Art Chance: Red flag laws return for the working class

69
491

By ART CHANCE

Into the 1960s and ‘70s if a couple of your neighbors or relatives didn’t like you or wanted something you had, they could have the county sheriff haul you before the county judge to determine whether or not you were fit to participate in human society any longer.  If your “friends and relatives” convinced the judge, you could be judicially committed to the state mental “asylum.” 

That’s a more delicate way of saying you could be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole and you had no right of habeas corpus. They could also subject you to any sort of medication or therapy that they chose whether or not you consented. Therapy like snake pits and ice baths had about ended by the mid-20th Century, and surgical lobotomy had all but ceased. But electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) or “shock treatment” was still a fashionable tool. In essence ECT was just a non-surgical form of lobotomy because after a few treatments you’d have an IQ in the mid- to low- double digits and would no long pose a problem for anyone.

There had been a movement in the Country to do something about the medieval conditions in mental institutions and probably the greatest impetus to dramatically reforming the involuntary commitment process was the 1975 movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” which dramatically demonstrated the barbaric conditions and abuse in mental institutions.

The Democrats like to politicize the issue by claiming that their bete noir President Ronald Reagan cut all the funding for mental health, but actually there was little federal funding for mental health; it was a state and local issue and the citizenry had rejected the current system and would no longer support it. Unfortunately, we threw the baby out with the bathwater and today’s homeless camps are the legacy.

Now we are poised to bring the barbaric system back in the guise of “Red Flag” laws. Red Flag laws work about the same way as domestic violence laws; the naked assertion of someone you are associated with is enough to deprive you of your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Just as is the case with domestic violence laws, your ex-wife to be or the teenaged kid you wouldn’t let take the car keys at midnight on Saturday night calls the cops and says you made them afraid and you have guns. If it is a domestic violence, they lead you out of your house in cuffs without even your toothbrush. 

It won’t take them long to go that far with Red Flag, but for now, armed officers just come to your house and confiscate all of your firearms, no process, no hearing; they just take them. You can get a hearing to try to get them back.

Here is where we return to the medieval history of behavior not approved of by society.  If you’re dumb enough you show up pro se to try to get your firearms back, but having an attorney that anybody but the wealthiest and best connected can afford isn’t much better than pro se.

You show up to tell the judge that you go to work every day, support your family, have no criminal records, and thus have a right to have your firearms back.  The Soros-funded district attorney steps in and asserts that you made people frightened and not only should not have your guns back but pose a threat to yourself and others. The judge isn’t going to assume the role of psychiatrist, so s/he decides to refer you to the government’s mental health establishment to evaluate you and make a determination if you are psychologically fit to possess weapons or even move freely in society.

Now, there may be some government psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and the like who aren’t left-wing loons, but I haven’t run into one in a long, long time. As a general matter if you go straight from college to government, you spend the rest of your life as a left-wing loon. A working class (and I don’t just mean blue collar, but any hourly wage employee not a member of the degreed elite) who might be registered as a Republican or who shows some indicia of voting that way, and who owns guns is by-definition insane to these people. You are a threat to yourself and others, so welcome to your new address at the looney bin. 

You get out when and if your betters decide you should get out.

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon.

Art Chance: Palin is finishing what she started, as every Democrat’s favorite Republican

69 COMMENTS

  1. Don’t think for one minute that this would not be weaponized against those accused of wrong think by this maladministration and its supporters.

    • “Don’t think for one minute that this would not be weaponized against those accused of wrong think by this maladministration and its supporters.”
      Everything is weaponized against those accused of wrong think by everybody. The point of this bill is to keep innocents from mass murder while maintaining the right of the sane citizen to keep and bear arms. This is a surprisingly good bill. Perfect? Obviously not, because perfection doesn’t exist, but:
      1) There’s no assault rifle ban
      2) There’s no handgun ban
      3) There’s no magazine capacity limit
      4) There’s no one-size-fits-all federal power grab
      5) There’s no outright purchase ban for those under 21 years of age
      6) There is federal funding for mental health offered for states and localities to begin to address the obvious and overwhelming mental health crisis
      Never in my wildest dreams did I even imagine anything like this to be agreed upon by the left. Now I face the right being testy about it. Talk about depressing. I’m reminded of the Steve Miller song “Joker”:
      Insane kooks on my left, angry zealots on my right, and stuck in the middle with………..nobody.

