Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Over half of Colorado county sheriffs say they won’t comply with unconstitutional state gun grab bill

Published

on

Gun Confiscation SWATing is all the rage with the Liberty Grabber Left and RINO’s. MRCTV profiles CO sheriffs standing up for Liberty.

There are many deep philosophical reasons to oppose Gun Confiscation SWATing [aka ERPO, ‘Red Flag’ laws]. This is why a number of Colorado sheriffs are opposing these constitutionally abhorrent measures and are willing to put their freedom on the line to do so. In this video from a few days ago, Gardner Goldsmith, of MRCTV fame details how these lawmen of the state are standing up for freedom and our civil Liberties.

These unnecessary laws have already lead to the death of an innocent man in Maryland. The fact is that Gun Confiscation SWATing is an unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem.  Now, RINOs are getting into the act, with Lindsey Graham harming the 2nd Amendment supporting these laws. But let us check some of the worst aspects of these laws:

The outright Lie that these laws are ‘urgently’ needed

Existing laws on involuntary civil commitment already cover situations where someone may be a danger to themselves and others. For example, in the Parkland case, the perpetrator could have been confined under “The Florida Mental Health Act” or “The Baker Act.”

These laws do not work as advertised

New research from Dr. John Lott and Professor Carl Moody indicated that these laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.

Gun Confiscation SWATing – the perfect tool for extortion or revenge

The founding fathers had a very good reason to consider due process and the presumption of innocence to be vitally important. This is why they set a high bar for criminal charges or punishment. Gun Confiscation SWATing turns that on it’s head with punishment first, then ‘due process’, never mind about any criminal charges.

Going underground – the unintended consequences of Gun Confiscation SWATing

The Liberty grabber Left has the misguided notion that societal problems are but one tweak away from a grand solution. They neglect considerations of how certain people will react to these laws. Those prone to these kind of acts will quickly learn to hide their intentions and means to carry out their plans, making it far more difficult to detect those who may harm themselves or others. Thus, instead of keeping everyone safe, it will have the opposite effect.

Those bent on harming themselves will not seek out any help, lest their potential plans be interrupted. Others in the planing stages of mass murder will seek to hide their tools of mass murder so they cannot be confiscated, as will everyone else. Thus instead of Gun Confiscation SWATing being a constitutionally abhorrent tweak to Liberty rendering everyone safe and happy. It will force many underground along with everyone else afraid that their hard-earned property will be taken at the point of a gun.

Gun Confiscation SWATing violates multiple civil Liberties

As detailed in the video, Gun Confiscation SWATing violates the 2nd, 4th, 5th,6th, 8th and 14th amendments.

Half of Colo County Sheriffs, Say They WON’T COMPLY With Unconstitutional Gun Grab

What that means is the bill violates the Fourth Amendment requirement that police obtain a warrant from a judge citing the person to be searched and the specific items sought, upon the judge’s determination of probable cause, before they can enter a home, or a business, or do a body search of a person, or search his or her phone or car. It means the Fifth Amendment prohibition against the taking of property without just compensation, and the taking of liberty without due process (a trial). If it passes, it means that the Sixth Amendment assurance that a person is entitled to a speedy trial and to confront the witnesses accusing him or her will be infringed. It means that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment will be infringed, since the punishment comes without any kind of trial. And it means, as Reams notes, that the state would be abridging the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

With dishonourable mentions for the 1st, 9th and 10th. Presumably, if the nation’s Socialist-Left managed to have this practice violate the 3rd amendment, this could have been a clean sweep for them.

The final word

We take this from the article penned by Mr. Goldsmith:

In America, if you have not been found guilty of committing a crime, you are not supposed to be punished by the state. If this government protection racket finds through its wonderful jurisprudential system that you have criminally threatened someone, then there is a Common Law basis for interference and apprehension, and, should a suspect be tried and found guilty by a jury of his or her peers, Common Law would lead one to conclude that, under a that paradigm, the person could be jailed.

All so-called “red flag” laws violate this core principle of life under the polis. They place all subjects in the unenviable position of being guilty before proven innocent and irrevocably change the relationship we have with our rights.

Some people, get it.

It appears that the majority of Colorado state politicians don’t.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help


Facebook

Trending