We have all seen the headlines that Sheriff’s in select jurisdictions and declining to enforce so called “red flag” laws and declaring their counties to be second amendment sanctuaries. The term sanctuary would seem to lump coddling wetbacks and citizens availing themselves of 2nd amendment guarantees in the same basket. This is wrong. Here is an example of the Colorado efforts.
First and foremost the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not confer any right on citizens. The Constitution is a blueprint for how government is supposed to work. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government’s power to interfere with its citizens.
Those communities giving sanctuary to wetbacks are shielding criminals and usurping the authority of the Federal government. According to them, the Federal government is the only entity capable of enforcing immigration law. If that is the case, where do the sanctuary communities get the authority to impose their take on immigration?
Under the Colorado Red Flag law no allegation of criminal conduct is required. The person making the allegation doesn’t have to appear or even identify themselves. What happened to the Sixth Amendment and the right to confront one’s accuser?
The accuser’s allegations must meet the “preponderance of evidence” standard. The standard the accused must meet is called “clear and convincing,” this is a higher level than the preponderance of evidence. Neither rises to the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” required for a criminal conviction. The reason for this is that the whole procedure is a civil action” and falls outside a criminal prosecution.
A court affirming a “red flag” allegation has the authority to issue a search warrant to seize the guns, but not to arrest the possessor. How is law enforcement expected to accomplish this task? I guess we could send a letter. New Zealand has issued a call for citizens to turn in their guns. Out of an estimated million plus guns in New Zealand, the police have taken possession of thirty-five firearms. Guess public appeals are out.
The process set out is ass backwards. According to Colorado’s Red Flag law, the first step is to seize guns based on unchallenged allegations. Eventually, a hearing will be held to determine if the individual is dangerous. How will that be accomplished?
Can the judge compel a defendant to submit to a psychological examination? Psychologists being notorious whores, how hard is it to find one with an entirely different conclusion? Hell, ask the same mental health professional the same question about the same person two weeks apart and the two answers are likely to be diametrically opposed.
Since this is a civil proceeding the defendant is not entitled to an attorney. What happens to the firearms? The court can order on the ability of the defendant to possess firearms for up to a year. That means that the firearms remain the property of the defendant and that the law enforcement agency is responsible for the security and maintenance of the firearms.
No matter what the anti-gun advocates say below is probably a million dollar gun collection. The agency that seizes these guns has to ensure that they return the gun collection in the same condition, as when they were received. Fat chance.
The faulty premise is that an inanimate object is responsible for the damage done by irresponsible, crazy or criminal people.
We Don’t Need No Stinkin Guns To Commit Mass Murder
The liberal lesbian couple, pictured below, were investigated by child welfare authorities in three states without any action. A coroners court has ruled that both mommies and six kids died in a murder suicide. No guns, just a GMC SUV, a cliff and the ocean.
They had been lauded as an example of successful multiculturalism. The kids represented a kaleidoscope or races and ethnicities. It’s a good thing the couple didn’t practice cultural appropriation. Had they done so, under South Texas wetback practices they could have fit another twenty-five passengers into the SUV.