would run following a report by former Democratic lawmaker Lucy Flores that Biden inappropriately touched her and kissed her on the back of her head without permission. She was appalled because, among other things, she hadn’t had time to wash her hair that morning.

Now that it’s official, Biden is sure to continue making waves. Whether or not he has enough support from the moderate wing to overtake the other candidates, nearly all of whom are radical progressives, remains to be seen.

Petition Capitol Hill for Term Limits

Sign the petition. We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Democrats

Why full-blown #NeverTrumpers on the right are wrong to embrace Democrats

Published

7 hours ago

April 25, 2019

JD Rucker

Why full-blown NeverTrumpers on the right are wrong to embrace Democrats

In 2016, I supported Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the GOP nomination. I supported him all the way through to the Republican National Convention and was among those holding out for the tiniest possibility that he could somehow be gifted the nomination by a magical “conscience” vote. When it didn’t happen, I skulked off knowing candidate Trump would bring about challenges for the nation if he won. But…

… and this is a big but…

… there was absolutely no scenario that would have made me wish for, cheer on, or vote for Hillary Clinton.

She was bad. This new batch of Democrats running for the White House are even worse.

I am no longer a Republican. I had high hopes for a third party I co-founded, but it went in a different direction from where I initially wanted to take it, so now I’m officially an Independent. But one thing hasn’t changed. There is still absolutely no scenario in which I could support socialism-loving, pro-abortion, anti-gun, big government preaching Democrats. Even the “moderates” in the race are lurching to the left. If Joe Biden ends up winning the nomination as the only semi-rational Democrat (almost) in the race, I still couldn’t support him.

Today, there are still plenty of things President Trump does that discourage me. His bump-stock ban opened Panora’s Box for future gun confiscations and his administration’s push for Red Flag Gun Laws is only Constitutional if you eliminate the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments. I am often struck with hope that deals are in the works to finally end his destructive tariffs, but there’s always a roadblock. As North Korean dictator Kim Jong un visits Russia’s Vladimir Putin, I’m reminded of the debacle we witness as the “negotiations” to end their nuclear program were completely botched.

But here’s the thing. He’s our President. From the beginning of his administration, I’ve consistently said I’d praise him when he does right and I’d criticize him when he does wrong. This type of intellectual honesty is not present in either the #AlwaysTrump camp nor the #NeverTrump camp. Just yesterday, I Tweeted agreement with three out of four points Charlie Kirk made about the President’s successes. By mentioning there wasn’t really a North Korean deal in sight and it should’t be considered a victory, I was summarily attacked for being a “pearl clutching” Democrat or something like that.

The same happens when I praise the President, only much worse. I won’t even mention the things that are sent to me on social media, through direct messages, and via email. Many of the folks who followed me when I supported Cruz are terribly offended by my support for the border wall, for example. They tend to forget that Cruz supports the wall as well as the fact that we desperately need it. To many #NeverTrumpers, any praise for actions the President does, even if they’re conservative, is a betrayal to the credo of “orange man bad.”

I wish the President would let someone read his Tweets just to prevent him from embarrassing himself. I wish he’d alert his staff of policy changes instead of making them react to Tweets. I wish he’d stop talking about how great he is all the time. I wish he could be a statesman instead of a strongman. But as our President, he has my support. As someone who has reversed many of the evils from the previous administrations, he has my praise. As a President who is willing to acknowledge Israel as a sovereign nation and our ally, he has my pleasantly surprised smile.

One does not have to gush over the President to be a supporter. One does not have to hate everything he does to be critical. It’s preferable to look at each individual action and determine if it’s good for America or not. That level of intellectual honesty is sorely needed right now, but instead it is conspicuously absent. We are polarized. Either Trump is evil or Trump is godlike depending on which tribe you’ve sworn your allegiance to. Personally, my allegiance is to my God, my family, and my country, and I am fully capable of molding my support or not for individual policies, choices, or words based upon these three criteria.

Sometimes I’m asked how I can be a Christian and support a man who is clearly not. I look to Daniel, Joseph, and others for guidance in situations like that, but I also remember Romans 13:1:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

I do not have to support the President’s adulterous affections or misogynist statements in order to support many of his policies. But perhaps most importantly I cannot justify supporting the existential threat of socialism just because I object to our leader’s personal sins. I wouldn’t leave my wife alone with him, but that doesn’t mean I’m opposed to his desire to end visa overstays.

Then, there’s the issue of abortion. Can a Christian say, “Trump is too sinful to support” and then support a pro-abortion Democrat as a result?

Lastly, there’s the challenge of pushing the conservative philosophy, an act that superseding my personal feelings about President Trump. He is malleable. We’ve seen this time and time again, especially when he’s been on the verge of shifting to the left on important issues. Those who incessantly oppose him cannot help sway him towards the right side of an issue. If they’re attacking him when he’s being conservative, their attacks on him when he’s being progressive are meaningless.

It’s time for #NeverTrumpers to ask themselves if we’re really better off with someone they like better even if that person is a pro-abortion, anti-gun, socialism-loving Democrat. The right answer is obviously “no.”