Merrick Garland’s DOJ Sets Up ‘Center’ To Help Remove Firearms From Americans Deemed ‘Extremist’
“Red-flag laws allow a judge to take away a firearm from someone based on the suspicion that the owner could use it to harm themselves or others.”
Just when you thought the Biden admin’s corruption and attacks on political opposition couldn’t get any more obvious, corrupt Merrick Garland’s corrupt DOJ has established a “National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center” that will “help” their “partners across the country” grab guns under Red Flag laws from anyone they deem an “extremist.”
Justice Department Launches the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center
🔗: https://t.co/xH1deJu4SB pic.twitter.com/zUj0woxwrf
— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) March 23, 2024
Here’s more from the DOJ:
The Justice Department launched the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center (the Center) which will provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals responsible for implementing laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of people who pose a threat to themselves or others.
“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”
The problem, of course, is that we know exactly who the Biden-Garland DOJ–and its enforcement arm, the FBI–think are “extremists.”
Here are just a few of our posts on the shocking abuses of power and disregard for the civil and Constitutional rights of Americans who do not toe the Democrat Party line.
- AG Merrick Garland Says White Supremacists ‘the Most Dangerous Threat to Our Democracy’
- Report: FBI Targeting Donald Trump Supporters as Threats to 2024 Election
- House GOP: FBI ‘Abused Its Counterterrorism Tools to Target Catholic Americans as Potential Domestic Terrorists’
- House Judiciary Committee: Whistleblowers Say FBI ‘Pressuring Agents’ to Reclassify Cases as Domestic Terrorism
- AG Garland Weaponizes FBI Against Parents Protesting Critical Race Theory, Mask Mandates
- Wray: No Evidence for Garland to Target Protesting Parents, But FBI Made Threat Tag to Identify Them
- Senate GOP Claim FBI Erased Records Connected to Memo Targeting Catholics
That’s not even touching on the unAmerican witchhunt for anyone who was even in DC on J6, the gross abuse of power by the FBI in raiding normal Americans’ homes, crowing over Lego kits as tools of terrorism, and generally acting like crazed banana republic goons on the hunt for any and all political opposition. Add in their own alleged criminal behavior and the DIE scourge, and the FBI is a complete disgrace.
Find the man, they’ll find the crime. It’s absolutely disgusting, and now, they’re widening the net and scooping up law-abiding Americans’ guns with undoubtedly highly suspect and very questionable “red flag” complaints about “extremists” (i.e. normal Americans who have broken no laws, pose no threat . . . except in the voting booth).
Members of Congress are (at least claiming to be) horrified.
What the hell is this evil?
A Federal Red Flag center;
We did not authorize this.
Announced, of course, just hours after the omnibus passes. https://t.co/IkuK0aTeV8— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 23, 2024
Merrick Garland just announced a massive Red Flag Operation that the DOJ will be running by using EVERY spy tool the US government has in order to violate American’s Second Amendment!!
This comes right after Johnson fully funded Biden’s weaponized DOJ! https://t.co/tScHgTbcy8
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) March 23, 2024
Post-Constitutional America.
Unelected bureaucrats now both write and enforce law; by edict.
Congress has made itself irrelevant… except to occasionally vote to spend more money we don’t have.
Every elected Republican not fighting this is complicit. #txlege @HouseGOP https://t.co/OYP8POuvCJ
— Brian Harrison (@brianeharrison) March 23, 2024
This didn't come through Congress. This Administration will do everything in their power to destroy the Constitution and the God given rights of Americans. https://t.co/pHUdL5C1rK
— Tommy Tuberville (@TTuberville) March 23, 2024
The timing of this is intentional. This is an UNAUTHORIZED attack on our 2nd Amendment. https://t.co/uNwQCbb47s
— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) March 23, 2024
Democrats have hit a wall in their push to ban firearms in America. They can only do so by repealing the Second Amendment, and even they realize that’s not going to happen. Therefore, they will just use taxpayer money to “help” their no doubt anti-American Democrat “partners across the country” to remove firearms via Red Flag laws (in themselves an absolute travesty that need to be repealed immediately). If they can’t grab their political opposition’s guns in one national fell swoop, they will do so one by one.
