Red flag laws violate both the Second Fifth Amendments (guaranteeing due process of law), but that means little to modern “jurists.” From Chuck Baldwin at lewrockwell.com:
As I said in this column last week, Republicans Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are joining forces with liberal Democrats to soon enact “red flag” gun confiscation laws. I also reported on the push for the enactment of other gun control measures such as universal background checks being promoted on Capitol Hill and by the White House here.
Yes, Donald Trump is calling for “red flag” gun confiscation laws and universal background checks. Trump said, “I have an appetite for background checks. We’re going to be doing background checks. We’re going to be filling in . . . the loopholes.”
I urge readers to watch my 8-minute video exposing Donald Trump’s betrayal of his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment and share it with as many of your friends as you can. If we don’t convince our U.S. senators to reject these egregious gun control measures, THEY WILL BE PASSED, AND TRUMP WILL SIGN THEM INTO LAW. We have about two or three weeks to convince our senators to reject these new gun control laws. That’s it.
Please watch the video and share it with everyone you can.
Most of the time when governments “do something,” it expands the power of the government and restricts the freedom of individuals. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings earlier this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something. Governments are animated by the belief that doing something — any demonstrable overt behavior — will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty.
When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread. The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.
Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.
Guns are the bedrock of our natural right to protect ourselves and have been so recognized by the Supreme Court. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
Last weekend’s mass murders in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, have produced a flood of words about everything from gun control to mental illness to white nationalism. Most of those words have addressed the right to keep and bear arms as if it were a gift from the government. It isn’t.
The Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its preexistence as an extension of our natural human right to self-defense and they forbade government — state and federal — from infringing upon it.
It would be exquisitely unfair, profoundly unconstitutional and historically un-American for the rights of law-abiding folks — “surrender that rifle you own legally and use safely because some other folks have used that same type of weapon criminally” — to be impaired in the name of public safety.
If somebody has an unaddressed hangnail somebody will take it as an argument for more government. Mass tragedies create an irresistible impetus for somebody, meaning the government, to do something. At the end of the article is a link to the El Paso shooter’s manifesto. From Paul Craig Robert at paulcraigroberts.org:
The unintended consequences of mass shootings and the attempts to use these shootings for various agendas can be far worse than the shootings themselves and ultimately endanger far more people.
I was listening to NPR this morning prior to President Trump’s 10 AM EST address on the shootings. NPR set Trump up for blame. Trump opposes illegal immigration and spoke of the 20,000 person caravan as “an invasion.” And so forth. And it wasn’t just NPR. As USA reported, while joining in the blame trump orchestration, “Media outlets around the country, and around the world, decried his [Trump’s] role in inspiring a shooter who gunned down 20 people.” US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D,TX) said: “All of this has happened because Hispanic people have been dehumanized. They have been dehumanized by the president, by his enablers, by other politicians.”
Rep. Escobar did not explain why and how a country’s defense of its borders constitutes dehumanization of those that the law requires to be kept out. Is the President of the United States, who is sworn to enforce the laws and Constitution of the US, supposed to violate the law? If the American people want open borders, they should inform their representatives and get a law passed that abolishes border controls. If Hispanics are dehumanized by being kept out, so are Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, and Venezuelans, all people declared to be national security threats to the US which employs a massive armed force to be sure these threats don’t invade us. Just imagine how we dehumanized the Japanese and Germans during World War II by keeping them from invading us.
Don’t deranged criminals who go on violent rampages and shoot innocent people know that their possession of firearms is violating the law? Does gun violence at home have anything to do with military violence abroad? From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
Upon hearing that a man dressed in a military-style outfit was shooting people with an assault rifle at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California on Sunday, I imagine that there were at least some Californians saying to themselves, “That’s impossible. It’s illegal in California to take an assault rifle into a public festival.” Indeed, according to Wikipedia, “The gun laws of California are some of the most restrictive in the United States.” So, what are gun-control advocates in California going to do now? Make their gun laws even more restrictive?
For 20 years, I have been writing that people who are going to kill other people with guns don’t give a hoot about gun laws. After all, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a person doesn’t care about obeying a law against murder, he’s not going to care about violating a law against taking an assault rifle into a food festival.
But ordinary, law-abiding people do care about obeying gun laws. That’s because many of these laws make it a felony offense to violate them. That means jail time, big fines, and a serious criminal record. Even when it’s just a misdemeanor offense, oftentimes a conviction can also mean jail time.
For most people, violating the law in order to have a means of self-defense is just not worth the risk. The chances of being caught in a place where some mass murderer is indiscriminately shooting people is relatively low and, therefore, not enough to justify the risk of a felony conviction if caught with, say, a concealed handgun for self-defense.
U.S.—Democrats have made vows to place extreme restrictions on guns, but they keep running into a problem: Many of their ideas can’t go into effect because of an early addendum to the Constitution. They’re now calling this the “Second Amendment loophole.”
“We just want to get guns off the streets,” Cory Booker, one of 583 presidential candidates, told the press, “but this Second Amendment loophole makes it so we can’t do that. We need to close that loophole.”
The way many gun control advocates would like things to work is, if they read in the New York Times about a particular gun model they think is scary–like an AR-15 or a semi-automatic or a glue gun–they could then just go ahead and ban it and start taking it from people. Normally things would work this way with anything else, but thanks to the Second Amendment loophole, they can’t just ban guns because they feel like it.
Closing the Second Amendment loophole won’t be easy, though, as it will take two-thirds of the states to sign on, a nearly impossible task. This sort of thing has also blocked many other politicians’ brilliant plans, something they refer to as the “Federalism loophole.”
Watch what they do, not what they say. Trump administration actions bely Trump’s pro-Second Amendment rhetoric. From Michael Hammond at dailycaller.com:
President Trump stands to lose voters in 2020 if his administration undermines the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening. Consider the events of the last several weeks.
First, Attorney General William Barr announced the creation of a working group to consider ways to enforce the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban.
This 1996 ex post facto law was a major victory for gun control groups. It imposed a lifetime gun ban for a “crime” as minor as spanking your kid or spitting on your husband.
And one of the great, unintended consequences of the ban is that it disarmed many police officers — retroactively.
Now Barr can’t understand why the law we predicted would be ineffective has, in fact, been ineffective.
Secondly, additionally, at the request of the Justice Department, the Supreme Court turned down a petition to review whether suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment.