Encourage Every State To Enact “Red Flag” Laws: Left’s 4 Part Strategy to Destroy 2A

Opinion
Radical and Progressive Left’s four-prong strategy for destroying the Second Amendment if Democrats take control of both houses of Congress and the u.S. Presidency. Part Two.

Red Flag Gun Grab Laws
Encourage Every State To Enact “Red Flag” Laws: Left’s 4 Part Strategy to Destroy 2A

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Deadly Red-Flag laws. This restrictive gun policy objective entails expanding the list of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess firearms.

New Progressive Left Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President—namely, the front runners—all support across the board State enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws.

Several States have already enacted such laws, and all of them either directly infringe the Second Amendment or otherwise come dangerously close to doing so and certainly impinge upon one's exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although the text of these laws as they presently exist in those jurisdictions that presently have them, or that are otherwise in the process of enacting Red Flag laws or considering enacting Red Flag laws, do vary from State to State.

But, all of these Red Flag laws have one defining characteristic: they all operate ex parte. What does that mean? It means that Courts conduct hearings where only one party to the action is present at the hearing, namely the party who is attempting to obtain a Court order against another party who is not initially present at the Court hearing to defend his interests.

The interest at stake here is retention of one's personal property, namely, one's firearms. In an ex parte hearing, under Red Flag laws, one party, or side, at the hearing seeks a Court order requiring the other party, who isn't present at the hearing, an American citizen who has committed no crime but whom the accuser is claiming is nonetheless dangerous because that person has firearms in his or her possession,. to surrender those firearms to Governmental authority. Thus, the accuser is seeking the removal of that person’s personal property, that person’s firearms— prior to the affected party’s ability to present a case in his or her defense, who would obviously wish to keep his personal property but cannot do so because the affected party has no opportunity to confront the accuser until some point subsequent to the actual removal of the person’s personality, their firearms, assuming the Court issues an order requiring the surrendering of weapons to Governmental authority. It is only after the fact, the removal of the firearms–the personal property–takes place, that a hearing is conducted where both sides are present and the party, against whom the action was taken, attempts to make a case for restoration of his personal property. All of these “Red Flag” laws, play on some variation of this theme and all of them impinge upon or are in danger of impinging upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, all of these “Red Flag” laws are Constitutionally suspect and they all should be scrutinized before enactment to see if they pass Constitutional muster. But, that never happens.

The question is do we really need these laws to protect society from the possibility of danger. And that notion of ‘possibility' is a red herring.

We would ask: How “possible” is that possibility of danger, and how do we know that a person, whomever it is that may target a person’s firearms, is doing so with an honest motive. And even if the accuser has an ostensibly honest motive for bringing action against a gun owner, forcing a person to forsake his personal property by Court order, under a State’s “Red Flag” law, the machinery of justice is, for all that, moving against a person who has committed no crime. The Court is faced with the dubious task of rendering an adverse decision against a person without having actually met with the person and therefore has no opportunity to conduct and to preside over an adversarial proceeding to which all American citizens are entitled. Ex parte proceedings are, not surprisingly, frowned on in the law, as they are by nature, contrary to our Nation's sacred jurisprudential principles.

Generally, a fully adversarial proceeding can, and should be, conducted. Likely, we would see that the person who is making a claim against individual without having to confront that person in open Court, would think twice about the danger presented, if a fully adversarial hearing were conducted. But, suppose the danger is imminent or appears to be truly imminent. In that event, every State has mechanisms by which a person can request a Court to order a personal protection order against that person who is deemed a threat. That too is handled ex parte, and a Court if convinced that a threat is imminent could certainly issue an ex parte order requiring of the person who is deemed a threat, to relinquish his or her firearms if they have any. Thus, Red Flag laws don’t do anything that personal protection orders don’t already accomplish except that they make it easier for more people to make spurious, specious claims against people, often for ulterior motives, and yet avoid having to face the consequences for making those false claims. Red Flag laws do not generally, if not invariably, provide a mechanism through which a person wrongly targeted can bring action against his or her accuser.

Red Flag Laws Are Dangerousto Our Liberty
Red Flag Laws Are Dangerous to Our Liberty

Secondly, under federal law, 18 U.S.C § 922(g) and (n), individuals, including those convicted of felonies and those who had been institutionalized for mental illness, are not permitted to own or possess firearms, unless they have obtained a certificate of relief from their disability. Red Flag laws operate as a backdoor for expanding the domain of individuals not permitted to own or possess a firearm. Since antigun proponents denounce out-of-hand the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it should not come as a surprise that they would look for seemingly plausible ways to expand the domain of people considered unfit to own and possess firearms beyond those categories that already exist in federal law, claiming as they always do, that what motivates them is the desire to protect society though that is patently untrue. What really motivates these people is a desire to reduce the Second Amendment to a nullity, under the pretext that they give a damn about the life, safety, and well-being of others.

But they don’t because they don’t recognize that a person has a right of self-defense and don’t care that a firearm is the best means by which a person can effectively defend themselves against attack; Since they place their faith in the Government to control the masses, and don’t trust the citizenry, their entire view of man and man’s relationship to Government, and to each other, is the obverse of that of the founders of our Nation.

The Second Amendment isn’t consistent with the tenets of Collectivism.



