Liberal Democrats are rushing headlong into enacting "red flag" laws, legislatively known as "Extreme Risk Protection Orders" and thereby turning law enforcement officers into "Gestapo" agents.
These "red flag" laws violate the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) and the Fourth Amendment (prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures) of people not convicted or accused of any crime, but just going by the "say so" of a petitioner. I have first-hand experience of this.
They also violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.From Bongino.com:
In the past legislative cycle, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Nevada, New York and Washington enacted or strengthened laws that allow law enforcement and courts to seize weapons from individuals. Currently, 17 states have “red flag” laws. Although each state define their respective law differently, they all lead to dangerous consequences.
The “Red Flag” laws create a modern day Crucible. As Colorado attorney and author Michael Sabbeth writes, Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GRVOs) and Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), generically known as ‘Red Flag’ laws, are such policies that luminously disclose their intent.”
Therefore, the laws’ “unintended consequences” are actually the intended consequences of liberal lawmakers. Sabbeth goes on to say:
Presently drafted Red Flag laws are a toxic stew of Constitutional abuses and wasp’s nest of procedural requirements that will predictably lead to violence without any societal benefit. Their defects have been persuasively presented in many insightful articles crafted by Second Amendment and gun violence data experts…
Additionally, he notes that “Uniquely frightening and not addressed sufficiently is enthusiasm with which legislators and advocates trash our Constitution and dismiss foreseeable harm.”
The red flag legislation assumes that its many component systems will work flawlessly: that petitioners will be honest and moral; that judges will act Constitutionally and without bias; that police executing search warrants will be restrained and disciplined; that homeowners will be reasonable under high-stress circumstances; that guns will be stored without theft or damage; and that firearms will be efficiently returned when appropriate. Prudent functioning of these components is unlikely. The legislators know this.Of course, New Mexico Governor "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham doesn't give a rat's behind about people's constitutional rights.
In the Silver City Daily Press:
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said Friday she will not abide lack of enforcement by any sheriff or other local government official who opposes a new law intended to reduce gun violence.
Her comments came during a press conference at which she defended her support of Senate Bill 5, which cleared the Legislature on Thursday and which she intends to sign into law, adding New Mexico to the list of states that have passed what are called “red flag” laws.
The measure will allow authorities to petition courts to temporarily remove firearms from someone deemed a threat to themselves or others.
“If just one life is saved, if one potential [dangerous] situation is averted, then we’re doing our job,” she told reporters.
Her comments came after news that Lea County Sheriff Corey Helton told people at a Eunice City Hall meeting Monday he would rather go to jail than enforce the law, which he thinks is unconstitutional.
She called such reactions to the legislation simply “emotional responses to not winning.”
Law enforcement officials, she said, “swear an oath and they don’t get to be policymakers.”So, to save "one life" justifies the trampling the constitutional rights of everyone else? Definitely skewed "logic" on her part. Thank God we have sheriffs like Sheriff Helton!
Part of those oaths she refers to include defending the Constitution of the United States. If a law or ordinance is repugnant to the Constitution, is cannot be enforced. “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void,” written by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
If Gov. Grisham doesn't have a copy of Marbury v. Madison, I'd be happy to send her one. This offer also includes a copy of the U.S. Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment