Democrats in the Alaska House of Representatives plan to put counselors, social workers, and even someone with a master’s degree in psychology into the center of laws involving gun confiscation for people that are thought to be dangerous.
Under HB 62, professionals in the helping fields would be required to report to a central state registry all credible gun threats made by Alaskans, even if that information is not corroborated.
It’s called a “red flag” law and it gives select professions remarkable power over citizens’ right to own firearms because, although the registry is supposed to be confidential, these professionals will be developing lists of people they think pose a danger and who own guns.
Social workers in charge of reporting on gun possession?
According to the proposed statute, yes. That is one of the more disturbing aspects of this proposed legislation, critics say, since social workers are, by their own definition, political actors and they oppose guns, generally.
“Social work is intrinsically political by virtue of the fact that it is concerned with social change and a quest for social justice,” according to a paper published in the SocialWorkHelper, a publication of the International Journal of Social Welfare.
[Read: Political participation of social workers, a comparative study]
A review of the field’s academic literature reveals that the social work profession is largely anti-Second Amendment and that social workers are continuously instructed by their peers to advocate for gun control.
The proponents of the red flag law also want law enforcement officers to be able to petition a court for a “gun violence protective order,” which would allow them to take guns away from people if they deem them to be “in crisis.”
Critics say there is no due process in red flag laws, and that makes them unconstitutional. Studies show that across the country, when a judge is approached by law enforcement to get an order that allows them to go into a person’s home and seize their guns, they often succeed in getting that order. But when the citizen shows up for the court hearing, those attempts to take their guns are more likely to fail.
What seems sensible in the laboratory of law doesn’t always work out in the real world, where the rationale used for gun confiscation may be a slippery slope, Second Amendment defenders say.
“The Democratic Party’s hard lurch to the left in recent years raises troubling questions about its approach to such questions. On campuses today, it is common to assert that ‘hate speech’ is akin to violence and, on the left, that the mere expression of conservative political ideas constitutes such ‘hate speech,'” wrote Jim DeMint, former senator of South Carolina. If hate speech is now considered violence, then what is the speed at which mere gun ownership will be considered a violent tendency?
The red flag laws are rushing toward passage across the country. If passed, Alaska would be one of 12 states to enact a red-flag law since the shooting at the school in Parkland, Fla. on Feb. 14, 2018 — one state every two months has enacted a red-flag law since that incident.. There are 17 states plus the District of Columbia that have an “extreme risk” law, such as is being proposed for Alaska.
Connecticut was the first state to pass a red flag law, after a mass shooting at the Connecticut State Lottery in 1999. Thirteen years later, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened in Connecticut, with 26 people killed, in spite of the law.
Connecticut’s law allows only law enforcement to petition for a gun’s removal, and the law has been used more than 1,500 times since its passage — more than once a week.
Not all law enforcement officers are on board with the red flag movement. Colorado’s legislature passed a red flag law that took effect Jan. 1, but several Colorado sheriffs are on the record to say they will not enforce the law in their counties. In December, opponents of the law held a “We Will Not Comply” rally at the state Capitol in Denver.
In Oregon, the red flag law is also applied with variability. In conservative parts of the state where ranchers and farmers dwell, peace officers have ignored the law, while in the more Democrat-controlled and urban parts of the state, petitions to take guns away from Oregonians have been used 166 times in two years since the law was enacted.
House Bill 62 is sponsored by Democrats Rep. Geran Tarr, Harriet Drummond, and Andy Josephson. The NRA rates them 64 percent, 21 percent and 36 percent respectively on Second Amendment issues.
The bill is in House Judiciary, which is chaired by Rep. Matt Claman, rated 43 percent by the NRA.
Nope.
Exactly what is a “credible” gun threat? And are they also required to report all credible threats other than gun threats?
There are people that should NOT be able to wield a gun just there are people that should NOT be able to get behind the wheel.
They are called Democrat voters.
Who gets to decide who those people are, you? No thanks!
That is why there needs to be specific reasons for taking guns from someone, such as she just beat her boyfriend with a baseball bat and said she’d shoot him if she saw him again. You can’t just make something up.
The real insanity is allowing everyone to run around with a gun all the time.. Even the NRA banned guns at the convention’s Trump rally.
I have no problem with restricting guns for specific people IF and ONLY IF there is some kind of due process for the person, as well as penalties for people making false claims against someone. This bill, as written, has none of that.
.
