Democrats Refuse to Include Gang Members in “Red Flag” Laws

Democrats Refuse to Include Gang Members in "Red Flag" Laws
Democrats Refuse to Include Gang Members in “Red Flag” Laws

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- On 10 September 2019, Colorado Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) offered an amendment to the proposed bill to create federal grants for  “Red Flag” bills in the House of Representative. The amendment was offered in the Judiciary Committee.  Representative Ken Buck's introduction of the amendment occurs in the first minute and ten seconds of the video on C-Span. “Red Flag” bills allow police to confiscate guns from people with a mere accusation they may pose a threat. In Red Flag bills, there is little due process.

An accusation is sufficient. No court appearance by the accused, or confrontation of witnesses, is required.  There is no presumption of innocence. To regain their rights, the person accused has to prove they are “not* a danger. They may incur thousands of dollars of court costs to regain the property that was taken from them without due process.

Representative Buck's amendment would allow law enforcement agencies, on probable cause of a person belonging to a criminal gang, to use “Red Flag” laws to take guns from gang members.

Representative Buck offered testimony that most murders and violent crimes involving guns are committed by gang members. The standard of probable cause is much higher than a mere accusation from a family member or other person who may have motivation to make false charges, about potential future conduct.

The amendment pointed out the hypocrisy of the Left. The Committee Chairman, Representative Nadler, said a taking guns from a person, for simply being on a database, would violate due process. Red flag laws require less evidence than probable cause for law enforcement officials. They only require an accusation of the potential of a threat.

Rep. Buck told Tucker Carlson he was opposed to the “Red Flag” bill being passed at all. His amendment was to point out the hypocrisy, to show the Democrats want to take guns from people without criminal convictions, but who demand full due process for the people most likely to be involved in violent crimes.

Rep. Buck says 80% of murders committed with guns are committed by gang members. He says over 90% of the crime committed in America are committed by gang members.

Representative Veronica Escobar (D-TX),  brought up the problems of identity confusion in databases of gang members. John Lott has been pointing out the problems with identity confusion in the National Instant background Check System (NICS) database, especially for minorities, for years. Democrats have not had a problem with that.

Ms Zoe Lofgren, (D) 19th District, California talked of due process problems.

Rep Doug Collins (R-GA) brought up the hypocrisy of the Democrats in voting to ban all members of the “no fly” list, which has far more problems with due process than gang members lists, from buying guns.  On 23 June, 2016, the Democrats staged a “sit-in” on the House floor, to demand people on the “no fly” list be banned from purchasing guns. From pbs.org:

Democrats staged an all-night sit in, demanding a vote on plan to ban anyone on the government's terrorist no-fly list from buying a gun.

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Nadler (D) New York, has this as part of a press release:

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) joined with Democratic colleagues to stage a sit-in on the House floor calling on Speaker Ryan and the Republican Leadership to bring forward common sense gun legislation that prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone on the terrorist watch list and closes the gun show loophole.

There is no “probable cause” to be put on a no fly list. There is no way to appeal being on a no-fly list. The standard to be on a gang member list is considerably higher. Yet Democrats were all for banning everyone who is on a “no-fly” list from purchasing a gun. When it comes to street gangs, however, any possibility of a lack of due process is an excellent reason to not have gang members red-flagged.

Why would Democrats, who show an overwhelming desire to disarm Americans, be so concerned about disarming people who are likely gang members?

Representative Buck says the Democrats want to disarm rural Americans, not gang members. It is a serious charge. Unfortunately, it fits the facts. Guns are concentrated in rural America. Most rifles, particularly semi-automatic rifles, are in rural America. Rural America has far less crime than urban America. Most deaths associated with guns in rural America are suicides committed by older white men. Most homicides in America are committed by urban gang members.

Rep. Buck says the Democrats wish to split law enforcement from rural America with these laws.  He says that many law enforcement agencies in rural America do not want these laws, and do not want to enforce them.