      • With the Red Flag laws you get 1 through 5 immediately and it is a power grab. Will you be there to undo the “well-intentioned” damage to those unjustly accused? What will be the compensation for the incorrect suspension of rights? What will be a ” sane citizen” if one chooses to own an “assault rifle” (political term) or handgun or large capacity magazine? Any law must conform to due process. The Supreme Court already dealt with one case of inappropriate seizure. Does the ordinary citizen have the money to push a case to the Supreme Court all of the time?

        • “……..Will you be there to undo the “well-intentioned” damage to those unjustly accused? What will be the compensation for the incorrect suspension of rights? What will be a ” sane citizen” if one chooses to own an “assault rifle” (political term) or handgun or large capacity magazine?…….”
          I won’t be there. The accused citizen’s lawyer should be. The compensation for unjust accusations is also a matter for “due process”, aka the courts. A sane citizen is one who doesn’t do stupid things like threaten others online or stalk others. Red flag laws do not eliminate due process. The process remains due. The only change is that the weapons are seized and held until after the accused is determined not to have violated the law or established himself/herself to intend to do so. But, in all honesty, I’m beginning to get it here. The conservative side simply doesn’t trust “process”, whether due, early, or after tragedy. Thus, forward we march to more and more disaster. I’m okay with that. See some of you on the other side, and good luck to you all. Watch your back at the book line……….

          • “The conservative side simply doesn’t trust “process”, whether due, early, or after tragedy”.
            Remind me how many riots occurred in 2019 over “due process” where destruction of private property was never policed? I think people don’t trust “no process” when laws are already in place. What good are more laws if they aren’t enforced? Due process becomes meaningless when enforcement becomes non-existent. There is clear evidence that the current president takes bribes from foreign governments and all we still hear is “Trump, Trump”. Come try to take my guns. See if your laws apply to me.

          • Reggie, anyone supporting legislation that could infringe upon the constitutional rights of others while saying, “I won’t be there” to defend the victims of said infringement, is, definitionally, a totalitarian tyrant.

  2. So if a person lives many years,let him rejoice in them all;but let him remember
    that the days of darkness will be many. All that comes is a vapor or mere
    breath.
    Thank God! That even suppressive people have to age and
    die. You know what? The Word out lives every generation.

    • The word you seek is “oppressive.” Suppressive would describe the actions necessary to quell the overly oppressive.

  3. Haha. Yes red flag laws were eliminated under Reagan but it was the Supreme Court that properly ruled you cannot be held against your will unless charged and/or convicted of a crime. Another result is you can murder someone, be ruled incompetent to stand trial, and be released!
    What should be done about the mentally ill and/or homeless and/or substance abusers and/or angry people?
    It is a pervasive human condition. I suggest that petty crimes like illegal camping come with a ticket and a penalty. No ID? then you will be coming with us for three hots and a cot until we confirm your identity. If you have an ID a ticket is issued – get 3 and you get a free 7day incarceration where your health is evaluated, counseling and public assistance is offered, and then set free upon the world to try again. The non-homeless is a more difficult problem. Maybe a nation-wide anger management narrative to defuse the tensions caused by the political class.

    • I don’t think there are any of the “not guilty by reason of insanity” laws left on the book. You can plead “guilty but insane” or be found “guilty but insane” and you will be sentenced to incarceration and treatment for mental illness. The insanity my mitigate the period of incarceration but you don’t get a free pass.