Joe “I am the Democratic Party” Biden’s cackling sidekick is set to hit Florida with her support for this unAmerican end run around our Constitution, our God-given Second Amendment rights.
The vice president will announce the launch of the first-ever National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center, which will aim to help states effectively implement red-flag laws through training and technical assistance. The center will be funded through a Department of Justice grant stemming from the bipartisan gun control bill that President Biden signed into law in 2022.
Harris also will announce an official call to action for states to pass red-flag laws and to use the resources from the bipartisan gun control bill to implement them.
Red-flag laws allow a judge to take away a firearm from someone based on the suspicion that the owner could use it to harm themselves or others.
Under legislation signed by Biden in 2022, six of 21 states eligible for funding have accessed dollars through the program for states that have approved red-flag laws. Fifteen other states have red flag laws and are eligible for funding have not used money from the program so far. Twenty-nine other states have not approved red-flag laws and cannot access the money.
Biden announced in February, on the five-year anniversary of Parkland shooting, that the Department of Justice will give more than $231 million to states for crisis intervention projects, such as red-flag programs.
Here she is managing to sound almost coherent.
Kamala Harris announces a "National Resource Center for Red Flag Law" run by Biden's weaponized DOJ pic.twitter.com/bHY50PVbG3
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) March 23, 2024
Needless to say, people have thoughts.
Republicans voted to fund Biden’s agenda and a due-process destroying “red flag center.” As of now, I do not believe that the GOP wants to win in November. I’m not exaggerating — these are not the actions of a party interested in fighting or winning.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 23, 2024
Either GOP defunds this garbage or they deserve to lose in a political bloodbath in November. We won’t save you. pic.twitter.com/i8ilUI2igf
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 23, 2024
DOJ waited until the omnibus passed before announcing the new National Red Flag Center, so you wouldn’t know what the omnibus money is being spent on.
“Republicans blast Biden admin's 'Red Flag Operation' as one that will 'violate' 2nd Amendment rights” https://t.co/hzgqQxS5nD
— Brett Laird Francis Doyle MCS (@BrettDoyleMCS) March 23, 2024
Here is the list of Republicans who voted for the $1.2 trillion dollar #SwampOmnibus today 👇
Credit: @gc22gc pic.twitter.com/qBRF5XccpM
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) March 22, 2024
No constitutional authority. No oversight. Created and run by bureaucrats who you didn’t hire, you can’t fire, and who don’t think they work for you. https://t.co/e0gPvJyrE5
— Mayor John Huffman (@JohnRHuffman) March 23, 2024
They will build a political police by whatever means necessary. https://t.co/aHL4CcolRJ
— J Michael Waller (@JMichaelWaller) March 23, 2024
I’d like to report the FBI. https://t.co/AALKQDNbhd
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 23, 2024
Defending "democracy" by stripping Americans of their due process and Second Amendment rights using a unilateral federal decree. https://t.co/5dcwr6YkvD
— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) March 23, 2024
Given the fact that we now apparently have a "National Red Flag Center" created out of nowhere by the DOJ it's important for people to understand the danger of such policies/laws.
This is how they "work" in real life ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/0scrjmhOOq
— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) March 23, 2024
On the New York ERPO form, just the fact that someone recently purchased a firearm could be considered a “red flag”https://t.co/W2h7DpxHVi pic.twitter.com/CyjqBHUl5o
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) March 23, 2024
This won’t apply to Hunter Biden, illegal aliens, or cartel members that Dems fight to arm.
This is an attack on due process and ignores existing law that provides a way to adjudicate someone ineligible. All previous tragedies were preventable without removal of due process. https://t.co/YGUhfUsl51— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 23, 2024
Will this apply to illegal aliens as well or just Americans?
— Breanna Morello (@BreannaMorello) March 23, 2024
Red flag laws were always intended to disarm the masses.
👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 https://t.co/dhojBKFvHt
— Jen Wright (@JenWEsq) March 23, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Left is blatantly trying to set off a civil war.
I think so. And by expressing your opinion, it’s possible you have now been “red-flagged”. And me too. Merrick Garland and the left are closing in on their ultimate goal to take out both the First and Second Amendments.
It will start in blue states. If you live in one, get out. Now.
Heh. San Antonio.
Still begs the question…
Nope. If you’re Blue State and voted for democrats then stay the heck where you are. The Red States don’t want or need you to move into Red States. Just stay where you are and leave the rest of us alone.
Let’s stop with the Red State / Bkue State dichotomy. Most of America is conservative. The areas that are “blue” are the cities where Democrats live and dominate. This is where the corruption and anti-American activities occur.
So, red blooded Americans should stay right where they are. Then systematically wall off these blue city states that seek to deny Americans their rights.
Push comes to shove, We The People produce the food and control the roads leading to cities. Block those routes to the cities and starve the beast.
I made up this graphic about ten years ago…
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e63bb25f4703f9bf3049c00359585a7fac1a664e528f88da116a25017db266b9.jpg
Disagree. There are a host of differences between Red and Blue States. Not just in local and State level governance but also in National governance when Blue States send very leftist politicians to the HoR and Senate.
Sure on a County by County basis 90%+ of Counties are ‘Red’ but since SCOTUS (mistakenly IMO) decided that State Senate districts could no longer be drawn based solely on County Boundaries but instead must be drawn on the basis of population the rural Counties in every State but especially in Blue States have had their political power severely diminished.
Anyone ‘behind the lines’ so to speak in a Blue State needs to embrace the fact that remaining there does have both a current cost and a potential/theoretical future cost(s) that either do not exist or is substantially less likely in a Red State.
blow bridges and tunnels
cut power and water lines
have fun … eating your own
will take on new meaning
Forget states – be careful of the county you live in. Fulton County in Georgia is definitely not worth living in.
If they haven’t red-flagged me by now, they are even more incompetent than I already think they are.
I don’t disagree that the left are vile and acting with ill motives but let’s not excuse the republican establishment and Speaker Johnson. They’re funding this. They pushed this through. Everything the democrats wanted and more. Abortion, the resettlement of Biden’s illegals, climate insanity, Ukraine, lawfare., gender insanity, DEI. Fully funding everything.
Which begs the question of exactly gets to throw that “red flag”, which is then acted on by the courts?
Because I’d bet every penny I own that it can be done anonymously in the world according to Merrick Garland.
To say they are doing it blatantly would mean they are competent. I don’t think they are. Their actions will probably start a civil war but it will be a surprise to them.
They are just doing leftist things without a care about any possible consequences. They don’t think that far ahead.
merrick you ridiculous Oaf. We all know what you’re really slathering for. ALL PATRIOTIC AMERICANS will be deemed “extremist” nest-ce pas? You’re all so pathetically transparent.
What we need is to rid ourselves of every last slimy politician and libtard judge. IOW the lot of you.
Gosh maybe the Republicans should have read the fucking bill before passing it.
It’s not in the bill. The bill just funds DOJ; it doesn’t allocate an amount for each specific program. It can’t, because DOJ has to be free to create new programs though the year without having to go back to Congress for extra funding. The authorization to spend the money comes from the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”, which Congress passed in 2022.
Unfortunately, they probably did
If you were honest, you’d be disarming the ATF and FBI first.
What’s the legal definition of “extremist”?
SCOTUS smack down on the way.
