California's New Law Legalized Gun Confiscation — No Crime Required!

Moving out of Commiefornia in 2018 was the smartest thing I could have done.

Two years prior, I was served with a restraining order by a vindictive ex-girlfriend which included the order to turn over my firearms to either the police to a gun dealer. 

I had to get an attorney and fight the order. I had plenty of evidence to prove that I had not contacted the ex and shown that I have actually avoided her. I was able to get my firearms back eventually. This was my introduction to a so-called "red flag law". 

Now, the Commies in Commiefornia led by Gov. Gavin Newscum have a new gun confiscation law that is even worse for gun owners.

Gun News produced the following video discussing this new law.

Its summary:

California has taken its war on gun rights to a new level. Governor Gavin Newsom just signed Assembly Bill 1344, giving District Attorneys the power to confiscate firearms under expanded red-flag laws—even when no crime has been committed. In this video, I break down what AB 1344 really does, how it creates a dangerous precedent for due process, and why this so-called “pilot program” could spread nationwide.

We’ll expose the UC Davis Firearm Violence Research Center’s role, the counties involved, and how prosecutors can now strip citizens of their rights before trial. This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. Watch closely, because what starts in California rarely stays there.

 

19 Attorneys General Opposing DOJ Gun Confiscation Program

19 attorneys general are opposing the Biden Administration's "red flag" gun confiscation program and are urging the DOJ to scrap it. 

I have personal experience with California's "red flag" law brought on through a restraining order by a vindictive ex-girlfriend. It was dismissed during a court hearing as I had proof that there was no basis for the restraining order.

According to the Highland County Press:

COLUMBUS – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 18 other state attorneys general are opposing a new federal program that promotes aggressive enforcement of “red flag” gun-confiscation laws.

Yost and his counterparts argue in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, launched in March by the Department of Justice, undermines the Second Amendment and other fundamental rights in a flawed attempt to reduce gun violence.

“The solution to gun violence is not more bureaucracy, and it is certainly not parting otherwise law-abiding men and women from their right to self-defense,” Yost said.

The state attorneys general raise several concerns with the ERPO Resource Center, most notably how the program advocates for laws that allow government officials to “suspend fundamental rights under the Second Amendment with no genuine due process."

So-called “red flag” laws permit authorities to seek court orders authorizing the confiscation of firearms from people thought to pose a danger. Twenty-one states have enacted such laws; Ohio is not among them.

Another issue is whether the DOJ had authority to create the program in the first place. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, cited by the department as the impetus for the ERPO Resource Center, makes no mention of such a program. In fact, the letter says, that funding from the 2022 federal law was supposed to go to states and local governments.

To read more, go here. 

Ruling: Disarming Those Under Protective Orders Violates Second Amendment

Well, it looks like red flag laws around the country may not be around too much longer. 

As one who was subjected to a California red flag law in a restraining order by a vindictive ex, I am very much interested in this case. 

The Texas Tribune reported:

A Texas federal judge declared it was unconstitutional to disarm someone who is under a protective order, setting into motion a likely legal fight over who can possess firearms — a move that advocates say could have wide-ranging impacts on gun access across the county.

U.S. District Judge David Counts, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, ruled last week that banning those under a protective order from possessing a gun infringes on their Second Amendment rights.

Judges who deem people a danger to family members or intimate partners can take the extra step to issue a protective order requiring people to relinquish the guns they already have. Federal law currently prohibits domestic abusers who are charged with a felony, misdemeanor or are under a protective order from possessing a gun.

The ruling comes months after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on the Second Amendment, the effects of which, legal experts say, are just beginning to be felt.

This is one case we'll have to keep an close watch on.

To read more, go here. 

Support of Red Flag Laws Drops Once People Find Out The Details

There is no question that I am steadfastly opposed to red flag laws since I was subjected to California's six years ago. My outcome came out fine, but at some expense. I found out firsthand that red flag laws can and are abused by vengeful people.

Polls have been showing that the general public like the idea about red flag laws. But a new study shows that once people, who were favorable, find out the details, they change their minds. They see that rights of due process are violated.

Yahoo! News reported:

A new study shows that the attitude of Americans toward red flag laws, where guns are taken away from citizens by a judge who determines they are a danger to themselves or others, dramatically changes from support to opposition when more detail is provided in the poll question about the process of gun confiscation via the legal process.

