AG Nominee Pam Bondi and the 2nd Amendment

Pam Bondi, President-Elect Trump's pick for attorney general, has a mixed record on gun rights. That has caused concern with Second Amendment groups.

The Reload has posted an article on her confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate and her stance on the Second Amendment.

The article begins with:

President-elect Donald Trump’s Attorney General nominee defended her record on gun policy during her confirmation hearing.

On Wednesday, Pam Bondi told the Senate she stood by her record on guns. When Senator Alex Padilla (D., Calif.) questioned her, Bondi emphasized that she has “always been pro-Second Amendment.” However, she also said she’d follow applicable laws.

“I am an advocate for the Second Amendment, but I will enforce the laws of the land,” Bondi said.

When Senator Padilla asked if she’d support raising the minimum age for firearm purchases, implementing “Red Flag” laws, and passing universal background checks, she didn’t commit one way or the other. Instead, she offered to follow up with him after the hearing.

“I would be glad to meet with you and review any legislation you have, Senator,” Bondi responded.

To read more, go here. 

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. 

Biden Threatening 2nd Amendment Again

His Fraudulency Joe Biden is once again threatening our Second Amendment rights. 

Following some recent mass shootings, Biden took the opportunity call for a ban on so-called "assault weapons" during the lame-duck session of congress.

Townhall reported:

President Joe Biden and his Democrat constituents are threatening to take America’s Second Amendment away by attempting to pass a bill that would ban assault rifles during the lame-duck session before the next Congress forms. 

On Thanksgiving, Biden reiterated his support for stricter gun laws, saying that it is “ridiculous” that red flag laws were not being enforced throughout the country. 

“No. 2, the idea … we still allow semi-automatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no socially redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers,” Biden said. 

A reporter then asked the president if he would attempt to sign new gun laws with Republicans in control of the House next year, in which Biden said that he would make that assessment as he counts votes.

“I'm going to try,” Biden said, adding “I’m going to try to get rid of assault weapons.”

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. 

Tucker Carlson On Red Flag Laws and Guns

Longtime readers of this blog are aware that an ex-girlfriend filed a restraining order against me several years ago. As part of that restraining order application, there is a provision which forced me to surrender my firearms. This is California's red flag law. 

She was accusing me of stalking her following our break-up. Never mind that I was imposed no-contact with her and actually was avoiding her. Her case fell apart in a court hearing when I presented evidence that I was actually avoiding her and she and her friends (flying monkeys) were stalking me. I got my guns back at some expense (getting an attorney to defend me).

Now, the Democrats and 10 senate RINO Republicans have come to a framework agreement of a gun control bill that includes red flag provisions.

Yesterday, Tucker Carlson on Fox News discusses why red flag laws are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Here's the video:

NRA and Gun Owners of America Respond To Gun Bill

Gun rights groups responded to the bipartisan gun control bill yesterday after it was announced that 10 RINO Republican senators crossed over to support it.

From The Epoch Times:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) both issued statements Sunday after a bipartisan group of senators announced they’d reached an agreement on a gun control and safety package.

“Here we go again, Republican legislators compromising your rights and getting nothing in return,” GOA wrote in a Twitter post, referring to proposals in the framework deal. “Federal dollars to bribe your state legislators into enacting unconstitutional ‘red flag’ laws, which could allow a court to seize your weapons, without any due process, simply based on anonymous tips.”

It added that the bill would entail “wait periods and extensive review for those under 21 seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights … we will not allow the government to make those who can vote and fight our wars second class citizens.”

The proposal, which has the backing of 10 Republicans in the Senate, includes initiatives to support state crisis intervention orders, an enhanced review process for gun buyers under the age of 21, expansions on various mental health programs, a ban on straw purchases, and other measures.

After having experienced the California "red flag" confiscation law several years ago from a vindictive ex, I also have to oppose any measure that promotes them. Fortunately for me, there was enough evidence to refute the claims made and I got my guns back. Red flag laws have been abused by vindictive ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends out for revenge. You can expect more of this if more red flag laws are enacted.

To read the full article, 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.

Georgia Democrat Senate Candidate Supports Semi-Auto Ban and "High Capacity" Magazine Ban

Right now, the GOP is maintaining control of the U.S. Senate (thank God, for it is a buffer against radical leftist legislation originating from the House of Representatives).

All that could change if the two senate seats up for election (one a runoff and one a special election) go to the Democrats.

The candidate in the runoff campaign is an anti-Second Amendment leftist (although he says he "supports" the Second Amendment).

According to American Military News:

Jon Ossoff, a candidate for one of Georgia’s two runoff senate elections, said on his campaign website that he supports a ban on semi-automatic rifles, which he referred to as “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity magazines,” as well as “red flag” confiscation laws.

Ossoff stated in his gun policy platform, “I support the Second Amendment and I respect the overwhelming majority of gun owners who recognize that guns aren’t toys; they are lethal and dangerous tools.” Ossoff then listed a number of gun policy proposals he supports, including the ban on semi-automatic rifles and magazines over a certain capacity.

Ossoff is headed for a runoff election with, Sen. David Purdue (R-GA) on Jan. 5, 2021. The runoff race comes after Purdue led with 49.7 percent of the vote to Ossoff’s 48 percent of the vote. Georgia’s election laws require a candidate to run a majority of votes to win a race outright, otherwise, the race goes to a runoff. The race between Purdue and Ossoff is taking place while Georgia’s other Senate seat is also headed to a runoff after a special election.

“I support a ban on the sale of semi-automatic rifles (“assault weapons”) and high-capacity magazines to the general public,” Ossoff said in his gun policy platform. However, he did not describe what capacity qualifies gun magazines to be “high-capacity.”

As if that's really going to fly in Georgia. But you never know in this wacky year.

To read more, go here.