Will Red Flag Laws Be Used to Set up Gun Owners?
April 16, 2019
“U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham supports laws to temporarily revoke guns from people who might harm themselves or others, and he’s working on legislation that would give grants to states that pass such statutes,” The State reports. “It’s a controversial position among gun rights advocates, but the South Carolina Republican’s not worried about alienating his base.
“Not my base,” Graham fires back, calling those who oppose his proposed citizen disarmament scheme as “the fringe of the fringe,” adding:
“I think most Americans believe that multiple murderers shouldn’t have gun rights. Most Americans support background checks. The Second Amendment’s important to me, but it’s not a suicide pact.”
Like all gun-grabbers, he resorts to insults and lies. And stupid lies at that.
Assuming a person is a “multiple murderer,” it’s fair to ask what the hell he’s doing out of maximum security. It’s also fair to assume he received full due process before being sentenced there. And as for “most Americans” supporting any infringement, it’s fair to ask what they actually know about guns and “gun control,” and how many know that no less an “authority” than the National Institute of Justice admits background checks require registration to “work,” if by that they mean to come up with a list of those inclined to obey laws.
Leave it to a “committed,” A-rated NRA endorsee to refer to the one thing the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” as “a suicide pact” as his weasel-worded “out” for ignoring his clear “shall not be infringed” mandate. And while Association management has tried to give itself plausible deniability for green-lighting “red flags” by repeating phrase like “due process,” the bottom line is guns will be confiscated without charges being filed let alone convictions being obtained from citizens who are legally presumed “innocent.”
And this genius plan of funding state infringements means control of what comes out on the other end is being abdicated. Good luck objecting to how they drive once you’ve given them the keys and a gas card.
Lost in all this is the basic truth that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. That would be easy enough to prove by paroling a man-eating tiger and setting him loose.
We sure have come a long way from Republicans controlling the Presidency, the House and the Senate, when they had the majority to push for reciprocity and hearing protection, and their “leadership” intentionally sabotaged them. Now instead of being on the offensive, gun owners are not only in defense mode, the politicians they backed are the ones waving white flags and belittling the very people who put them in office. And that’s not surprising to those of us jaded by years of watching a preemptive surrender M.O.
Ever since Sandy Hook, there has been a push by some “gun rights leaders” and industry lobbyists insisting “our” politicians have to give the constituents “something” on guns in order to win elections. I was invited to be part of a conference call some years back with some of the types moving in that direction, and brought along some backup in the form of two former “dissident” NRA directors, and the head of a “no compromise” state “gun rights” organization. We let them know we’d make noise if appeasement was offered and that appeared to quiet things down for a bit, although we never did get invited back for more calls.
The Republican establishment doesn’t seem to care that Donald Trump was elected because of his platform. They can’t seem to understand that Republican midterm losses were not because the candidates were too much like Trump. They lost because they were RINOs incapable of igniting fire in the bellies of Americans sick and tired of poltroons who betray them on core principles.
As with “bump stocks,” they’ve gotten a green light from NRA. The Association’s paid management has flat out advocated for disarming people not found guilty, let alone charged with crimes, telling members what they support passes “due process” muster. It also leaves a person deemed too dangerous to be trusted with a gun with unencumbered access to whatever -- and whomever -- they want.
It’s fair to ask what protections will exist to prevent abuse and catch innocents up in a net that will strip them of rights and leave them on their own to fight a state with virtually unlimited resources?
What’s to stop false accusations, and incentives offered to make them?
“The petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a person poses a significant risk to self or others by having a firearm in his or her custody or control or by possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm,” a Colorado bill signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis claims. “The petitioner must submit an affidavit signed under oath and penalty of perjury that sets forth facts to support the issuance of a temporary ERPO [Extreme Risk Protection Order] and a reasonable basis for believing they exist.”
So it would be against the law to do that? Newsflash, so are all “gun crimes.” That hasn’t stopped them.
Plus it becomes awful difficult to prove someone is intentionally lying in a “he said/she said” situation. The target of the ERPO may or may not have the wherewithal and resolve to fight to the end, and even if it looks like the accuser was manipulating things, they will still get full due process if charged with a crime. That’s something prosecutors, with their own agendas, have discretion to make or not.
No less of an “authority” than Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a gun-grabber of the first order, has admitted under testimony about the bill:
“It will not be perfect ... Will every judicial decision made on a preliminary basis be correct? No.”
As an aside, Weiser says sheriffs cannot refuse to enforce such diktats, but has no problem with Colorado “sanctuary cities” subverting immigration law.
So what happens after the judge issues a warrant?
Pastor and commentator Chuck Baldwin gives us a foretelling on the edict being pushed by the like of “Republicans” Graham and Marco Rubio.
“If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.”
In the scenario that can unfold then, the gun owner can lose a lot more than his guns. We have seen what happens when a police raid was mistaken for a home invasion. We’ve also seen deliberate “swatting” with fatal results.
So who’s to say ERPOs won’t “evolve”? There are plenty of precedents to show us how they could.