Arbalest Quarrel

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel' website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

19
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
13 Comment threads
6 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
Get OutStripesevenVernJohnBoredjack mac Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Get Out
Member
Get Out

IMOA these red flag laws are going to be abused by both sides to SWAT gun owners and anti-gunners alike. The way they’re written in that a anonymous call can be made on anyone and everyone makes for a dangerous situation.

Stripeseven
Member
Stripeseven

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 explains in a language that everyone can easily understand, that deprivation of rights is a Federal Crime. Unless those that seek to destroy America are prosecuted for their crimes against the people, these assaults will continue. No one is supposed to be above the law….

Vern
Member
Vern

Red flag laws are nothing more than an all out assault on law abiding citizens who are lawful owners of firearms, while at the same time the left leaves the gang members and criminal element completely alone to continue to commit crimes. The gang members and criminal element are the future police officers of the left when they get the power they want.

JohnBored
Member
JohnBored

Red Flag laws will lend themselves to abuse. They are also unnecessary. Case in point: Nicholas Cruz, the Parkland shooter, could have and should have been arrested and detained under Florida’s Baker Act. There are similar laws in all the states which the courts can now use to stop potential mentally ill shooters. Red Flag laws with ex parte procedures will operate in practice as the FISA courts do. We all know how that worked out.

JPM
Member
JPM

Red flag laws are redundant when you already can, in any state, call the police, make a false claim of someone with a gun threatening someone and have the police show up without a warrant and arrest the person and seize their guns and other personal property, with little chance of ever getting any of it back.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

Authorities have ways and means to arrest or hinder persons posing an immediate threat. Just they too often desire not to. The refusal to enforce restraining orders is backed up by the court. Due process is a required procedure, sometimes illegally bypassed. The red flag laws authorizes the complete disregard of due process.
Red flag laws are not redundant, but far more oppressive than procedures in place. These laws allow the confiscation of firearms and the subjugating people into the prohibited underclass even without formal charges for arrest.

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Hell, even President Donal Trump supports “red flag laws.” It’s looking more and more like what we need is a white one. And while he may be cooling on them somewhat, he waffles on any given day. Wake up America! You are being played.

freedom isnt cheap
Member
freedom isnt cheap

democrat liberal turds tricking the wording everyway they can to do their terrible deed..ITS Not going to work asswipes

John
Member
John

Deem one a danger to themself or others from a one sided “emotionally charged“ conversation by a distraught x, family member or neighbor, order a no knock warrant to seize only “firearm(s)” and leave the “ alleged dangerous” party home with assault knives, assault hammers and assault vehicles, yep makes perfect sense! Absolute lunacy – if one is so “dangerous”, imagine what”s gonna happen next? The court just judged them mentally incompetent to possess firearms yet leaves them alone with equally or worse so-called “weapons of war”, all the while, no care or concern to the adjudged mentally disturbed for… Read more »

joefoam
Member
joefoam

ERPOs, ‘red flag laws’ are thinly veiled methods of confiscation. At some point in the future it could be determined that simple possession of a firearm presents a threat and you could be flagged.

jack mac
Member
jack mac

There is nothing thinly veiled about it. It is confiscation, forced confiscation. The only veils will be the masks of swat thugs pointing machine guns at citizens. Rather sub-citizens, as their right to arms would have been denied.

KDude
Member
KDude

Sure, We have the right of self defense. But our 2nd Amendment is not solely about the right of self defense. It is plainly about the right to keep and bear arms. That’s what it says. It says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whatever federal statutes say otherwise, along with state statutes, and would be red flag laws are null and void from the git go. It’s that simple. Don’t like it? There’s a lot of countries a person can move to in the world which do not have a constitution… Read more »

jack mac
Member
jack mac

The expense of regaining property through the courts and have one’s name removed from the prohibited list would leave nothing more to lose than one’s life. Life that is if not already also confiscated. It seems that citizens militias of one is better than no militias. Machine gunned together or alone is still a choice that we may not get. It is disappointing to have to muster by one’s self, but liberty or death.

Alan1018
Member
Alan1018

The real reason the left is pushing these red flag laws so hard is to get the police used to pulling gun raids. They know the future of confiscation depends on it.

wolfzatDawn
Member
wolfzatDawn

Fight Back? Use their own devious methods to sink the Socialists!

Will
Member
Will

When scumbag LaPierre and his corrupt BOD at the former NRA endorsed and advocated for ERPO’s that was the final nail in their coffin. There isn’t a goddamn thing Pro-2nd Amend. about the NRA ! Those SOB’s have betrayed members and the 2nd Amend. !

Laddyboy
Member
Laddyboy

VERY disappointed in the actions of the NRA as of late, starting with the “back-ground-check / NICS”. They MUST remember WHO “donated” funds and WHY these funds were “donated”. SUPPORT We the People or WE WILL find other organizations who DEFEND US against the TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT STOOGES. NOT ONE MORE INCH!!!!!!! According to the Constitution, ALL GUN LAWS that go against the CONSTITUTION ARE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL and thus ARE NULL AND VOID!!!!!

hippybiker
Member
hippybiker

The No Rights Association has been stabbing us in the back since the 1930s! Join GOA or anther .org.

StWayne
Member
StWayne

Will —

Wow! Good for you. When last I pointed this very thing out, I got nothing but thumbs down for “picking” on the NRA. What the NRA is to the Second Amendment, AARP is to seniors. Wake up America! You are being played.