Those who have followed this blog are aware of my personal experience of a "red flag law" in California brought on by a vindictive ex.
I'm not going to go into that again, but such laws have been used as revenge against political opponents and vindictive exes.
John Stossel has penned an article at Townhall.com on the insidious operational dynamics of "red flag laws". The U.S. Senate is now debating a gun control package that gives states incentives of moolah if they enact red flag laws.
He begins with:
Part of the “gun control” package of new laws now being debated in the U.S. Senate includes possible grant monies for states to develop their own versions of a “red flag” law—by which a petition to a state court can result in an order for the temporary removal of firearms from a person who a judge believes may present a danger to others or themselves. About two-fifths of the states and the District of Columbia now have some form of a red flag law, while one state (Oklahoma) passed an “anti-red flag law” in 2020.
Supporters of the 2nd Amendment have backlashed particularly against the “red flag” component of the Senate’s proposed gun control package because, first, that Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”; and, second, because they fear that red flag laws will quickly lead to a denial of due process in the confiscation of legally possessed firearms. Given the Democrat Party’s ultimate end game of disarming American citizens, the outcry is quite understandable.
To read the full article, go here.
No comments:
Post a Comment