  4. Art represents one side of the issue well but totally fails to consider when society, the local mental health services and the government has a responsibility to protect the public by justifiable intervention. Take the Uvalde shooter for example. From what I read online it is obvious that he was mentally unstable and demonstrated the same to his parent, grandparents, friends, at school and likely other places. There is no question but that he should NOT have been allowed to purchase the AR-15 he used in the massacre. But I’m of the opinion that SOMEONE ,SOMEWHERE,SOMEHOW should have made intervention to deal with his mental illness , and until he is declared mentally fit, suspended his right to,possess or purchase FIREARMS.However, closer to home, we have the case of the Lousaac Library backstabbed, who I understand was set free due to his lack of mental competency and thus free of the burden of accountability for his assault on an innocent victim. Where does public safety become , justifiably, the issue?

    • I fully support the right of society to intervene; I believe it is morally obligated to do so. My issues are cause and process as those words have legal meaning.

      The fundamental issue is that in this shooting and most others, the parents, grandparents, friends and other associates took NO notice of his obvious mental issues or determined there was no need to take any action about that observed mental illness.

      • “………The fundamental issue is that in this shooting and most others, the parents, grandparents, friends and other associates took NO notice of his obvious mental issues or determined there was no need to take any action about that observed mental illness…….”
        Been there, done that, and the court shut us down. Create the red flag laws, and they will come. Keep it like this, and the mentally ill will continue to stalk the weak at the schools and libraries.

        • Reggie, the “weak at the schools and libraries” are weak because our leadership chooses for them to be weak. A sign that says, “Gun Free Zone” is translated by predators as saying, “helpless, undefended occupants ready for you to murder.” Common sense was discarded decades ago. Anyone saying teachers are incapable of learning to defend with a firearm is propagating communist bias. It is a historical fact that tyrants always seek to disarm the populations they seek to control.

      • Our culture has experienced enough “school shootings” by disaffected young males for the stupid education bureaucracy to “take notice.” Why do we fail to expect teachers and administrators to be prepared to be hit by this predictable trend that is so easily observable. We took real action on drunk-driving, smoking, seat-belts, etc, etc…. so why can’t we do the same for school shootings? Don’t even say its to much to expect teachers and administrators to be trained and armed to protect the children. “Gun-Free Zones?” Does it get any stupider than that?

    • Perhaps we try people like the Library Stabber, provide them with legal counsel, and if found guilty of the crime, then they are deemed guilty by reason of insanity and that is a factor in their sentencing. Then send the to an institution for cure.

    • How, exactly, does taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans benefit “public safety?”

      Done wonders in Chicago and DC.
      Not to mention the 3rd world hellhole known as California.

      In every mass shooting there were multiple failures by a bloated, indifferent, politicized system. Had any of them bothered to do their jobs, red flags wouldn’t be necessary.

      There is no red flag in the universe which would have given the gutless cowards in Uvalde the balls to do their jobs.

      If it comes down to it, I pick Constitutional Rights over “public safety” any day.

    • Spree killings account for less than 1% of all murders every year.
      Spree killings do not warrant fundamentally undermining the 2nd amendment.
      The real gun violence – in Chicago and other cities – we are not allowed to talk about that – because that would be racist.
      See what “they” are doing John?