Huh? The word “extremist” doesn’t appear anywhere in anything quoted in this post, or in any material DOJ put out about it. There is literally nothing in what the DOJ said to give the impression that they’re going after “extremists”.
That is simply informed speculation, based on this administration’s past performance. People are predicting how this administration is likely to use such an office. A Trump DOJ could put out the exact same announcement and people would be a lot calmer about it because they would have little reason to believe they intended to abuse it.
More importantly, the word doesn’t appear in any state’s red flag law. So even if DOJ said openly they were going to use this to go after “extremists” (as is indeed likely) they wouldn’t need a legal definition of it, because it doesn’t appear in any law they would be acting under.
Remember this office would not be taking action anywhere. It would merely be providing state and local authorities with resources and training on how to use their own state laws more effectively. Which could be a good thing if it were meant sincerely. Too many shootings have happened because a state red-flag law was available but not used when it was clearly warranted. The guy in Maine, for example. The problem is that many people, for very good reason, don’t trust that this is meant sincerely.
Oh, and I don’t think SCOTUS can smack down a program like this, that merely provides state and local authorities with resources to better use their own state laws. That would seem to be inherent in DOJ’s charter, and authorized by the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act”.
Milhouse,
You make a very important point here about the size and scope of the Fed Gov’t. This program is another in a long litany of reasons NOT to grant more power to the Fed Gov’t. Eventually some Presidential admin will utilize a grant of power to do things unintended by Congress and unwanted by the Citizen voters.
Congress must stop these incremental grants of authority to the Executive branch which undermine not only the power of Congress but of the Citizen voters to directly hold someone accountable. When Congress doesn’t establish firm limits for the Executive branch then the Executive branch ideologues will misuse the the power. Just as you very correctly pointed out there is very likely to be a world of difference in how a Trump admin would utilize it v how the Biden admin will use it.
This is just silly. Republicans complain about sensible measures with respect to guns and try and implement the dumbest ones. Red flag laws are sensible, opposition to them is really saying you want nut jobs armed with guns. Which is a silly thing to want.
I object to liberties being denied without due process…….just like the Founders did. They didn’t think it was silly, they thought this was serious enough to fight Great Britain, achieve independence and enshrine our fundamental liberties into our Constitution.
There are already red-flag laws on the books.
Like the “immigration reform” the left is always claiming will solve our illegal immigrant problems, no reform is required. Enforcement of the laws on the books is.
“Red flag” laws are not sensible. They can be at least unobjectionable, but not sensible.
Of course they vary from state to state. In some they are a flagrant violation of due process, and thus outright tyranny. In some states due process is preserved, which minimizes the harm they do, but that doesn’t make them sensible.
If someone is genuinely so mentally unstable that they can’t be trusted with their weapons, why are they not so unstable that they need to be restrained? In what universe does it make sense to say “We need to take this person’s guns away, but he’s fine to go about his life otherwise as normal, with full access to knives, poisons, ropes, cars, high windows and roofs. What’s more, we will not hook him up with any mental health care. So long as we’ve taken his guns he doesn’t need any of that”?
And in states where a “red flag” raid can come as a complete surprise to the subject, there’s always a significant risk that he will defend himself with armed force, and someone will be killed, probably him. Especially if he is a little crazy; does it make sense to send a SWAT team against him?!
Only in some states. And in those states they are often not used properly, or at all.
This program is about training police in those states to make proper use of the laws they have, and to encourage states without such laws to enact them. In the right hands such a program would not be anything to get upset about. But this administration has form.
Bart, if you truly think that “red flag” laws are sensible and moderate, and that there is no reason to object to them, then would you agree, at a bare minimum, that anyone subject to such an order should also have their voter registration and drivers’ license canceled? If they’re not competent enough to own guns, how can they be competent enough to vote or to drive? If you don’t think it’s reasonable to deprive someone of those things (neither of which is a fundamental human right, or a constitutional right) without due process, then how can you be OK with depriving them of the fundamental human right to be armed for one’s own defense, which is explicitly protected in the constitution?