The recently released study of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center initially showed that 58% of people support red flag laws when told the "primary purpose is to allow judges to take away a person’s gun based on a single complaint when there is a concern about that individual committing suicide."

When respondents were told there are no hearings where a defendant presents their case to a judge before their gun rights are taken away and mental health experts are not involved in the process, the 58% support drops down to 30% with 47% opposing.

To read more, go here. 

How Red Flag Laws Harm Peaceable People

 From actor James Woods on Twitter:

As James Wood said with the above image:

Thank you, RINO traitors…

Insidious Operational Dynamics of Gun Confiscation Laws

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. 

NRA-ILA: Red Flag Orders Enable Political Abuse

After having been subjected to a "red flag" retaliatory abusive action by a vindictive ex, I know first hand how "red flag laws" can be used against ordinary citizens.

The NRA-ILA is pointing out how those same laws can also be used against political opponents.

They begin with:

So-called “Red Flag” orders, or Emergency Risk Protection Orders, are designed to empower the government to confiscate Americans’ firearms without due process of law. Aside from allowing run-of-the-mill malicious actors to indulge personal grudges against law-abiding gun owners, in the current politically-charged environment these laws enable the government to target those with First Amendment-protected political views the government disfavors.

Gun owners can be certain Red Flag laws will be abused in this manner, because a prominent gun control advocate has made clear his desire to do so.

On October 11, 2019, a person tweeted out a video of Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro in which the conservative political commentator expressed his willingness to defend his family in his own home with a firearm.

Failed Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) retweeted the video, along with the statement, “Please tell me this lunatic does not own a gun. Reason 1,578 America needs red flag laws.” This was not the first time Swalwell expressed a desire to abuse government power to attack his political enemies. In 2018, the congressman suggested using nuclear weapons on Americans who resist firearm confiscation.

To read more, go here. 

Red Flags Stand For Tyranny

As sure as the run rises in the east and sets in the west, the Democrats are beating their drums for more gun control (i.e., disarming responsible gun owners) instead of going after the criminals. 

They are again (not that they've ever stopped) pushing more "red flag laws" on everyone following Uvalde, Texas. Red flag laws are an easy tool to abuse. I should know, it happened to me six years ago by a vengeful ex.

American Thinker has posted an article on red flag laws, equating them to tyranny.

They begin with:

Anti-liberty leftists repeatedly try gaslighting to advance their obvious goal of confiscating guns. Their latest push for “red flag” laws is no different.

Following the recent tragedy in Uvalde, the anti-liberty left didn’t waste any time blaming innocent gun owners. They immediately began talking about “red flag” laws, which sound merely helpful but which are, in fact, unconstitutional gun grabs under another name.

This is a typical leftist tactic: avoiding certain words because they would convey what is really taking place. Democrats routinely have their best wordsmiths conjure up soft language for wholesale gun confiscation. Start with those so-called “red flag” orders, which imply a government promise to confront serious dangers. Now that the people have become wise to this crass word manipulation, they’ve even starting to roll out a new version: “Yellow flag” orders. It’s got all the unconstitutional gun confiscation as before, but with a slightly brand new name.

To read more, go here.

California Has The Most Comprehensive US Gun Confiscation Rules

Californians lost a great opportunity to be rid of radical leftist Gov. Gavin Newsom during the recent recall election.

Newsom signed 15-gun related laws, including one that expands the state's restraining order "red flag" law. It is so bad that even the ACLU opposes it and ex-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it twice.

Well, that's what happens when a state becomes a one-party state comprised of radical leftists. I'm glad I left.

The Shepherd of the Hills Gazette reported:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – California Governor Gavin Newsom signed law Friday that will allow the state to be the first to allow employers, employees and teachers to seek injunctions against gun violence against other people.

The bill has been twice opposed by former Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, and goes beyond a measure he signed that only allows law enforcement officers and immediate family members to order judges to temporarily take away people’s guns if they pose a threat to themselves be viewed, or others.

Newsom is also a Democrat and has signed an accompanying law allowing gun violence to be extended for one to five years, although gun owners could request to end those restrictions sooner.

The new laws are among the 15 gun-related laws Newsom approved as the state strengthens the nation’s toughest restrictions named the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  

The measure was opposed by gun owners’ rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU said the bill “poses a significant threat to civil liberties” as orders can be requested before gun owners have a chance to appeal.