When gun-grabbers succeed in getting a law passed, they press on for more, presenting what they couldn’t pass the first time as a “loophole.” Spouses, exes and other family members (who may or may not have agendas of their own) are not enough; we have to also give police the power to initiate confiscation orders. That’s not enough, either, as that still doesn’t close the so-called “Boyfriend Loophole,” adding a new danger to “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
As for endangering gun owners, we’ve seen that too recently, from a Democrat activist and officer of the court. Calling them “terrorists,” Maryland Democratic Party Secretary and attorney Robbie Leonard urged his followers to “dox” gun owners wearing “I will not comply” t-shirts to protest new infringements. (Doxing is posting private information about someone with malicious intent, for instance, publishing the address of someone so that people can harass him.)
We’ve seen what happens when domestic Marxists target “conservatives” for protests that can devolve into criminal acts. We’ve seen national Democrat “leaders” like Maxine Waters call for such targeting, and as unstable as she appears, it’s fair to question the stability and commitment to nonviolence of her rabid followers. And we’ve seen prosecutions and convictions when such doxing is combined with swatting.
New gun laws like these “red flag” abominations are simply used as beachheads from which to launch the next assault deeper into the interior. Another tactic of those who want it all is to set up “snitch” lines, where anonymous people of unknown motives can submit tips, and receive monetary rewards to boot. Case in point; consider the New York Police Department’s “Gun Stop” program, endorsed by none other than “the Reverend” Al Sharpton.
Does anyone really believe that once “red flag laws” are enacted at the federal and state level that those whose goal is to ban private ownership won’t then “discover” another “loophole,” and make the case that public safety demands expanding them to include such tips? Does anyone think the gun-grab groups, opportunistic politicians in “safe” districts and most of the media won’t jump on that bandwagon?
There’s already an army of enthusiastic snitches trolling Facebook and other social media sites with the express intent of getting pro-gun posts banned. And we’ve seen the motivation of one of that effort’s ringleaders:
“It’s time to take everyone’s guns. It’s PAST time.”
With everything that’s gone before, and with the elimination of the recognized right to keep and bear arms being the goal, it’s not far-fetched to envision a time in the not-so-distant future when Second Amendment advocates become targets for “expanded” gun confiscation “justifications.” Hell, there are already those with significant influence who maintain just wanting a gun means you are too mentally suspect to own one, and there is a reason why they call us “gun nuts” -- and then “terrorists.” And leave it to agenda-driven “Scientific American” to imply the desire is inherently racist, to boot. After all, if “hate speech is not free speech,” how much less should “racist white men” with guns be tolerated?
What might that targeting look like?
What’s to stop domestic enemies from reporting activist gun owners to the authorities, and who thinks the cops won’t follow up with their prime concern being “officer safety”?
As much as his apologists try to distance George Soros from some of the more easily- disprovable conspiracy theories about funding radicals, there is evidence his machine has done just that. Likewise, we see Michael Bloomberg spending megabucks to impose New York City-style disarmament measures on other states.
Why would they not be hailed as “philanthropists” for offering incentives to take more “guns off the streets” if it means the people being disarmed are those who have been smeared by the media as extremists, haters and violent lunatics?
By making individual targets, confiscators minimize the chance of organized physical resistance, and if there is any, all the better for the headlines. If a gun owner decides to make a stand, there will be no shortage of media-amplified voices exploiting that to “prove” they were right to go after a “proven danger.”
Will such examples be used to “chill” 2A activism? Will individuals stop being vocal, fearing their house might be next, and seeing no one is likely to come to their aid?
Will some of the anti-gun provocateurs go further and start physical confrontations that they can then use to smear individual activists as too violent to have a gun? We’ve seen a case where a woman who was defending herself is now in prison, the lesson being that the advantage apparently goes to the first person to call the police.
And we’ve seen a national anti-gun group urging its followers to call police on open carriers. How many of those would it take before some gun owners reconsidered if their advocacy was being exploited to make them targets, and that they were on their own?
They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but in the case of citizen disarmament, it’s paved by exploiting those whose intentions may be the same as ours but who go about achieving the goal manipulated by deceivers. No one wants to see people who are a provable threat to themselves and others free to stalk among us, hurting and killing at will. The question is how do we stop it and do so in a way that respects the rights of individuals, and provides full and actual due process?
If you have done something to prove you’re a threat, just taking guns away will do nothing to stop you from being a continued danger to specific victims and/or to everyone around you. And that means authorities need to arrest, charge and try you, and if found you’re found guilty, separate you from society. It also means you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that you have a right to confront your accusers.
Anything less and we’re left with crap like these “Red Flag” Intolerable Acts that are affronts to the very concepts of liberty and unalienable rights. That in this case, Republicans like Lindsey Graham, presented to us as “pro-gun” are leading the charge, along with a supposedly “pro-gun” president who has said, “Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” makes them all the more intolerable.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. In addition to being a regular featured contributor for Firearms News
and AmmoLand Shooting Sports News
, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,”
and posts onTwitter: @dcodrea