“Red Flag” Laws….

 For the record, I am not opposed to so-called “red flag” laws AS LONG AS they 1) protect the Constitutional rights of the lawful firearm owner under the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (yes, protections from all four of these amendments are involved), and 2) contain provisions to ensure that they cannot be used by individuals who personally object to firearms ownership to deprive others of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I participate in a few online discussion forums; I have see many individuals post inquiries regarding how they can use these laws to generally disarm people because they personally object to firearms ownership.  I have also received phone calls in the course of my job selling firearms from such individuals, asking us not to sell to someone because the caller doesn’t like guns themselves.

On the other hand, I have stopped transactions because I believed, based on my interaction with a customer, that they posed a threat to themselves or others, and I have personally been involved with at least three situations in which bona fide concerns regarding a threat of suicide prompted us to take measures to insure that someone did not acquire a firearm from us - including notifying law enforcement.

Show me a “red flag” law that includes these protections and I will support it.

Gov. Whitmer Wants “Red Flag” Laws In Michigan….

Here’s what that means.

A family member is concerned that someone represents a danger to others or themselves.  They contact law enforcement - anonymously - and swear out a complaint.  The complaint and accompanying testimony/evidence goes to a judge, who then authorizes the confiscation of the accused’s firearms if he/she believes it is merited.  The accused loses their firearms, supposedly temporarily.

Looks good, right? 

Here’s the problem:

“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,” Fourteenth Amendment.

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” Fifth Amendment.

First, such laws are expressly prohibited under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”  The “red flag” law expressly abridges the right to due process and the immunity from a presumption of guilt.

Second, due process means the accused has the RIGHT to hear the accusations preferred against him, to confront his accusers, to present evidence in his own defense. BEFORE any confiscation - for ANY LENGTH OF TIME - can occur: 

“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  

“No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

There is no provision made for due process.

Third, “red flag” laws deny the accused “…the equal protection of the laws.”

Regardless of the good the law seeks to achieve, “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed,” U.S. Supreme Court

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) Norton v. Shelby County 

Argued March 24-25, 1886

Decided May 10, 1886

118 U.S. 425

REALLY, Gov. Whitmer?!

So Gov. Whitmer said she will “protect people’s fundamental rights.”

A few of the bills she says she supports and is urging the legislature to pass that are teed up for the new legislature:

“Assault weapon” ban with definitions so vague that it bans semi automatic firearms that could never be considered “assault weapons“.

A red flag law that doesn’t protect the fundamental Constitutional right to due process.

A mandatory safe storage law that has already been declared unConstitutional under the SCOTUS decision, Heller vs DC: “[…] the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment… the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.“

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fundamental, as it is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and is the ONLY AMENDMENT that states it “shall not be infringed”.  The Supreme Court determined under McDonald vs City of Chicago, “The right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is protected under the Second Amendment, and is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

No, she isn’t working to “protect people’s fundamental rights.

A Response To Matthew McConaughey….

I appreciate the thoughtful way you presented your ideas regarding a responsible approach to firearms safety.

I am a former federal officer, a firearm salesperson for one of the nation’s largest FFLs, a father of two sons, the husband of a middle school teacher, and a lawful, law-abiding firearms owner.

I would like to respond to some of the ideas that you presented - and present an idea that you DIDN’T address.

First, dealing with a sensationalized media is NOT a long term problem, it is, in fact, a driving factor in mass shootings that can and MUST be addressed immediately.  The infamy achieved by these shooters is documented to be one of the goals of many mass shooters, their way to achieve notoriety and some form of immortality.  A media that sensationalizes and rationalizes coverage of mass shooting events in the name of “the public right to know” is at the foundation of the uptick in mass shootings.  This is easily solved by adopting an approach to reporting such events that minimizes: they are reported factually and without editorializing, they are covered as any other crime, and the attacker’s identity is minimized - in contrast to the almost celebrity manner in which they are covered now, with every detail of their lives being put on display.

Sensationalized media also leads to the misconception to which you gave publicity: the AR-15 is NOT the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters.  That is a notion driven by a media intent on 1) sensationalizing mass shooter events and 2) pushing an agenda favored by liberal politicians to vilify and eventually ban scary looking black guns.  According to Amnesty International, mass shootings comprise less than 1% of all deaths involving firearms.  According to the National Institutes for Justice, fewer than 1% of ALL shootings taking place in the US involve a rifle of any kind; shootings utilizing so-called “assault rifles” comprise a fraction of that single percentage point.  The weapon of choice in 77% of mass shootings is, in fact, the humble and ubiquitous semi automatic handgun.  But because of the sensationalized media coverage you correctly identified as part of the problem, you and many others have bought into the notion that modern sporting rifles are the weapons of choice.  To that point, neither a minimum age of 21 to purchase a handgun from an FFL nor mandatory waiting periods in several states have stopped underage or adult mass shooters from acquiring handguns; why do you assume such a limitation will have a different effect on the acquisition of AR-15s?

Second, I DO believe that so-called “red flag” laws have some validity.  

I do believe there are some people who shouldn't have firearms.  As a firearms salesman I have stopped a number of transactions over the years because I believed safety would be at risk if I allowed the transaction to proceed.

I believe certain, well-defined individuals should have the right to petition the courts to remove firearms from individuals when they truly pose a risk to themselves and those around them; I DON'T believe this provision should be accorded to everyone who gets a hair crosswise or simply has a bias against firearms.  THAT is the danger inherent in such a provision, and in my years as a firearms salesman, I have witnessed just such attempts.