Personally, I’d like to see more convictions of people who use guns in unlawful ways and more convictions of felons in possession of guns. (Like the 16 people convicted just today). America has 20,000 gun laws on the books. Surely our legislators can try to reinvigorate one or more of those laws instead of creating this bill that has severe deficiencies.
What about the 8.6 Million Americans that are clinically diagnosed with PTSD?
Are you thinking of taking guns away from these Americans solely for that? Look for some push-back there IMO.
Do you have a point here? What about these people?
I think that many people who truly need mental health care may not get that care because they may be scared of whatever they say to their psychologist/psychiatrist will be used against them and be slapped with a red flag gun confiscation and end up on a mystery state “registry”.
.
Personally, I think red flag laws are ridiculous. There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books. Try enforcing those instead of creating new ones. Also, I think our legislators should face the facts about gun violence. Like in Anchorage, the majority of gun homicides are gang/drug wars. Maybe we should try to create new opportunities for young people and try to create more jobs? A lot of the gang/drug wars occur in areas that have severe poverty. I also think that our legislators should try to fix our broken public schools. When people that graduate from 12th grade can barely read and barely know basic math, it doesn’t lead to them being able to get a decent job, so what do they do? They turn to the black market and start dealing drugs.
People with PTSD are from all walks of life. If someone was in a car accident heck if someone witnessed a bad accident they could be diagnosed with PTSD. Your statement while has no bearing has lack of information in what you mean exactly.
November 30th 2019: Neveah Tuuaga, 13, filed a restraining order against her father who had threatened her with a gun. December 2, 2019: Neveah Tuuaga, 13, and her mother Cecilia Tuuaga, were found shot to death and burned in an SUV. Neveah’s father was later arrested.
This law would have saved their life.
No, the red-flag law would not have stopped this, except in an imaginary world where bag people don’t get their hands on guns.
How, exactly, would “(T)his law would have saved their life”? Fely had at least two prior arrests, one for manslaughter. He legally couldn’t have a gun. So why would this man somehow follow a red flag law bud didn’t follow other laws the restraining order, law against killing people, and law about felonies not being able to have a gun?
.
Red flag laws are ridiculous. If a person is allegedly so horrible that they shouldn’t have a gun, why are they left to walk free amongst people after taking their guns? Like the man in Chicago who stabbed his mother to death after his guns were taking away by social workers. He had mental health issues, too.
You are assuming that there was no other way to commit a murder with anything other then a gun. I have a friend in prison for killing her father with a sledgehammer while he slept.
If a person wants to kill then they will and the argument that the gun pulled its own trigger is a faulty argument and unrealistic when it was the intent of the human to cause harm to another through and by any means necessary. Keep it real!
If this law would have saved this life, So would have using the involuntary civil commitment procedure which, I think, exists today. The circumstances describe the criteria…a danger to self or others. Why was that not used?
How would it save their lives? He could have killed in any one of hundreds of ways. Of course if they were armed they might of had a fighting chance.
“This law would have saved their life.”
Speculation, based on conjecture, re-enforced by supposition!
50 years or so ago, when I was raising my children, they would often run amuck to the point where I would make “dire threats” … like “Settle down or I’ll put knots on your noggins faster than you can count them!”
They would understand that they were pushing the envelope, and giggle themselves into compliance. Even at the preschool level, they could comprehend harmless hyperbole.
Now days one has to carefully guard their comments at all times, in all circumstances, or some over zealous control freak will have LEO’s at your door. A careless utterance of harmless hyperbole can get one in dire legal straits.
All these red-flag laws do in reality is turn us against each other. There’s an article in KTUU – “An FBI official is warning that Russia wants to watch Americans “tear ourselves apart” … which leads me to suspect that a lot of these social control laws are instigated by our National enemies.
Conspiracy theory? Wish that were the case, but even on the National government level, our own lawmakers are speaking up about just how Machiavellian our National enemies can be.
One of America’s biggest weaknesses is that we’re a generally honest people, who tend to attribute our trait to others. Concerted propaganda, disruptive social/economic campaigns against us, by foreign entities, can persist for the longest time without our even noticing.
As they’re transitioned from being represented to being ruled, productive Alaskans should be ready to fight this skirmish with jury nullification.
.
Jury nullification means deliberately rejecting the evidence, refusing to apply the law because the jury wants to send a message about a social issue larger than the case, or because the result dictated by law opposes the jury’s sense of justice, morality, or fairness.
.