How about starting by disarming illegals with guns?
They don’t need red flag orders to disarm illegals. Illegals can’t legally buy guns anyway. They’re getting them illegally. If they find out about an illegal owning guns they do take action. But how often would they find out about it (other than by catching them using the gun to commit a crime)?
Ah… have you seen the recent court decision that these immigrants can buy firearms without background check? The 2A permits illegal aliens to buy firearms now?
https://cis.org/Arthur/District-Court-Judge-Rules-Illegal-Alien-Cannot-Be-Prosecuted-Possessing-Firearm
Yes, I have seen it, and I agree with it 100%, but it’s not the law yet. I hope it soon becomes the law.
For now, illegals can’t legally own guns, so they don’t need to pursue “red flag” orders against them.
“Yes, I have seen it, and I agree with it 100%, but it’s not the law yet. I hope it soon becomes the law.”
Of COURSE you do, Milhouse. Of COURSE you do.
How can someone here illegally be a legal firearm owner?
@scooterjay: The principle behind this paradox is that being here illegally should be a crime, but owning a firearm at the time should be no more a crime than owning a loaf of bread at the time. All gun control laws are illegal. Criminals in custody and children have their 2A rights held in trust for them by their guardians, everyone else has their own, period. As for former felons, anyone you cannot trust with a gun shouldn’t be trusted without a custodian… or, in other words, if they’re so dangerous that they shouldn’t have a gun, they should still be in the slam.
Yes, of course I do. So does every person who actually believes in the RKBA. Anyone who doesn’t agree with it is not a friend of liberty or a supporter of the US constitution, and has no moral right to demand that his own constitutional rights be respected.
However in a vast departure from settled Federal law, a Federal Judge decided they may possess guns.
Yes, and the judge is right. It’s a “vast departure from settled federal law” only in the same sense that Heller, Macdonald, Bruen, etc. were.
My point is that this is not yet the law. One judge has decided it, but it will spend years in the appeals process before it becomes established. I am talking about the current situation. Right now they can and do disarm illegals, so this program isn’t needed for that.
Under the new decision, if it is upheld, illegals can arm themselves only on the same terms as citizens and legal aliens. Not, as one commenter here claimed, on terms not available to citizens or legal aliens.
“Not, as one commenter here claimed, on terms not available to citizens or legal aliens.” So, Milhouse, the illegal alien goes into a gun store and the FBI runs the NIC… what info comes up? Hum? What equivalent documentation for them when compared to US citizens and LEGAL non-residents? Until the new decision is stayed isn’t it The Law of The Land…. until the journey through the courts ends somewhere.
One time illegally across the border is a misdemeanor… after that felony. US citizens are being refused ownership in some states on misdemeanors.
I imagine firearm ownership is a theoretical issue for you… for many is isn’t. I am NOT asking anyone to declare whether they own or don;’t own… Many rights are theoretical until they aren’t when violated by government or when needed. Example…right now…. what parts of the Bill of Rights are ACTIVELY being used as we comment here?
Does the decision say it’s legal for them to possess firearms or does it say it’s legal for them to buy/acquire firearms from an FFL? These are not the same animals. (And in many states, a purchase from a private party is entirely different animal.)
Except that you will notice the case was in Illinois, where the illegal alien did in fact arm himself well outside the terms available to legal citizens. If this case had happened in, say, Phoenix, it wouldn’t stink of the hypocrisy that it does.
Under this decision, if it is eventually implemented, the same things would come up as for anyone else. No convictions for violent felonies, no finding of mental incompetence, no reason to deny him his fundamental human right to be armed.
No, it isn’t. It applies only to the parties to that case.
And according to this judge, who is correct, unless they’re violent misdemeanors that is unconstitutional. For that matter, the same is true for felonies. It’s unconstitutional to deny a felon the right to be armed, unless it was a violent felony. Eventually that will be the established law, but right now it isn’t.