 To read the full article, go here.

Secret Google Map Tracks Your Movements All The Time

Above, this is what the Google Location History looks like.

A few years ago, a vindictive ex accused me of stalking her. She even filed a restraining order against me. In a way, it was amusing because I was actually avoiding her. If anyone was stalking, it was her and her "flying monkeys".

Since I was a California resident at the time and the state has a red flag law, I had to turn in my firearms according to the restraining order. 

Fortunately, I had evidence that her claims were totally bogus and was able to successfully defend myself in court and get my firearms back. One of the most helpful pieces of evidence in my favor was the Google Location History feature of my cell phone.

With that, I was able to prove that I was nowhere near her on the dates and times she stated in her restraining order petition. 

This was one case where the Google Location History came in quite handy. Prior to this, I had no idea my phone had this feature. 

But, there are some who feel that having one's movements being secretly tracked is unnerving (to say the least). If so, it can be turned off.

According to The Hill:

A hidden Google feature has tracked your location for years.

Google’s Location History feature, an account-wide service which logs your movements through your smartphone, has stored the real-world comings and goings of millions of users since it was introduced in 2009.

While the knowledge that your movements are being monitored by one of the world’s largest tech companies may be unsettling, it’s not likely that it's being done to further some nefarious agenda, and Location History was designed to be helpful.

Google says it can provide a better service if it knows where you’ve been, giving you more detailed commute advice, recommendations based on places you’ve visited, and more relevant advertisements.  

Still, if this news makes you want to rush to turn Google Location History off, you’re not alone, and there are some major privacy risks to having your location data stored online. That’s why Google has said its Location History feature is switched off by default and can only be activated with a user’s permission.

 To read more, go here.

AmmoLand: The American-Communist’s Gun Confiscation Bill

The Democrats are hell-bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights and have introduced a bill that will federalize so-called "red-flag laws".

Writer Dan Wos explains the dangers of H.R. 2377 in a video and article in AmmoLand.

According to the article: 

H.R.2377 otherwise known as the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2021” has been written by the Biden Administration and the Attorney General and introduced into Congress on April 8th, 2021 by Democrat Representative Lucy McBath with 114 co-sponsors (all Democrats).

Should this bill be signed into law, it would give practically anyone the ability to petition the court and have guns taken away from others.

The ability to petition the court is granted to any family or household members, roommates of the respondent, (including former household members), and law-enforcement officers. All the petitioner has to do is submit an affidavit accusing the respondent of posing a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or herself or another individual by purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

Just a simple accusation is all that’s necessary to enact an ex parte gun confiscation. Ex parte allows one party to make an accusation and law enforcement to execute a gun confiscation without granting the accused the right to respond.

We can imagine how destructive this would be should it be used as a tool for revenge by ex-spouses, former roommates, and angry former boyfriends/girlfriends. There is also the concern that this law would be used as a tool to disarm and render helpless an abused person in a relationship.

If H.R.2377 becomes law, all gun owners will be subjected to the risk of their guns being confiscated from their homes without due process.

I was subjected to a California red-flag law five years ago by a vindictive ex. I was able to get all my guns back, but it was a hassle.

To read more and see the video, go here.

Guns: Democrats Keep Pushing to Eliminate American's Due Process Rights

The Democrats are at it again (not that they've ever stopped). 

They are out trying to eliminate due process rights of people in order to confiscate their guns even under the flimsiest of reasons.

John R. Lott, Jr. writes in Townhall.com:

Everyone wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. To some, the obvious solution lies in Red Flag laws, also called Extreme Risk Protection Orders, that enable easy confiscation. The expansion of entitlements bill before Congress already contains $2.5 billion in incentives for states to adopt these laws, but the House Judiciary Committee, of which one of the authors is a member, will vote on a federal bill on Wednesday.

The votes will be along party lines, but it isn’t as if Democrats care about stopping violence and Republicans don’t. You would never know this from the media coverage, but the opposite is true.

All states and the federal government already have laws on the books that deal with people who are a danger to themselves or others. These laws are commonly known as Baker Act statutes, though they go by different names in different states. They allow police, doctors, and family members to have someone held for a 72-hour mental health examination based upon a simple reasonableness test – merely an educated guess or hunch.