Remember, at voir dire, prospective jurors have to tell the Court if they can’t render a fair and impartial verdict because, for example, they’d never obey, or convict anyone else of disobeying, a “law” created to bypass the Second Amendment.
.
Should be interesting to see who wins when “…counselors, social workers, and even someone with a master’s degree in psychology” try to confiscate Native villagers’ guns…
.
It’s one thing for Representatives Geran Tarr, Harriet Drummond, and Andy Josephson to pass a law, it’ll be quite a different thing when juries invoke jury nullification and refuse to convict “violators”.
.
Instead of causing a grassroots rebellion, Representatives Geran Tarr, Harriet Drummond, and Andy Josephson should stick to Getting Money. That’s what they do best.
.
And the good news is no constitutional amendment prevents them from getting all the money their buyers want.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who will give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither”. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris
TODAY IS THE DAY-4PM Alaska time.
KSRM radio personality Bob Bird has invited me on his radio program (Bird’s Eye View) to discuss my opposition to the proposed Red Flag law in Alaska, House Bill 62 and Senate Bill 198. Lets discuss it logically.
Bob is a friend and a strong advocate for the Second Amendment.
You can listen to the program on the Kenai Peninsula at 920 AM DIAL TODAY AT 4 PM (1600 ALASKA TIME 2000 Eastern standard.)
Those outside the listening area can listen on line at
https://www.radiokenai.net/stations/listen-online/
Scroll down and follow prompts.
Again today at 1600 (4:00 PM Alaska time 8:00 PM EASTERN)
Call in comments and texts welcomed at 907-283-5811.
Please pass the word throughout Alaska.
Yet Neenah father was allowed something that lite a fire. Rope , hammers, pills, booze bridges, cars are ways people have used to kill. Cain and Able it was a rock. Education of guns of paper handling of guns should be taught at home cause at school merely eating a poptart is now regulated. Let’s get real the world is a dangerous place, but it is much safer than a womb.
Um, threatening someone with a gun is a crime, last I heard. Sounds like a failure to enforce existing law. And this law would have worked in 3 days?
Red Flag Laws are unconstitutional, regardless of what opinions politicians, judges, or the Supreme Court hold about them. Any politician supporting these laws needs to be voted out of office.
The founders understood that self defense is a god-given right. Their views are well documented regarding the Second Amendment. These politicians refuse to accept this, and are actively violating their oaths of office regarding these matters.
I don’t have any idea about today, because today almost everything is a Felony, but originally threatening someone or anyone was not a crime. Only actions are crimes. Remember the old saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me”. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris
Terroristic threats? Legal?
We should all remember to hold onto our tongues when something really pisses us off. Someone could use our words to slam us with a red flag.
The Red Flag laws lack penalties for misuse – but it wouldn’t matter. The state still doesn’t prosecute perjury as long as it helps the state’s case.
We have no Article 3 Courts in Alaska or the United States to hear cases involving Law and Equity except for the “Supreme Court of the United States”. All the other Courts are Article 1 Tribunals. The “United States District Court” was brought in from Hawaii in the 1940’s as an Article 1 Tribunal to replace the “District Court of the United States” which was an Article 3 Court. Notice how they turn the names around. I have contacted Representative Don Young twice on this matter and have received no answer. The last Letter he sent out to everyone he said in it that he could not over ride what any Agency declared. Agencies were never created in “The Constitution of the United States” so evidently he is not a Constitutional Representative!! Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris
House Bill 62 is sponsored by Democrats Rep. Geran Tarr, Harriet Drummond, and Andy Josephson. The NRA rates them 64 percent, 21 percent and 36 percent respectively on Second Amendment issues.
The bill is in House Judiciary, which is chaired by Rep. Matt Claman, rated 43 percent by the NRA.
VOTE THEM OUT!
18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 696; Pub. L. 90–284, title I, § 103(b), Apr. 11, 1968, 82 Stat. 75; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7019, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4396; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60006(b), title XXXII, §§ 320103(b), 320201(b), title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(H), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1970, 2109, 2113, 2147; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, §§ 604(b)(14)(B), 607(a), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3507, 3511.)
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
The “United States Code” sits outside “The Constitution of the United States”. I, being a “citizen of Alaska” as of September 2015 instead of a “citizen of the United States”, as Recorded in the Palmer Recording Dist., still retain my Unalienable,–Un Lien Able–God Given Rights instead of using anything standing outside the Constitution for any protection. Seymour Marvin Mills Jr. sui juris
Comments are closed.