The decision says that this particular defendant has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thus 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), as applied to him, violates the Second Amendment. It would follow that the government would have to allow him to buy from an FFL, subject to the exact same conditions as anyone else. It can’t fail his background check for no other reason than that he’s here illegally; it can still fail it for any reason that would also apply to a US citizen.
1. As far as I know that isn’t true. There’s nothing to indicate that he obtained his weapon in any way that wasn’t available to legal Illinois citizens at the time.
2. Even if he did obtain it in violation of state law, that is not a concern for a federal judge. If the state wants to charge him under state law, before a state judge it can.
3. If he wants to buy another gun, I imagine this judge would say that Illinois is required to issue him a FOID, unless it has some reason to deny it beyond his being here illegally. But there’s nothing about that in the decision, because it wasn’t relevant to the case.
“Illegals can’t legally buy guns anyway”
Of course not. Because illegals “can’t” be here in the first place, unless they are in jail,
They obviously can be here, because they are. But they can’t currently legally buy guns. The government routinely does disarm them and charge them for possession, without any need for red flag laws. Therefore this program can’t be about them. That is all.
It’s unconstitutional to deny a felon the right to be armed, unless it was a violent felony.
In the olden days…. once you did your time all of your rights were returned. Even bank robbers … but since the laws were stricter back then .. any injury or loss of life put the criminal was in for a long term incarceration or quick stop after a short drop.
So, yes…I’d go for return of all rights under those stipulations.
Isn’t it astounding to watch the Democrat, Milhouse, weave a web of sensible sounding words that nevertheless always seem to defend the leftists have ever more power?
This is his purpose –to twist his words around so that whatever you say is wrong and the only sensible ‘conservative’ position is to do what the left says.
All without ever once openly saying anything like that.
Isn’t it astounding to see Azathoth, the servant of Satan, spewing lies, slander, and filth on a conservative site, and going unchallenged by anyone other than his victim? Has this person ever contributed anything of value to this site? Has he ever told the truth about anything, ever? Can there be anything more evil than someone who judges everything by whose ox is gored, and who expects everyone else to do the same?
Yep, the nazis are trying to disarm us again.
The GOPe also just funded a brand, spanking new Cheka HQ. Vote harder.
Even today the FSU agents want to be referred to as “Chekists”.
Not quite. Lets make sure we are putting blame where it belongs and assigning credit where it is due. 101 members of the GoP in the HoR did vote for the omnibus. Not all of the GoP, not even a majority of the members of the GoP in the HoR; 101/218 voted yes, 6/218 present but the remainder voted NO 111/218.
The Alabama delegation didn’t vote the omnibus, 100% of the six Alabama GoP members of the HoR voted NO. Take a look and see if your rep voted for it and which reps from your own State voted for it and act accordingly.
The American populace that owns a rifle/pistol and a thousand rounds of ammo is greater than all of the armies of the world with their small arms and ammo.
True. But the demented meat puppet Tyrant In Chief keeps reminding us that he has F-47’s that can be used against Americans with M-42s.
Wait, you got your hands on a fully functional
M-42 ‘Duster’ anti aircraft platform?
Most of the Republican establishment leadership is quite willing to sabotage Republican electoral chances as it gives them more personal power. Being in the minority or having a bare minimum majority allows them to use the excuse that they don’t have the votes to accomplish what they promised and must compromise but if they have a sizable majority that excuse doesn’t suffice and they have to actually try to keep their campaign promises.
I still believe that McConnell sent Lindsey Graham out to propose his abortion ban bill during the middle of the 2022 midterms to rile up the Democratic base and give the Democrats a talking point for their ads. I mean have you ever heard Graham bring up abortion before or after in a nationally televised way?
Typo alert, Fuzzy. “Firearms” should be one word in the headline.