These laws focus on mental illness, and they require that mental healthcare experts evaluate the individual. If a person can’t afford a lawyer, a public defender is provided. While judges can choose to involuntarily commit individuals who they believe are dangers to themselves or others, there is a broad range of other, less extreme options that involve monitoring or mental care.

But instead of using these laws, 17 states have now adopted Red Flag laws. Thirteen states adopted them since 2018, after the infamous Parkland, Fla. high school shooting. While Red Flag laws are discussed as mental health measures and are often promoted to prevent suicide, only one state’s law even mentions mental illness. None of the states require that a mental-health expert be involved in evaluating the person. The only option given to judges is to take away a person’s guns. 

When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing and the worst that can happen is their guns will be taken away, few people find that it makes sense to fight Red Flag laws. Under Red Flag laws, initial firearms confiscations usually require just a “reasonable suspicion.” Judges will initially confiscate a person’s guns on the basis of a written complaint. When hearings take place weeks or a month later, courts overturn a third of the initial orders. But since few defendants have legal representation, the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher.

It is a sure bet that none of the red flag laws already on the books in states have no protections for people who are victims of an vindictive ex out for revenge, which is what happened to me a few years ago.

If, what the article says is correct, the vote is to take place today. Contact your representatives and urge a no vote.

To read more, go here.

Second Amendment: More Important Now Than Ever

Above, yours truly at home in New Mexico.

After the highly questionable election results of last year (and that's putting it mildly), the left-wing Democrats have been hell-bent on chipping away our Second Amendment rights through legislation in congress and in various state legislatures.

Fortunately, gun rights people have been fighting back.

The American Thinker has a new article on why the Second Amendment is more important now than ever.

They begin it with:

The tyrants are in charge, and they want your guns.

While the left has denied it for decades, anyone who pays attention knows that the ill-named "progressives" want to totally eliminate the Second Amendment.  Period.  The so-called "red flag" laws popping up around the country, as well as the gun-hating zealot nominated by Biden to head the ATF, are just two examples of Marxism's accelerated drive to disarm law-abiding citizens.  It won't be long before the Democrats attempt to push through a gun registration law, always the final step before total confiscation.

We can't allow this to happen.  We can hope that Republicans in Congress, aided by a handful of rational Democrats (assuming there are any left), will make a stand...but don't hold your breath.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS Rules Gun Seizure Violated Man's Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court did something right for a change. 

In an unanimous ruling, they upheld a person's 4th Amendment rights in a case involving seizure of a man's guns from his home without a warrant.

This could put a major crimp on "red flag" laws that liberals have been pushing.

The Boston Globe reported:

PROVIDENCE — The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that police in Rhode Island violated a Cranston man’s constitutional rights by seizing his guns without a warrant amid fears that he would kill himself.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the unanimous high court, rejecting lower court arguments that the “community caretaking” exception to the warrant requirement allowed officers to seize the guns based on legitimate safety concerns for the man and his wife.

In a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, the Supreme Court had ruled that police may search a motor vehicle without first getting a warrant if they’re engaged in a “community caretaking” function rather than investigating a crime.

But Thomas said that searches of homes and vehicles are different from a constitutional standpoint.

“The very core of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee is the right of a person to retreat into his or her home and ‘there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion,’ ” he wrote. “A recognition of the existence of ‘community caretaking’ tasks, like rendering aid to motorists in disabled vehicles, is not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.”

To read more, go here. 

The Looming Gun Control Showdown

Radical leftist Democrats in congress are planning to pass gun control bills now that they control both the House and Senate as well as the White House.

A showdown (or showdowns) is looming.

Forbes takes a look at the upcoming battle over Second Amendment rights.

Some snippets:

Gun control rhetoric from Dems is nothing new, but by holding slim majorities in the House and Senate and with Biden in the White House, they’re feeling emboldened that now is the time to move on a wide variety of gun control measures that had heretofore been stymied by a gun-friendly Trump administration and Republican majorities in at least one of two legislative bodies.

Mostly missing in the national political debate over guns, however, is where law enforcement stands regarding their willingness to enforce proposed or newly enacted gun laws. As Colorado legislators discovered in 2019 and 2020 when ‘red flag’ legislation passed—designed to allow police to seize guns from people suspected of posing a significant danger to themselves or others—laws are meaningless without enforcement.  

