Posted on 09/07/2019 9:16:46 AM PDT by Starman417
We saw the presumption of innocence under assault during the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and it is once again under assault with the consideration of so-called “red flag” laws after the mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. These laws would allow authorities to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens on the basis that it has been somehow determined that they are an unstable threat to themselves and to society. They might commit a crime.
This determination can be made based on reports from vengeful former spouses, ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, former co-workers, hostile neighbors, just about anybody with a grievance against you, even by government agencies pushing a gun-control agenda.
We are assured that the gun-owner guilty of no crime at that moment can pursue what is laughingly called due process and petition the judge to have their legally purchased firearm returned to them by proving to a judge they are not crazy or a danger to themselves. Just how do you do that, pray tell? And just how can a state have a “red flag” law anyway, infringing on a federal and national right established by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Which part of “shall not be infringed” does red flag law advocates not understand?
As noted at NewsTarget:
That’s a process that could take weeks or even months, and in the meantime, you and your family are left defenseless to the world. Plus, there is no guarantee that a court will find that you’re not a threat and authorize police to give you back your guns; maybe the judge is a judicial activist who hates the Second Amendment on principle.As Philip Van Cleave writes at Ammoland:
Red Flag laws are unconstitutional “prior restraint” laws that violate our basic civil rights. What's particularly alarming is that to take away a person's Second Amendment rights, such laws violate the protections found in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution! And all of that based on an unnamed person's secret allegation that someone else “might” do something dangerous to themselves or others in the future….Sadly, even Second Amendment supporter President Donald J. Trump has entertained the idea of such laws. notwithstanding their threat to the Constitution, Second Amendment, and the presumption of innocent. This isn’t the first time gum-control advocates have tried to use “red flags” to disarm the law-abiding.The person accused of being “dangerous” has no notice there is a problem until the police show up, pre-dawn, with guns drawn and confiscate the accused's firearms [we have already had on gun owner killed in this exact senario]. The accused is not given due process to defend himself or herself in court from the accusation for weeks or months after the confiscation. It is up to the accused to prove that he or she is not dangerous! Until such proof is provided to the Court's satisfaction, the guns are not returned. This could drag on for months, years, or indefinitely!
El Paso and Dayton are part of series of shootings blamed on guns and not on the undeniable presence of both evil and mental illness in the world. No one advocates the mentally ill should be able to legally buy a gun, but the effort should be on reporting, flagging, and institutionalizing these unfortunates, not on disarming the law-abiding..
The Obama administration has already tried to use mental health as a means, not to make us safer, but to deny us our gun rights under the Second Amendment. Consider President’s pick of Dr. Vivek Murthy to be our Surgeon General, someone who firmly believed gun control is a health issue, something that can and should be used to gut out Second Amendment Rights. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized during his confirmation process:
Murthy's approach to attacking the Second Amendment has been to say private ownership of firearms is a public health issue. The 37-year-old Murthy is president and co-founder of the anti-gun group Doctors for America, which advocates ObamaCare and gun control laws. His group, which has been dubbed Docs vs. Glocks, has pushed Congress to ban "assault" weapons and "high capacity" magazines.Back in 2013 a piece of legislation called Toomey-Manchin proposed that doctors be allowed to unilaterally place a patient’s name in the background check system in a way that violated patient doctor confidentially under HIPAA as well as our Second Amendment Rights:Doctors for America has promoted the invasion of privacy by doctors by advocating they ask patients if they have guns at home, including asking children if their parents own guns. He would have doctors counsel their patients against exercising their Second Amendment rights. One wonders how private that information would remain if entered into the medical records the government would be privy to under ObamaCare.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net....
This is the ultimate sanctuary behind which all dictators hide when they feel threatened.
Consider that their position is you don't have "the right to keep and bear arms" if your intent in having them is to endanger others who are peaceful or be a danger to yourself, therefore taking your arms is not an infringement.
A gunbanner once told me that all who want to possess a firearm should have to undergo a mental health examination. He also told me that anyone who wanted to own a gun obviously had mental health issues that would be disqualifying.
The looting problems that are beginning to be reported in the Bahamas is yet another reason for the population to be armed.
We are watching an old series “Person Of Interest” based on an NSA computer’s ability to predict a crime.
The story was likely fictional drama when conceived, but much of this fiction sooner or later becomes reality. They are trying to do this now with red flag laws.
I’ve also read where there are those that want to use a social media scoring system. MyLife.com is already attempting this with a little meter. The problem with this MyLife garbage is the meter is based on what the site can glean from the net, which makes it incomplete at best, an outright lie at worst.
This red flag crap is flawed worse than this MyLife nonsense, for at least MyLife is attempting to consider actual behavior that has happened.
This determination can be made based on reports from vengeful former spouses, ex-girlfriends and boyfriends, former co-workers, hostile neighbors, just about anybody with a grievance against you, even by government agencies pushing a gun-control agenda.
ping
Thanks GOPJ.