Fixed, thanks. 🙂
No problem. 🙂
Did you expect anything else from Herr Garland? This all planned and executed to inflame the population that doesn’t vote D. It’s despicable, but we don’t have a chance in hell of overturning it. The leftists/communists have infiltrated every level of our federal government and many state levels too. Not a conspiracy theory, just a fact. It sucks! Florida may be a deep red State now, but my Rep is from Miami and he would be a D if he thought he could get elected. I’m gerrymandered into his district even though I live in Naples. He never votes in a conservative manner. Always votes for these omnibus bs bills. And every bill has new spending for his district that benefits his donors. Tell me what’s the difference? There is none. FJB
The great Byron Donalds would be your rep, if not for the gerrymandering shenanigans?
Nothing Blue State about it here, where 3 out of 4 Representatives from Arkansas voted for this massive bill. All of Congress needs to be sent packing. There’s no way in hell, even with ounces of cocaine and methamphetamines, could any of these self-abs
Dang iPad.
No way any of these self-absorbed underachievers could read through all that in just a few days. They have destroyed what was once a great nation.
Arbitrary legislation is supposed to be unconstitutional.
Wouldn’t any legislation passed without reading (no knowledge of exactly what it means or does) fall into the “arbitrary” category? Without intent, knowledge, and understanding of a bill, how can a vote for the bill be anything other than “arbitrary”?
Since when? So long as Congress stays within its enumerated powers, it can make whatever laws it likes, for whatever reasons it likes. (And nowadays the enumerated powers are interpreted so broadly that it’s rare for a law to fall outside them.)
Here’s an idea. Reopen the asylums and put all the nutcases back inside! Sorry, too simple, too effective and too humane.
The vile Dhimmi-crat “pre-crime” unit beings their obnoxiously lawless, dystopian and totalitarian vision to life.
As sure as the day is long, I can promise you that the vile Dhimmi-crats will predictably exempt Jew-hating Muslim supremacists, Islamofascists and terrorist sympathizers from being subject to even a scintilla of scrutiny or deprivation, under this program.
Only designated “enemies of the State” (i.e., any citizen who doesn’t evince the requisite enthusiasm for and fealty towards, Dhimmi-crats and their agenda) will besr the brunt of this totalitarian idiocy.
Extremists, eh? You mean like the ones who want to end the use of fossil fuels without first establishing a functioning alternative? Or maybe the people who think math is racist? Or the people who rant against capitalism? Or the people who want to abolish the police?
Oh, not those extremists.
This is a perfect example of why every single law in the United States that touches upon firearms needs to be struck down as unconstitutional without exception. When I say this I am invariably met with protests that “we need a law to keep guns away from convicted criminals” or “we have to keep guns away from children” or other such nonsense. The clear intent of the Second Amendment is to completely render the government from infringing upon our right to arms. Any, and I mean any, legislation that seeks to make people feel better by denying this inalienable right to someone makes all of us less safe. If, for instance, you’re twisting yourself into knots that a criminal might be able to obtain a gun after conviction, perhaps the problem isn’t the gun. Perhaps the problem is that instead of giving that criminal a slap on the wrist society should have led him out behind the courthouse to where a tall tree and rope are waiting. You know, what we used to do back in the days when we were less “enlightened” but far safer.
The Left says ALL rights have limits. Hum…. so when is the Left going to bring back slavery?
Rights need no regulation by government because they’re self-limiting. If your actions harm an innocent party, then what you’re doing (no matter how much it might appear to be the “exercise of a right”) is a crime, not the exercise or abuse of a “right.” The law-abiding gun owner who suddenly “goes postal” is not abusing his right to arms, he is committing crimes with arms he legally owns. Up until the point he decided to harm innocent persons with his arms, he was exercising a right. Afterwards he was planning and executing crimes. The police will arrest him, and the courts try him, for crimes, not for “abuse of his rights.” Sloppy conceptualizations like this allow (in particular) anti-gun forces to conflate the exercise of a right with criminal acts, which is why we hear such nonsense as “Nobody should have the right to kill innocent children in their schools,” strongly implying they believe the right to arms confers the right to murder (!) and it should be taken from us (throwing collective punishment into the mix to boot).
soon …. people will be working on one of Bill Gates farms
after working 12 hrs … you will be given a meal. probably
consisting of crickets, meal worms, and grubs.
and get reading for the next day of 12 hrs.