Dozens of the state’s 64 sheriffs publicly proclaimed the bill unconstitutional and refused to enforce the new law, with roughly half of the state’s county governments passing resolutions stating that they do not support enforcing such laws or will not, “infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as one county board phrased it.

Sheriff Steve Reams of Colorado’s rural Weld County became one of the leading voices opposing the legislation and he made the rounds on the national news talk-show circuit to share his sentiments. “If a judge issues an order saying a person can’t possess weapons, and also compels law enforcement to perform a search warrant to seek out those guns,” said Reams, “I believe that’s a violation of a person’s constitutional rights. I have a hard choice at that point. I can potentially violate someone’s constitutional rights. Or I can violate a court order. I would rather be on the side of violating a court order than someone’s rights.”

At the center of gun rights advocate’s concerns regarding red flag laws is the lack of meaningful due process. “What if a disgruntled ex-lover has a vendetta against their former significant other and wants to use these laws as retaliation?” asks George Brauchler [This actually happened to me five years ago. - A.], former District Attorney for Colorado’s Douglas, Arapahoe, Elbert and Lincoln counties, who narrowly lost a bid to become the state’s Attorney General and who has prosecuted some of the nation’s most notorious mass shootings, including the Columbine High School and Aurora Theater massacres. “We expect our justice system to make an abuse of our laws nearly impossible to achieve. Many of these red flag laws do not. A person unfairly targeted by someone using a red flag law isn’t given a fair chance to defend themselves in the court of law before a judge can call for the confiscation of their firearms. There is more due process protecting your privilege to drive than your right to bear arms.”

To read more, go here. 

Allen West: Attacks On Second Amendment Trigger Tyranny

Col. Allen West has penned an article on Joe Biden's and the Democrat Party's attacks on our Second Amendment rights through various means over at Townhall.com.

He begins it with:

The election swept in a legion of Second Amendment foes. Americans can expect them to take James Madison’s statement that disarming the people is “the best and most effective way to enslave them” as less of a warning and more of a directive. 

During the campaign, Joe Biden was asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper if a Biden administration would mean “they are going to come for my guns,” and Biden responded, “Bingo.” 

Vice President Harris proudly supports “mandatory buy-backs” which is just a euphemism for outright confiscation. 

President Biden’s Domestic Policy Council Chair Susan Rice announced that the Administration will partner with gun-grabbing organizations. And Judge Merrick Garland, President Biden’s nominee for Attorney General, has a long judicial history of suppressing Second Amendment rights. 

The freedom to possess firearms will be attacked by the feds and the states through legislation, taxation, punitive fees, red flag laws, and pressure on banks and credit card companies. The restrictions will be aimed, as they always are, at law-abiding citizens and not the criminals responsible for gun violence. 

To read more, go here.

 

California AG Wants To Extend "Red Flag Law" To 90 Days

This goes into the Never Let a Good Crisis Go To Waste file.

Every time news from California about actions detrimental to our constitutional rights, the more glad I am that I moved out of the state.

While still living in California, I experienced the state's "red flag" temporary Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) due to a vengeful ex.

Now, according to the NRA-ILA, the GVRO may be extended allegedly due to the coronavirus. Naturally, the radical left-wing attorney general, Xavier Becerra, wants to extend the time of the GVRO.

They wrote:

Yesterday, the California Attorney General sent out a press release on domestic violence issues related to the COVID-19 crisis.  Included in his release was an automatic extension of up to 90 days for temporary Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO) that have not yet had a formal hearing.  This move highlights a major problem with GVRO/Red flag laws: a person can lose their rights with no due process, and in this case, the deprivation can be extended with the stroke of a pen by an anti-gun bureaucrat. 

Under current law, a temporary GVRO automatically expires 21 days after it is issued. State law also requires a full hearing to take place within the 21 day period. It is only at the full hearing that due process protections apply, where an individual has the right to counsel and to be heard on the allegations before the court.  However, with emergency powers invoked by the Governor and such authority extended to the judicial branch during the COVID-19 crisis, hearings can now be postponed for up to 90 days, resulting in some temporary orders being in effect for up to 110 days.  

If this could happen in California, where Democrats have total control of the state government, it can happen in other states. So much for due process and constitutional rights.

To read more, go here.