Separating law enforcement from gun owners has long been a goal of those wishing to disarm the American population.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

49
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
27 Comment threads
22 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
33 Comment authors
Sir_KickingtonDan42dayWild BillWill FlattRayJN Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Sir_Kickington
Member
Sir_Kickington

Armed criminals fit into their agenda. Armed trained citizens won’t cower. “They” can’t push an agenda of “Hey these firearms are dangerous, against people who use them safely”. So they take acts of violence and flip it onto law abiding citizens because we possess certain types of firearms. The laws that they are passing hurt no one except those who obey the laws, and “they” know this and exploit it at every chance. So many uneducated and just plane ignorant citizens fall in line with no pushback. And those of us that bring up actual statistics and proven facts get… Read more »

Dan42day
Member
Dan42day

The Dems are pushing socialism. To do this in a democracy, they need to convince voters that the the current system, that has provided the greatest increase in wealth in world history, is failing. They actively work to increase racial tension, homelessness, crime, and general dysfunction wherever they can, so that it can be blamed on capitalism. Ignoring the real causes of criminal violence fits their agenda, every bit as much as disarming law abiding citizens who might rebel against the loss of constitutional rights that will inevitably follow their consolidation of power.

TomKatBooks
Member
TomKatBooks

Dems don’t do anything for anyone unless they are first given a gratuity. We need to follow the money in this situation.

ras52
Member
ras52

Typical democrat strategy, coddle criminals but punish honest gunowners.

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@ras, “There is (for now) no longer a Democratic Party. Instead, it is a revolutionary Jacobin movement that believes socialism is our salvation, that identity politics is our creed, that gun confiscation is our duty, that the abrupt end of fossil fuels is coming very soon, that open borders is our new demography, and that the archetypical unmarried, childless, urban hipster is our model woke citizen.” Victor Davis Hanson

I wish that I would have written this.

Will Flatt
Member

Well I guess I’ll call my AR-15 an MS-13 so the Demorats will protect & give it sanctuary!!

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

SOOOooo! Colorado Congressman Ken Buck (R-CO) is offering a Federal BRIBE for states to adopt the UNLAWFUL, ANTI-Constitutional Second Amendment – – “EROP” or “Red Flag Law/”Red flag CONFISCATION law.” I understand that BRIBES are not accepted as a lawful act. WHY is this Senator among others trying to use a BRIBE????

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

EROP?

Will Flatt
Member

It’s ERPO, not ‘EROP'(sic). Turn on your spell-checker!

Hankus
Member
Hankus

Let’s hope that our allies in the Senate find the huevos to send the spending bill back to the House with a big FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

srg
Member
srg

Your falling right into the trap to make a stink about gang members and inclusion in red flag laws. The issue isn’t that, it’s the existence of red flag laws. They are unconstitutional. The leftists don’t care if we call them names, as long as they get what they want in the end. Making this argument is actually giving a hat tip to red flag laws.

Will Flatt
Member

You’re missing the point. Yeah red flags are wholly unacceptable! BUT the Demonrats are more interested in protecting and giving sanctuary to MS-13 gangsters than they are in respecting our RIGHTS.

The fact that the Demonrats want to cozy up to criminal illegal aliens should pi$$ you off!!

RayJN
Member
RayJN

Unfortunately their hypocrisy will be totally ignored, NEVER reported.

Will Flatt
Member

Well the fact that it is being discussed among patriots and REAL Americans tells me it’s not really being ignored. As for the Leftist-controlled MSM ministry of propaganda and all the Demonrats out there, they will not be able to ignore the righteous fury of patriots when they finally go too far. There will be a reckoning.

Jim
Member
Jim

OF COURSE Democrats refuse to put gangs under red flag laws! If they did then the idiots in the gang called “the squad” and the other racist white exclusionary gang called the Congressional Black Caucus would be vulnerable to red flag laws.

Vern
Member
Vern

The criminal element is the left’s “bread and butter.” The soviets used their criminal element to keep people depressed all the time they were in power.

james
Member
james

If a person is a danger to himself or anyone else, REMOVE THE PERSON not any property.
Get them evaluated and treatment if necessary, otherwise release them after evaluation.