I agree with you almost entirely, but the 5th Amendment admits of government’s authority to impose penalties for (actual) crimes, and those penalties include imprisonment (right to freedom), fines (right to property), loss of suffrage (right to vote), and even execution (right to life). There is no reason why the loss of the right to arms can’t be imposed as punishment for a crime. Some people argue, “When a prisoner is released, he should get his other rights back because he’s paid his debt to society.” This is foolishness. Imprisonment and other punishments are applied individually. The cessation of one punishment doesn’t necessarily demand the cessation of others. Certainly, there’s no purpose in stripping the convict of his right to arms only when he’s imprisoned! The point of the loss of the right is because the convict has legally been identified as a threat to the safety of the community in which he lives. The idea that the suspension of a convict’s rights should only apply while he’s imprisoned makes no more sense than saying that some rights are “off limits.” Really? We can take someone’s life away as punishment for a crime, but we can’t take his right to arms? Doesn’t execution take away all of his rights? Or does the convict, in a legal environment in which the right to arms can’t be taken as punishment following convictions for crimes, retain his right to arms after his death?
It’s a crap argument. It leads to public streets becoming “extension prisons.” And that leads to the concern that “just because this person is free doesn’t mean he deserves all his rights.” And that leads precisely to where we are now.
The people who ratified the second amendment didn’t think all laws touching on firearms were unconstitutional. Some restrictions on firearm ownership were always seen as not infringing the RKBA, so the 2A didn’t ban those. The trick is knowing what kind of restrictions don’t infringe; hence Bruen’s historical test. If we find that in the generations that took the RKBA seriously they didn’t object to a particular restriction, then it’s likely that they didn’t see it as infringing.
Likely, not certain, because sometimes they knew it was an infringement but passed it anyway, because the people whose rights it infringed didn’t matter. Such a measure would obviously not be constitutional today.
Some of those laws… holdovers from the Post Civil War era have lingered….. some dredged up against Trump and others. North Carolina, from the Jum Crow era, required anyone buying a handgun had to be signed off by the local sheriff as of good moral character (not black, not Catholic and I bet in some areas, not Jewish). This was finally abolished over a (Dem) governor veto recently.
The “common use” excuse to ban magazines or scary rifles that function exactly as civilian designs of over 100 years ago is the present “expansion” of Bruen. I personally like the idea of telling the NYT that they must revert to common use presses from the 1790’s.
…from my cold dead hands.
It’s funny they talk about the Boston Tea Party and the taxes but The Shot hear round the world was fired when British were going to take their weapons and gun powder.
It’s always been obvious to me that red flag laws will be used in messy divorce cases to add pressure on one of the spouses. Recently, the wife of a county Sheriff (Benton County, WA) pulled the red flag law on him during a messy divorce. The Sheriff had to turn over all his guns and work unarmed until his lawyers straightened it out. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Any government policy should be judged based upon the incentives it creates, not the supposed good intentions of its creators and cheerleaders.
I think “red flag” laws are going to lead to violent tragedies (assuming that hasn’t already happened and is going unreported). Imagine you’re a police precinct captain or a sheriff, and you’ve just been handed one of these “emergency” orders to enforce. It’s essentially saying that the named person is a crazy dangerous person who has guns. So are you just going to send one Officer Friendly to politely knock on the person’s door? If the person says “I don’t have any guns” are you going to believe him?
I doubt it.