    • The issue is not the mentally unstable. It is the certain abuse of the system that will happen. It is people using this law as a weapon against those they disagree with personally or politically.
      .
      Red flag laws bypass the fourth, fifth, sixth, quite possibly the eighth amendment, and without a doubt the 14th amendment when they are weaponized by “motivated” individuals or organizations. A judge can rule against you, and declare you unfit to own firearms without you even knowing you have been accused, or having the ability to represent yourself.
      .
      If, and only if, a clear and distinct demonstration that a person is unfit to own firearms, or be allowed to move freely in society is demonstrated, then and only then, should a judge issue an order to restrict that person’s ability to practice their freedoms.
      .
      Red flag laws bypass all of that. A judge can issue an order based solely on the word of a single individual. (not true of all proposed laws, but some of the ones I am looking at are that simple.) The police will show up at your house, search it, and collect your guns against your will without you ability to contest the charges.
      .
      There is a balance between public safety, and personal responsibility on the part of a law abiding and responsible individual. Yes, a gun is a dangerous tool. And, in the hands of a law abiding and responsible person that tool is no more dangerous to other people than a strong breeze. In the hands of a criminal it is an instrument of human misery.
      .
      Do we now assume everyone is a criminal? Is it now “guilty until proven innocent?” No, but red flag laws make it that way by removing the inherent human rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  5. And they just released John Hinckley… How right you are Art, thanks. The asylum will be for political prisoners, because, well no one who votes Republican is sane… Welcome to the Union of Soviet Socialist States/Republics.

  6. Excuse me:
    Are you saying that it’s a bad idea to have red flag laws so that immediate action can’t be taken the next time a high school dropout loser like Salvador Ramos writes to somebody that he’s going to shoot up a school? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t start addressing the mental health crisis in this nation?

    • Yes. Republicans would rather abdicate any responsibility over managing social problem. Instead of just being good managers of Democracy themselves, and controlling what government does, they just do nothing and vote for tough talking autocrats that will take care of it all for them (so they think). And then complain about the corporate and fascist government they just got done electing. Liberal voters are similarly politically adverse, but not as cowardly.

    • He’s saying that Red Flag Laws are easily abused and run counter to the rights guaranteed in our constitution.

      • “He’s saying that Red Flag Laws are easily abused and run counter to the rights guaranteed in our constitution.”
        And I agree. However, our current liberal gun ownership laws, coupled with a mental health epidemic fueled by an out-of-control media, is obviously abused beyond our ability to react effectively. The Second Amendment clearly references our right to be armed as related to a well regulated militia. Imagine firearm ownership limited to that militia, made up by military or law enforcement members or veterans, or after membership in and training by organizations recognized by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Frankly, I’m not really concerned about the 2nd Amendment rights of 18 year old high school dropouts with bad attitudes and a penchant for torturing house cats.

        • “The Second Amendment clearly references our right to be armed as related to a well regulated militia.”
          The prefatory clause is neither part nor parcel of the 2nd. It is, for lack of a better description, one of many examples of why the US Government is prohibited from infringing on the right of individuals to bear arms.
          .
          “Imagine firearm ownership limited to that militia, made up by military or law enforcement members or veterans, or after membership in and training by organizations recognized by the Civilian Marksmanship Program.”
          I do not have to imagine it. History is overflowing with examples. Stalinist USSR, China, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Rwanda, numerous banana republics, Mexico, Cuba, and the list goes on and on.
          .
          “I’m not really concerned about the 2nd Amendment rights of 18 year old high school dropouts with bad attitudes and a penchant for torturing house cats.”
          Don’t be concerned. Be concerned when this, the next, or the administration following that declares martial law in the US. Be concerned when criminals get emboldened because the government disarmed their victims. Be concerned when they come after kitchen knives next.
          .
          Finally, there are some 80-100 million known gun owners in the US, possessing some 300-500 million guns, and an uncounted billions of rounds of ammunition. If gun owners were really the problem, gun related deaths would happen so often the news would stop reporting them.

          • “……..Be concerned when this, the next, or the administration following that declares martial law in the US…….”
            I am. Been there, done that. Multiple times. Martial law was declared, not because of the unorganized militia (as defined in USC 10), but because of armed gangs of thugs exactly like Salvador Ramos were waging war on the citizenry. Armed citizens, still unorganized, successfully defended their homes and businesses, but it was the U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corp., and National Guard who regained order. Unfortunately, thousands of Salvador Ramos clones remain out there, and there isn’t a thing anybody can do about them until they begin killing. Good luck to you and yours, and take care navigating through this mentally ill society.