Morrigan
Member
Morrigan

If you are blessed to have a Constitutional Sheriff or COP in your jurisdiction be very grateful
and support them. These laws violate the Constitution on several levels and need to be dead on arrival or vetoed.

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

“Constitutional sheriff or cop” – there is no such animal! Just because they support the 2nd amendment doesn’t make them “constitutional”. Every law enforcement agent violates our constitutional rights on a regular basis, considering that more than 75% of the laws on the books are unconstitutional! If red flag laws are passed, even the “constitutional” LE’s will enforce them!

Will Flatt
Member

WRONG. There are good lawmen out there. https://cspoa.org
Do not make the mistake of lumping the good ones with the rest!

toomanyhobbies
Member
toomanyhobbies

OK so precisely what good is your law other than to disarm law abiding citizens at random?

Get Out
Member
Get Out

It would appear they’ve confirmed what gun owners have been saying all along, that red flag laws are only in place to take firearms from law abiding citizens without due process. These elected buffoons excuse, we don’t want to step on a known gang members rights is pure bovine droppings.

Old Ch.E.
Member
Old Ch.E.

Just have to second this instead of posting the same thing..

Sisu
Member
Sisu

And, a week ago AWR Hawkins pointed out that the Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment to “The Dream Act of 2019” H.R. 2820 offered by Rep. Gaetz of Florida that would have made “ineligible” anyone convicted of unlawfully possessing or selling/exchanging, etc. a firearm (as provided in Sect. 921(a) of Title 18, US Code):

https://www.instagram.com/p/ByVmSSqBNuS/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=down-range&utm_campaign=20190912dr

gsteele
Member
gsteele

Clearly, the theater of the sit-in was to push an agenda and establish precedent. If the no-fly list ban were imposed, a precedent would have been set that vaporized the notion of due process in gun confiscation. Subsequent red flag laws could not be defended against based on the imperfection of a list, because the supporters could cite the passage of the legislation using the no-fly list, which was a known imperfect list at the time of passage. It would turn due process on its head, and change our system of jurisprudence to that of the “j’accuse!” model of France… Read more »

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

Let’s take a lesson from the communist . Eat this apple one bite at a time . Let’s first put all dems on the no fly list.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@Oldvet; IF you mean RADICALIZED LEFT LEANING DemocRATic National Communists – – I AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldvet
Member
Oldvet

@lad…let’s put them all on and let them prove they don’t belong there. Step 2 put the Rino’s on it also.

nrringlee
Member
nrringlee

New Left Progressives maintain only two brands of lists. They maintain donors lists and they maintain enemies lists. Enemies lists are used to suppress opposition to leftist ideology. Donors lists are used to marshal up funds to accomplish the former. So when an uppity conservative tries to attach a poison pill amendment to a popularly supported, common sense solution like a Red Flag law the left must strike back and explain to that moron that only enemies of the left can be placed on enemies lists. No victims of the patriarchy, no victims of capitalism, no victims of criminal justice… Read more »

Bowserb46
Member
Bowserb46

The probability of red flag raids on gang members being successful, is low. First, they’re not likely to have any legally obtained firearms, so you can’t use 4473’s to say they bought a gun or could have bought a gun. As soon as a state passed a red flag law naming gang members as targets, all illegal guns would find new hiding places AND the ACLU would step in to challenge gangs inclusion in “flaggable” conditions. In fact, the ACLU should challenge any law infringing on constitutional due process, but we know from history they only defend the rights of… Read more »

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

We lost our republic when the Act of 1871 was enacted, and the loss was solidified with the 16th Amendment in 1913, which, by the way, was never ratified by the requisite number of states — congress LIED!!!!

John
Member
John

It use to be well settled, violate the Rights of a criminal (gang member), it is a short hop then to violate the Rights of the law abiding. Yes, violate the Rights of any citizen violates the Rights of all citizens.

NOW, the Dems appear to be hell bent on violating the Rights of the law abiding while protecting the Rights of criminals.

