A “bipartisan” group of Senators in Washington supposedly thinks they have an agreement on what a gun control bill would look like following the Uvalde massacre in Texas. Easily the most objectionable aspect of the deal is its promotion of “red flag” confiscation laws in the states.
Under such laws, friends, family members, coworkers, law enforcement, school officials, medical personnel and others can petition a court to confiscate an individual’s firearms if they believe the gun owner is a threat to his or herself or others.
The biggest problem with these Red Flag gun confiscation orders is they don’t include due process provisions to protect the rights of the targeted person. Supporters of red flag laws contend that in an “emergency,” urgent action is needed. There is no time for due process, they say. Lives are at stake.
That’s why the target of these orders doesn’t usually know about them until he gets a knock at the door from police.
Of course, proponents of these laws claim that law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear. They’re saying, in effect, “Trust the government to make the right call.” As if abuse of these laws by bitter ex spouses, angry neighbors, upset coworkers and others could never happen.
Here in the real world, family courts already see that kind of abuse of emergency protective orders in divorce and child custody proceedings. One side will use them against the other as a negotiating tactic. Red flag confiscation orders are similarly easy to abuse.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, by no means advocates for Second Amendment gun rights, called red flag laws a “significant threat to civil liberties.”
Proponents of red flag laws don’t seem to consider that those who file petitions for confiscation might have their own agendas in mind. For instance, do the petitioners hate people who wear MAGA hats and view them as unstable or dangerous? How about those who fly Black Lives Matter or Antifa flags? Maybe the petitioner doesn’t like gays, or terfs. Alternatively, it might be biases against those opposed to COVID vaccines.
And what protections are there for those who have had their guns taken? Could they face suspension or termination at work, evictions from their apartments or homes, or no-contact orders from their churches? Would schools ban them from campus? In our risk-averse world, a red flag order could turn every aspect of someone’s life upside down.
The red flag laws on the books in the states that have them usually have few, if any, remedies for those wrongfully accused. Defending against a red flag petition at a follow-up due process hearing — after guns have been confiscated — would cost thousands of dollars in legal bills.
On the other hand, vexatious petitioners would likely escape prosecution or sanction for unfounded, malicious petitions. And if you don’t punish bad behavior, it tends to continue.
Obviously red flag laws and their gun confiscation provisions without due process are un-American, particularly because the target of these orders, in most cases, haven’t done anything to break the law.
The Senate “framework” deal is just that. An outline of an agreement. As of this writing, words haven’t been put to paper and no legislation has been introduced.
The Democrat half of the duo that put this together is moving fast to make this happen before memories of Uvalde fade. He wants legislation written and votes in the House and Senate by July 4.
Then again, maybe pushback to the proposed agreement / “framework” has been much greater than they expected. After all, when politicians feel the heat, they tend to see the light.
They are just another tool for the tyrant to use. Get people used to snitching even on their loved ones.
This tool of the tyrants allows a backdoor registration. Every time a “Red Flag” order is executed, guns are confiscated and serial numbers are recorded. Even if the wrongfully accused has their firearms returned, the tyrants now know how many and what type.
I sent an initial e-mail concerning “Civil Rights” to my Senator who for privacy I’ll call x. Below is their song and dance “reply” to my initial email. And below their reply is my reply..I am waiting to hear back…
Dear Debbie W.
Thank you for contacting me regarding your thoughts on gun regulations. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
When considering legislation on this issue, I look for measures that respect the rights of law-abiding Americans, effectively deter crime, and prevent irresponsible acquisition of firearms. I have always supported an American’s constitutional right to own a firearm, so long as it is legally acquired and used appropriately. In light of recent tragedies, we must keep those who have lost their lives to mass shootings in mind when considering related legislation. We need to do a better job of enforcing current laws to keep those suffering from mental illness from owning weapons. I am open to conversations about solutions that will actually work to prevent these kinds of mass shootings.
I appreciate your perspective on this issue, and will certainly keep it in mind as Congress considers firearms legislation in the future. Your comments are helpful as I continue to seek a balance between protecting American citizens’ Second Amendment rights and promoting the best interests for the people of x state.
I will continue to represent the views of my state and do so through hearing from constituents like you. Please continue to reach out, either by phone or by email, when you have another question or concern. You can reach my office in Washington DC at 202-224-58xx or submit an email at https://www.x.senate.gov/contact.
Sincerely, Senator x
Dear Senator x,
Thank you for your quick reply.
As horrific as the incident in Uvalde and elsewhere are taking rights from the innocent is not the proper way to honor fallen children or any other fallen Americans. Fault begins and ends with the perpetrator and with those in charge of school security, etc. After previous school shooting warnings the Uvalde School still was without armed security measures, electronic surveillance, etc. Had what works been implemented way back the perpetrator would not have made it across the Uvalde school parking lot or made entry into the school. Furthermore, when law enforcement is nowhere around it takes the law abiding Gun Owner, not protesters who disdain firearms, to stop a deranged criminal.
Perhaps a sobering question has to be asked…Is Gun Control in any shape, matter or form rooted in racism and genocide, Yes or No? According to the History of Gun Control the answer is, Hell Yes. So please take a moment to consider defenseless Black Americans, American Indians, Jews and others worldwide who were subjected to Gun Control and perished horribly.
To sum it up…
1) The Second Amendment is one thing.