    • I didn’t say either; you might still be able to get your money back on that reading comprehension class.

      I am opposed to Red Flag laws that don’t require probable cause and afford due process before a person is deprived of Constitutional rights. In the case of Ramos there was plenty of cause, even enough for a warrant if anyone had bothered to notice.

      • “……..I am opposed to Red Flag laws that don’t require probable cause and afford due process before a person is deprived of Constitutional rights. In the case of Ramos there was plenty of cause, even enough for a warrant if anyone had bothered to notice…….”
        If there was plenty of cause to issue a warrant for the seizure of his firearms BEFORE he shot up the school, what law did he violate? Because taking his firearms BEFORE he committed a crime would require some kind of red flag law, even if you don’t want to call it a red flag law. I don’t care what it’s called. I want the seizure to occur BEFORE he kills. His due process can begin immediately afterwards.

        • Reggie, do you have some kind of psychic ability, or a crystal ball that will tell you who is going to commit a crime before they do so?
          Do you really think going on the word of a single individual is a good substitute?
          .
          A preponderance of evidence is needed at a minimum. Yet, red flag laws remove that requirement.

          • “……Reggie, do you have some kind of psychic ability, or a crystal ball that will tell you who is going to commit a crime before they do so?
            Do you really think going on the word of a single individual is a good substitute?…….”
            No crystal ball needed. Common sense will do. Salvador Ramos owned nothing but the clothes on his back, those two rifles, and a bad attitude. I wouldn’t be surprised if he bought those rifles with the free covid money that was sent to him by government. Numerous people, not one, openly say that this was no surprise. Your comments on crystal balls and single individual testimony might sway your ideological allies, but it doesn’t change my mind. In addition to many pro-gun activities in my life (you can thank me for your right to concealed carry in Alaska…….you’re welcome), I also have way more experience with the courts than I ever wanted (including a hearing on getting help for a mentally ill friend, which he didn’t survive).

        • Sorry for the out of sequence reply, but there are only so many levels the comments can reach.
          “No crystal ball needed. Common sense will do.”
          And… where exactly are you going to get this common sense? Where are these angels who can ignore their political and personal biases and decide calmly and rationally on the merits of a red flag claim?
          I know I certainly cannot do so, and from what I have read of your comments, there is no way you could either.
          .
          Do you really think that when you go up in front of a judge their ruling will be 100% dispassionate, emotionless? You note below that you dealt with a mentally ill friend, and I am going to say you will not be able to put that aside and let “common sense” drive your decision.
          .
          Red flag laws assume the accused is guilty. End of story.
          People are not calm and rational, they are emotionally driven beings full of self importance, arrogance, and an unwavering belief that they have it all figured out. Those are the people who will be using common sense to determine if you are a threat to yourself or others.
          .
          I know of no one that I would want making those decisions for me, and neither do you. The difference between us is I see the flaw in human nature, and decide the near 100% assurance the system will be abused outweigh the potential for stopping a future killer.

    • Yes, Reggie, so-called “Red Flag Laws” are not only a bad idea, they fly in the face of individual rights (which are the only real rights) and constitutional protections of liberty as well. They are as much an insult and affront to freedom as is so-called “civil asset forfeiture”, which is merely state-sanctioned theft.

      • “……..they fly in the face of individual rights (which are the only real rights) and constitutional protections of liberty as well…….”
        If you commit a felony, your “individual right” to keep and bear arms are forever extinguished. Society as a whole is not so held bound. In a red flag situation, society isn’t held bound; the individual whose behavior is in question is. His weapons are temporarily seized, and his due process begins. In this bill, the state or locality sets up the rules of that process and conditions, not Congress.
        There are alternatives. We can make online or verbal threats a felony, in which case. after conviction, that person loses his 2nd Amendment rights forever. Do you like that better? Or how about calling a suicide hotline or even mentioning self harm to somebody? Instead of making that a temporary red flag situation, we can charge the caller with a felony so those guns can be safely held until the threat is over. How well do you think that would work?
        Closing more doors might end up eliminating middle ground. Walking the edge can be scary, especially when you’re running out of edge………….