If they were serious about using Mental Health as a valid reason to Disarm Americans, Everyone in Hollywood would already be Disarmed and Prohibited from having people in their employ, or em0ployed on their behalf to possess a Weapon or Firearm.
I think that a few lost their lives because they would not bow down.
Omar, Tlaib welcome decision ruling US terror watchlist unconstitutional
A federal judge ruled that the inclusion in the watchlist list infringes upon the right to due process.
JERUSALEM POST Staff| 9-6-19
FR Posted on 9/6/2019, 5:44:35 PM by SJackson
US Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib has expressed her appreciation after a US federal judge ruled that an FBI terror watchlist was unconstitutional. “I have heard of horrifying stories of Muslim Americans who were placed on the so-called ‘watch list,’ with no pathway (you know, due process!) to getting their names removed. Today, it’s Muslims, but tomorrow it can be you, if we don’t stop this madness,” Tlaib, a Muslim-American of Palestinian descent, tweeted on Thursday.
Also US Representative Ilhan Omar, who arrived in the US as a refugee from Somalia as a child, called the decision “tremendous.”
“Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to make sure Constitutional rights are extended to all regardless of religion, race or ethnicity!” she added on Twitter.
Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in favor of 23 Muslim Americans who were included in the list, the Washington Post reported.
They had sued the FBI on the ground that the inclusion infringed upon their constitutional right to due process.
Those included on the list have restrictions placed on their ability to travel, among others.
“There is no evidence, or contention, that any of these plaintiffs satisfy the definition of a ‘known terrorist,’” wrote Trenga, according to the Washington Post.
“An individual’s placement into the [watch list] does not require any evidence that the person engaged in criminal activity, committed a crime, or will commit a crime in the future,” the judge added, “and individuals who have been acquitted of a terrorism-related crime may still be listed.”
The list included about 1.2 million people, including 4,600 US citizens or residents as of July 2017.
According to the Associated Press, the FBI’s lawyers claimed in court that the challenges alleged by the plaintiffs were overshadowed by the government’s needs in their fight against terror - and that these efforts outweighed the difficulties alleged by the nearly two dozen Muslim American citizens on the list.
Several of them reported a range of traumatic experiences, such as being handcuffed and interrogated for many hours, without possible cause.
The Washington Post reported that the parties now have 45 days to submit their arguments and responses for how the watch list could be changed.
DemocRATS don’t want Veterans or Gun Owners votes; it is just that simple.
“Sadly, even Second Amendment supporter President Donald J. Trump has entertained the idea of such laws.”
No, he has not.
the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks
Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities
I'm sure the current crop of commiecrats hold the same views and their new red-flag pitch will use the same criteria for gun grabbing.
Obama Declares War On ‘Extremism’ – Are You An ‘Extremist’
FR Posted 1/13/15 by seekandfind
A list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked (at web site). As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…
OBAMA’S LIST OF EXTREMISTS AS FOUND IN OBAMA-ERA OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS:
<><>Those that talk about “individual liberties,” that advocate for states’ rights, that want “to make the world a better place,” that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations.”
<><>Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable.” Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions.” Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
<><> “Anti-Gay,” “Anti-Immigrant,” “Anti-Muslim,”“The Patriot Movement,” “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
<><>Members of the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Tennessee Freedom Coalition, the Christian Action Network, citizens networks.
<><>Those “opposed to the New World Order,” engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”, those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
<><>Anyone opposed to Agenda 21, anyone concerned about FEMA camps, that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations,” the militia movement, sovereign citizen movement, that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
<><> Anyone that “complains about bias,” that “believes in government conspiracies, that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies,” that “visits extremist websites/blogs,” that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views,” that “attends rallies for extremist causes,” that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance,” that is personally connected with a grievance,” that “suddenly acquires weapons,” that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
<><> “Militia or unorganized militia,” “General right-wing extremist,” Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N., those that refer to an “Army of God,” that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation),” that are “anti-global,” that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” that “revere individual liberty,” that “believe in conspiracy theories”
<><>Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack,” that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism,” that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)” that would “insert religion into the political sphere,” that would “seek to politicize religion,” that have “supported political movements for autonomy.”
<><>Anyone that is “anti-abortion.”
<><>Anyone that is “Rightwing” including “Returning veterans,” those concerned about “illegal immigration,” those that “believe in the right to bear arms,” anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
<><>Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes” “Anti-abortion activists” those against illegal immigration, those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner.
<><>Those that have a negative view of the United Nations, that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes,” that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
<><> Those that believe in “end times” prophecies, including Evangelical Christians.
As Always Liz,
Thanks.
Only way it could work would be to “take the person away from his/her guns” instead of taking the guns away.....unless the person is actually nuts, he/she will be returned to the guns but once guns are taken away, it seems very few are ever returned...and if the person ain’t nuts and the whole deal was a setup, then there’s legal recourse to go after the offenders.....just pick venue and judge carefully...
Connecticut has it already
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.