Help New Mexico Sheriffs Fight "Red Flag" Law

Above, NMSSA President Zac Fort at the January 31 Second Amendment Rally. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

A message from New Mexico Shooting Sports Association President Zac Fort:

After the passage of SB5, it was clear that legal action would be the next step to fight against "Red-Flag" gun confiscation orders. Through discussions with an attorney, we were advised that our best shot at stopping the law would be through a lawsuit brought by a party with "standing" to sue. This would likely mean that we would have to wait for someone to be "red-flagged" to file suit. However, New Mexico Sheriffs already have standing to sue as they are a party to the orders - they don't have to wait for the law to go into effect. Our Sheriffs have been steadfast in fighting against anti-gun and anti-freedom legislation, and we trust their efforts to stop the "Red-Flag" law from going into effect. NMSSA is committed to helping the Sheriffs with this lawsuit as this is our best shot at stopping the law. To this end, we are helping the New Mexico Sheriff's Association fund-raise to cover the cost of the lawsuit. You can help by becoming a member of the New Mexico Sheriff's Association or making a donation to them, you do not need to be a law enforcement officer to be a member of their association. 

This link will take you to their membership form and information to donate: http://nmsheriffs.org/membership/

I sent my regular membership form and dues today. 

NM Sheriffs Preparing "Red Flag Law" Lawsuit

Above, Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace at the Second Amendment
Rally at the Roundhouse on January 31. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

As reported on this blog previously, the state of New Mexico can expect a lawsuit over the new "red flag" law that Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham signed into law.

Right now, the state's sheriffs are preparing for such a lawsuit.

According to Bearing Arms:

Cibola County, New Mexico Sheriff Tony Mace says he and other sheriffs from around the state are meeting with attorneys this week as they get ready to file suit over the state’s new red flag law, signed last week by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. 

During the signing ceremony, Grisham said that sheriffs who weren’t prepared to enforce the new law should resign, but Sheriff Mace and other sheriffs are taking the matter to court instead. Mace tells me that the sheriffs will be holding meetings with several different attorneys over the next few weeks to discuss litigation strategies before filing suit to block the law from taking effect. 

Mace believes the new law infringes on the rights of residents in New Mexico, and not just their right to keep and bear arms. He says the law establishes a bizarre “civil search warrant” process that violates the Fourth Amendment, and the seizure of firearms of those who’ve not been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one, is also a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s taking clause. 

In addition to the constitutional issues at stake, there’s also the pragmatic argument against red flag laws. As Sheriff Mace points out, when someone has been deemed by a court (in a one-sided hearing) to be a danger to themselves or others, the law gives the individual in question 48 hours to turn over their guns. Seems kind of odd to give a dangerous person two entire days to do dangerous things, does it not? And of course, once the firearms are seized, the dangerous person is left to their own devices. Their knives aren’t confiscated. Neither are their car keys. It’s only the guns that are taken away under a red flag law. The dangerous person is left behind, without any mental health treatment at all.

To read more, go here. 

ACLU Agrees: Red Flag Laws Violate Civil Rights

Who'd have thunk?

According to an article in the American Gun News, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) agrees that "red flag" gun laws violate civil rights.

The article states (in part):

The primary tool anti-gunners have found to get around the Second Amendment is the most controversial – red flag laws. Red flag laws enable ex-girlfriends, neighbors, old bosses, and distant family relatives to get local police to confiscate your firearms without you doing one thing wrong. All they have to do is say they fear you are a danger to yourself and/or others, and you own firearms. 

There is no due process. Armed police will enter your home and take your firearms – just like in Nazi Germany. 

The totalitarian measure has a singular source: Far-left anti-gunners. Many of them are funded by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his billions via Everytown for Gun Safety and political funding. Bloomberg and other anti-gunners like him want to disarm civilized society, much like New York City does its most to disarm its law-abiding residents. 

While there is a singular source backing extremist laws like red flag laws, a diverse group opposes them. The one uniting principle is a simple and very potent one: Red flag laws violate civil rights. Specifically, they violate the rights to due process, self-defense, and the Second Amendment. 

The ACLU cautions against red flag laws and their “impact on civil liberties, and the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals, not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.” 

The ACLU says red flag laws enable a court to violate civil rights without any real evidence someone is an “imminent threat.” The simple, unfounded fear that someone might cause harm to others without any evidence of prior history or overt threats of firearms violence is all it takes to violate civil rights under red flag laws.

To read more, go here.