        • The Constitution defines felonies. If it’s not on the Constitution list it’s a definition of someone who thinks he is recreating the nation. Nations are not created every third Tuesday. It is treason even if it’s a popular local custom.

          • “The Constitution defines felonies……..”
            It does not. I invite you to cite the U.S. Constitution to show my error. In both federal and state law, a felony is the conviction of a crime in which the penalty can be death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This has been long upheld by SCOTUS. If you wish to refute that, go right ahead, but I’ll bank with the USC, AS, and SCOTUS.

        • Consider red flag laws as “pre-crime” prevention. It’s far easier to say ‘ lock ’em up” than say “no”. “Better safe than sorry”. Err on the side of safety. These are laws of intimidation. Buy a firearm and run the risk of legal issues… How many existing laws aren’t followed…. thinking of Hunter Biden. It would be wonderful to be assured that the laws will be enforced well….

          • “……..Consider red flag laws as “pre-crime” prevention. It’s far easier to say ‘ lock ’em up” than say “no”……..”
            Nobody is proposing to lock up anyone. The bill provides funding for states and localities to seize weapons upon the potential threat of violence until due process is completed.

        • “If you commit a felony, your “individual right” to keep and bear arms are forever extinguished.”
          Actually, you gave up your right to keep and bear arme when you choose to commit a felony. There is a difference.
          .
          “We can make online or verbal threats a felony, in which case. after conviction, that person loses his 2nd Amendment rights forever.”
          Define threat?
          Who gets to define what is threatening?
          .
          How about, instead of attempting to change human nature, and punish people based on allegations instead of actual actions, we start protecting our public places. Maybe if the schools were hardened against threat (same way we harden our courthouse and government offices) the killer would think twice about killing students. But, I guess politicians must be more important than children in your world.

          • “…..Actually, you gave up your right to keep and bear arme when you choose to commit a felony. There is a difference……”
            You can be convicted of a felony committed by negligence. No choice needed. You can merely screw up. This is why the mentally ill and illegal drug users are prevented from firearm ownership. But you knew that, right?
            “……Define threat?
            Who gets to define what is threatening?”
            The Alaska Legislature. Here’s language from the Alaska Statures:
            “…….a person is placed in reasonable fear of physical injury to any person; causes evacuation of a building, public place or area, business premises, or mode of public transportation; causes serious public inconvenience………”

    • If someone writes that “he’s going to shoot up a school” then he has already committed a felony, terroristic threat. He merely needs to be reported. The laws are already in place. Adding myriad more laws will only make low-resolution voters believe politician are concerned.

      • “If someone writes that “he’s going to shoot up a school” then he has already committed a felony, terroristic threat. He merely needs to be reported. The laws are already in place……..”
        Correct. And federal funding to states and localities, which is what this bill proposes (not assault rifle bans, not handgun bans, not magazine size limits, not gun buybacks, not manufacturing bans, etc) will help provide media education to urge people to report such threats. State law can even provide anonymity if the threat is published online, since it isn’t “he said, she said”.

    • “…a high school dropout loser like Salvador Ramos writes to somebody that he’s going to shoot up a school”

      You do realize that’s a chargable offense, right? “Somebody” has to point it out though. That’s very different than “he made me scared and he has guns” red flag law.

  7. Anyone who’s a self confessed democrat/progressive or any variation of, especially when ending with “ist” should be fully vetted and screened for mental illness if in possession of a firearm.

    There, that eliminated 99.9% of gun crime in the USA, especially so in the inner cities, where the vast majority of problems occur.