I will get behind this provision IF - and that's a ****HUGE**** if - DUE PROCESS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED.

Contrary to what Donald Trump said while he was still in office, due process rights come FIRST.  We don't take the firearms early and worry about due process later.

The Fourth Amendment still states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, and no Warrants shall issue, ***but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized***", EMPHASIS ADDED.

The Fifth Amendment likewise still states, "No person shall...  be deprived of life, liberty, OR PROPERTY, without due process of law...", all caps added.

These aren't suggestions, they are CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS.

GUARANTEE that those CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS will be honored TO THE LETTER and I will get behind this provision.

Third, it is an established fact that 77% of mass shooters acquired their firearms from FFLs LEGALLY, meaning that they passed background checks to get them.  In some few instances, the shooter was able to take advantage of the PROVISION - NOT a loophole - in the Brady Act that allows for the transfer of a firearm after three business days in the absence of a final determination from the NICS system.  The distinction between loophole and provision is not merely semantic, it is substantial.  A provision is a consideration explicitly written into the verbiage of a law.  A loophole, by definition, is a gray area in a law: an area of ambiguity of verbiage or an omission that may be manipulated.  I AM in favor of eliminating the three day provision currently existing in the Brady Act to mandate that a firearm transfer may not take place unless and until the NICS system delivers a determination.

Further, before enacting so-called “universal” background checks, fix the current system.  Report after report in the aftermath of mass shootings reveal numerous prior interviews with law enforcement due to reported concerns, psychological evaluations, reported concerns from school officials, even military  service-related failures to report incidents of domestic violence and other mental and behavioral issues, etc.  All of these things are already required by law to be entered into the NICS background check system - but in many instances, they aren’t, and there are seemingly no efforts to rectify this.  As 77% of firearms used in mass shootings were obtained after passing a background check, this one fix alone would prevent many mass shooters from acquiring their firearms.  And for the record, the existence of HIPAA laws has ZERO bearing on this: an exception to HIPAA to allow reporting of medically significant concerns into the NICS system was engineered into the law.  In other words, ENFORCE the laws we already have on the books.  Stop allowing states to pick and choose what data they will report.  And stop allowing criminals to plead out of weapons charges. What’s the use having the laws - or creating new ones - if they aren’t enforced?

Finally, there is one other action that must be taken immediately to address mass shootings - but you aren’t likely to support it.  Immediately repeal the federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

For over thirty years an experiment has been conducted on the American public, and that experiment involves testing the notion that criminals obey laws, that declaring a given area “gun free” somehow appeals to the “inherent goodness” that supposedly exists in all people.  After thirty years, the results speak for themselves: “gun free” zones, whether they be schools, malls, churches, hospitals, or federal buildings, have protected no one and prevented nothing, but they have proven to provide shooters with unlimited sources of defenseless victims.  “Gun free” zones have proven to all who have eyes to see that criminals do not obey laws or designations, that they will, in fact, use those very laws and designations to their advantage.

That this is the case is hardly a new revelation.  The eighteenth century criminologist, Cesare Bonesana, Marchese Beccaria, recognized this fact in  1764:

“The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons,” emphasis added.

This realization is echoed by Thomas Paine in his Thoughts on Defensive War:

“…The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation [or criminal - added] refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.”

Even the left-leaning think tank, the Rand Corp., posted this statement to their website regarding the effect of “gun free” zones:

“… [I]f the presence or potential presence of armed civilians deters violence, gun-free zones could serve as more-attractive targets to violent criminals or mass shooters because perpetrators will be less likely to encounter armed resistance in these areas.”

There is a saying: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make them safe.  The corollary to that saying is: rendering the innocent defenseless does not make criminals less dangerous.  Thirty years of experimenting with so-called “gun free” zones have affirmed the veracity of this saying.  A study of active shooter events by security experts experts found that such individuals seek out “gun free” zones. The fact is, criminals do not typically attack targets with low probabilities of success, which is why they don’t attack gun shows, gun dealerships, and most banks.

Eliminate “gun free” zones - IMMEDIATELY.

I also believe in responsible firearms ownership.  I am trained, I continue to train, and any firearms that I am not actually carrying are secured - not because I fear my sons getting their hands on them, but as a safeguard in case someone breaks into my home, to make it more difficult for a criminal to steal my firearms.

But RESPONSIBLE firearms ownership is also INFORMED ownership.

Meaning no disrespect, you need to become better informed.

“… No amendment — No Amendment To The Constitution Is Absolute…“

 So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:

“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.

No amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):

*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations 

*Universal background checks

*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)

*Minimum purchase age 21

*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms

*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm

*Track multiple handgun purchases

*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government

*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms

*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories 

*Psychological assessment 

*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees 

These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level.  And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.

Ok.  So what?

The president said NO amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS.  But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.

So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.

Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.

39,700.  

That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year.  Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights.  That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.

Terrible?

Absolutely.

But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.

More  than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.

That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.

And those are just the SURGICAL abortions.  That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.  

If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”

So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?

First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.

Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).

She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).

She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).

She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.

Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)

She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).

Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).

Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)

Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).

This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths.  Our Second Amendment rights are limited.

But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely  un-infringed/unlimited.

Which is it?  If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.