Sad state of affairs!

Hopefully the Supremes will find these RFLs for what they are – unconstitutional.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@John; I AGREED!!!!

Deplorable Bill
Member
Deplorable Bill

Common sense would that gang members, by definition, warrant red flag law actions. The socialist/demoncrap/left prove once again that red flag laws and their like are more about disarming the public more than the criminal. This can in now way imaginable lend trust to our government in general and the socialist/demoncraps in particular. Seems on a daily basis the left gives righteous Americans ample cause to distrust them. History provides many times over that disarming the public leads to disaster for that public. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Clinton, O bama etc. Anyone who would disarm the public is… Read more »

Whatzit
Member
Whatzit

The interest is in disarming conservatives, which is what most rural people are. Gang members (if they vote at all) tend to vote liberal. That is why they wish to except gang members. They want to strike at the beating heart of conservatism with the intent of killing it all the while protecting anyone with liberal potential.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

You can only CONFISCATE guns from LEGAL LAW ABIDING American Citizens. The THUGS and CRIMINALS have no paperwork to enable the LAZY ESTABLISHMENT from using an EROP on them.

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

EROP?

Will
Member
Will

Meant ERPO !

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@DB; Very good comment!

Paul71
Member
Paul71

The Democrats are not about to lose campaign donations from gangs and drug cartels Look at the recent case of Ed Buck in California .

Wild Bill
Member
Wild Bill

@Paul, It is really surprising how many democrat large donation contributors are surreptitiously making huge incomes from illegal activities. Recently Ed Buck, Epstein, before that, Coomey’s brother before that. That Cal. state senator that was Anti-Second Amendment, but running guns to cartels in Mexico in secret. On and on, it seems like. I wonder if they were donating to the repubs, too?

nrringlee
Member
nrringlee

Former Senator, now inmate Leland Yee of Kalifornia is a prime example of exactly this point. He sponsored the most drastic gun rights suppression laws in the country while at the same time working with the Tong gangs of SF running anti-aircraft missiles to the Abu Sayef and Moro Liberation Front in the Philippines.

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

@USA: I hope you are correct. America MUST remain neutral with all of the ME countries. Still, I do not like the FACT that the Saudi Arabia “elite” were all moved OUT of America just before the Twin Towers and building Numer 7 were IMPLODED. Firemen AND Police stated there were EXPLOSIONS just before they came down.

Rattlerjake
Member
Rattlerjake

All you have to do is look at the numerous videos and you can see the “puffs” of smoke from multiple “secondary explosions on multiple floors as the buildings were falling. There were also flights of Israeli Mossad who flew out immediately after the towers were hit, even though there was a hold on all flights in the area.

wolfzatDawn
Member
wolfzatDawn

Well! Ain’t this just “special!”

Dave in Fairfax
Editor
Dave in Fairfax

A little hypocrisy goes a long ways towards destroying the constitution.

Knute
Member
Knute

And if probable cause is deemed to “violate due process”, then how much more of a violation is doing the same thing with an anonymous phone call? We should call all ERPOs; “safe to SWAT”. sarc on/ Got a neighbor you don’t like? ERPO them! Got an ex that creates problems? ERPO them! Feel that someone looked at your wife the wrong way? ERPO them! Just having a bad day? ERPO everyone you know!
sarc off/
That’s the only place this ERPO road leads to. Hopefully sanity will prevail…. hopefully 🙁

tetejaun
Member
tetejaun

In “Red Flag” ‘laws’ there is NO due process. You are assumed to be dangerous, your Rights denied and your property taken, and possibly, you murdered as we have seen in many of these Red Flag assaults. Remember, the local police have allegiance to whomever signs their paycheck. There is NO constitutional authority for local police (no, I am NOT speaking of the Sheriff). THAT was supposed to be the Militia or the armed American populace at large. Americans have sat quietly for 150 years as their Rights and money were taken by unconstitutional ‘laws’. The politicians now believing everything… Read more »

Baldwin
Member
Baldwin

Well, yeah. Big surprise!