  8. When we surrender freedom for security, we deserve neither. The slide into 3rd world oligarchy continues.

  9. “………This cross-sectional study of 170 perpetrators found that nearly half leaked their plans, with 44.3% of them leaking specific plans about a mass shooting. Leakage was associated with receiving counseling and suicidality, which suggests it may be best characterized as a cry for help from perpetrators prior to their act………”
    ‘https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2785799

    • The Sandy Hook shooter didn’t…. even destroying all his data prior to the incident. The Texas shooter told those he wasn’t. We have a series of “formula” killers…. knowing they will be immortalized by their deed if a certain gun is used. If you read up on Dunblane shooting you will find the school children were killed by a man with two revolvers… that was a revenge murder not an intent for fame.

      • “The Sandy Hook shooter didn’t…. even destroying all his data prior to the incident. The Texas shooter told those he wasn’t……..”
        They were among the 55.7% who did not leak. The Sandy Hook shooter also didn’t purchase or own firearms. He stole them from a locked safe. No measure is perfect, so take no measures? Okay. I can live with that. Are you sure your and yours can?

  10. Besides the profoundly unconstitutional aspect of red flag laws, my issue is simple.

    The far left will use this as a weapon. And when the far right becomes politically ascendent they will as well.

    Laws are politically enforced these days. Not legally. Once the law is legally enforced, then and only then will I even consider a red flag law. In short, never.

    A lesson the left never, ever learns. The powers you give yourself today WILL be used on you tomorrow.

    Don’t believe me? Ask the Senate. Harry Reid nuked the judicial filibuster to get his way. Not too many years later Donald Trump put three allegedly conservatives on SCOTUS. If Row/Wade is overturned (it should) the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. And Harry Reid.

  11. The disconnect is the assumption that the state is able to build and maintain a complex infrastructure, staffed with politically agnostic mental health, law enforcement and judicial professionals. A functioning system with quality control features that avoid most errors. This initial error in assuming the state is capable of such an endeavor is compounded by the fact that the state is controlled and operated by individuals whose ideology is focused on top down social, economic and political control. Red Flag laws are justified by deferring criticism by referring to the illusion of a constitutional rights based outlook system, which in fact will be used as a powerful tool to circumvent natural rights, liberty and individual dignity to annul the 2nd Amenment.
    Red Flag laws in conjunction with eliminating ammunition supplies are going to create havoc in same manner the artifical energy crises is created. Public school staff will use children, as was done in Soviet and Nazi states, to turn in parents. Yes, domestic violence protocols are often used for prelimnary legal maneuvering in child custody cases, but the goal is to disenfranchise solid family’s economic base and disarm them for maximum control. Social medua banning silences dissent.

    • “The disconnect is the assumption that the state is able to build and maintain a complex infrastructure, staffed with politically agnostic mental health, law enforcement and judicial professionals………”
      That’s the Chesa Boudin/George Gascon ideology. Boudin just got recalled because it doesn’t work, and it didn’t work really quickly. Ditto SB 91. But go right ahead with it. Good luck with that.

  12. Guns don’t kill people. Where are the parents of this child? Did they allow him to play violent video games all hours of the day? Was he on medication? Why aren’t we hearing the whole story? What will we do when the library stabber ups his game with a firearm? Take away our firearms so we can’t fight back? People have been acting a bit more crazy since their two year lockdown, and parents should be looking for the signs of mental illness. And the government should not be doing a knee jerk reaction just because it fits their agenda. Perhaps they can work on the economy, instead of lying about how good it is. Put these kids to work, instead of paying them to stay home and go nuts.

    • “…….Put these kids to work, instead of paying them to stay home and go nuts.”
      You can’t even force people to work in prison. If there was ever a failure of the legal system, that’s it. People who have even lost their rights due to felony conviction still have rights.

  13. I’ve been around firearms all my life. Never once has one hopped out of the closet and run down the streets of Juneau shooting people, bears, or anything else.

    My firearms are a tool. No more or less than a hammer. I could easily kill people with a hammer. More easily because they are easier to wander around with in public.

    But I don’t. Why? I was taught how to use both, the risks in both, and the consequences of improper action. Plus I have self control.

    How did I learn all this? My father. He was active in my life. For all our disagreements HE WAS THERE.

    In a society where men in general and fathers in particular are demonized and marginalized, we should be grateful this crap doesn’t happen more.

    All the “red flag” laws in the universe can’t replace responsible parents.

  14. What is an article five Convention? 🤔 When did this Congress (secretly) convene one to “Alter” the US Constitution?

  15. Does it say “Congress shall make no law infringing” OR “Congress shall make laws infringing”? Do words mean nothing? Anything in conflict with the US Constitition is void for affect.

    • Actually, it says:
      “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
      It is not restricting Congress from making laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. It is restricting the entire Federal Government, all three branches, from doing ANYTHING to infringe that right.
      .
      Yes, that means regulations issued by ATF, CDC, DHS, or pretty much any other Federal agency have to be tested. Not just Congress.

      • “Actually, it says:
        “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”……..”
        Actually, it says (in full):
        “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
        Militia is defined in 10 U.S. Code § 246.

        • Thanks for sharing Reggie. I knew that.
          .
          And, I am sure that you have also read the Federalist Papers in full, and understand that the prefatory clause does not limit the remainder of the amendment. A fact additionally strengthened by the Heller and McDonald decisions from the Supreme Court.

      • It should also be remembered that in Colonial British North America and at the Founding in the vast majority if not all of the colonies/states, all males of military age, usually 16 – 55, were as a matter of law members of the militia and could be mustered at the Governor or Adjutant General’s command. Militia companies and communities might own artillery and some weaponry, but a man was expected to report to muster in arms.

        • “……all males of military age, usually 16 – 55, were as a matter of law members of the militia and could be mustered at the Governor or Adjutant General’s command. Militia companies and communities might own artillery and some weaponry, but a man was expected to report to muster in arms.”
          It is still that way by law. See 10 U.S. Code § 246 and U.S. v Miller, 1939. Again, if all militia members had to qualify (as in “well regulated militia”) before legal possession of firearms, those like Salvador Ramos would wash out immediately, and trainers would be able to identify the mentally defective during training. All military and law enforcement veterans qualify due to their training by government, and all others could qualify through the Civilian Marksmanship requirements. This is how the Swiss do it, and how we used to do it…….before the Progressive Era……….
          In order to get a motorcycle endorsement on your drivers license (another “right” that government as wise to call a “privilege” when cars were invented) ne must pass a class run by a motorcycle organization. I’ve seen people who couldn’t even hold the motorcycle upright while sitting on it get washed out buy trainers.

          • There have never been any requirements for training or other qualifications for owning a long gun other than age, sanity, and not being a convicted felon.

          • “Again, if all militia members had to qualify (as in “well regulated militia”) before legal possession of firearms, those like Salvador Ramos would wash out immediately, and trainers would be able to identify the mentally defective during training. ”
            .
            Or, the government would use that “training” requirement to strictly limit gun ownership, and prevent anyone not politically connected from owning guns. Try getting a FOID in Chicago. Try getting a CWP in DC.
            .
            For some reason, you think humans will not weaponize a training requirement, or red flag laws, for political gain. I am not sure where you get this idea that the people working for the government are some kind of angels that will just do their job without any form of political bias.
            .
            I am 100% in favor of people getting training if they choose to own a gun. I am 1,000% opposed to making that training a requirement. Imagine finding out that the government approved training is only held twice a month, class size is limited to six, and you have to travel hours to find a class. Oh… and the classes are all booked up. For the next three years. Oh, and they get cancelled for no reason whatsoever.
            Just like in Chicago.

  16. More laws, more laws they scream. Those red flag laws sure worked well in Uvalde, NOT. Hunter Biden is a felon but since he’s one of them he gets a pass. Obviously the laws are written for us NOT them.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.