2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, vehicles, etc. is another thing.
3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.
Thanks again, Debbie W.
Deborah –
That *Plonk* sound you heard 3 milliseconds after you hit ‘Send’?
That’s the sound of a lint-licking Leftist Scum ™ throwing your thoughtful opinion in the digital bit-bucket, and will never be seen by it’s intended recipient.
Because that’s what Scum does… 🙁
Geoff…If it does not reach my senator again someone reads it because all email to overly protected US congressmen is scrutinized. I’ll give it time. Either way the conversation forwards to my very pro 2A state Rep who I met when he stopped by campaigning.
Indeed. But it’s also a tool that we, the people, can use against them.
If anything, gun haters and megalomaniacs alike project themselves into others. Use their own system against them and/or flood it.
There are others ways to wage war against those that aim to subvert our livelihood.
I have written and called the five “Republicans” who aren’t retiring might as well pester the rest since it can’t hurt.
Rusty, good for you. If “we the people” don’t take action(s), we the people will become subjects. The left is leading the way with their “we need to do something” and “we the people” need to do more.
Some of the RINO’s who initially supported the Senate Legislation, are now backsliding on their support. I also have been sending multiple emails daily to those Senators. Even though they are not from my state. Keeping their email boxes full and their phone lines burning down is the best way to show them the distaste for their actions. Beyond voting them out of office.
@ Darkman
Decisions legislators make affect every citizen in the country regardless of their home affiliations. Every Senator and Representative in my state has received and still do receive emails from me regarding national or state issues. Of course, the issues are those like CC etc that affect all citizens. I just emailed my governor yesterday relative to CC legislation awaiting his signature. Of course, he hasn’t called or responded….Yet!
Red flags are a tactic learned through the study of former Soviet edicts. Show me the man and I”ll tell you his crime.
Like we don’t have enough to worry about with Ambers pooping the bed now they want Ambers to cry “Red Flag!!”
As usual Boch paints an out of control paranoid far right response. Red Flag laws if written correctly would have provisions for redress so the person who had his guns taken could file a motion in court to have them returned without spending thousands in lawyers fees. If he did not get his guns returned and believed he was still unjustly dealt with then yes he could get a lawyer
The Left is correct when they say that the overall result would be that thousands of lives would be saved as history has proven that the majority of homicides are committed in the home, usually by husbands killing their wives, not by people on the street or by break ins which the paranoid far right are so found of fantasizing about.
Like it or not the Republicans are going to pass this law and just as the Far Right falsely screamed when the Brady Bill was passed decades ago that the government would confiscate all guns, so too the Red Flag laws will not be the “commie under the bed” that the Far Right scream it will be. Its a law that is long overdue and the proof is the thousands in the graveyards that would still be alive today if the red flag laws had been passed decades ago. That is a fact even the Far Right Paranoids cannot lie their way out of.
herr dacian the dog killing nazi proclaims it to be right so therefore it is.
And without a shred of validsupporting evidence, as per usual. A fan of pissing into the wind, fruitlessly.
Not hardly. It seems that there is this guy, Giovani Gentile who ghost wrote Mussolini’s Manifesto. Gentile was an Italian Socialist. You Leftists are kin folk to Fascists.
California officials claim that their Red Flag laws MAY have stopped 58 mass shooters in six years.
A quick review of headlines while using a DDG search:
No Effect from “Red Flag” Law in California: JAMA Study — 2022
California’s New Red Flag Law Is So Extreme, Even the ACLU Is Ringing the Alarm – 2019
Woman Abuses Red Flag Law, Lies About Innocent Man To Have His Guns Confiscated — CO, 2020
Red Flag Law Abuse: Lawsuit Plaintiff Files Dubious Red Flag Action Against New Jersey Man — 2019
The Left Is Already Proving How Dangerous Red Flag Laws Are — 2022
Why Didn’t California’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Stop the San Jose Shooter? — 2021
‘Red-Flag’ Abuse: Police Raid ‘Kassandra’ and Take Away Her Guns — 2020
And from our very own forum here:
Red Flag Abuse archives — https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/tag/red-flag-law-abuse/
“…history has proven that the majority of homicides…..” are committed by governments where citizens are dis-armed. Dead kiddies in schools, shoppers in grocery stores, on Shootcago streets, domestic violence, while individually horrifying, are not even significant figure rounding errors in the history of violent deaths where governments dis-arm citizens for their own safety. Sadly, those Uvalde bodies are merely Useful Idiots’ justifications for American dis-armament. If one doesn’t consider the possibility, one facilitates the probability.
The new agenda for humanity requires that no one will have the capacity to fight back. It has been said: “Our Task of creating a Socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” No other explanation is possible.
History…..learn from it; be doomed to re-live it; or die from it.
“Red Flag laws if written correctly would have provisions for redress so the person who had his guns taken could file a motion in court to have them returned without spending thousands in lawyers fees.”
This is a deprivation of property PRIOR to due process, without any cause, and nothing even close to a criminal conviction.
How typical. The point of the article is that Red Flag laws are UN-AMERICAN.
Rather than address this flaw, instead you come back with “so what, un-American isn’t all that bad…”
That’s not what the Constitution says. Specifically the 14th Amendment.
Read the it sometime, it’s very enlightening.
Due process is not for sale to the highest political donor any more than the second amendment is. I’m not going to allow a never ending chiseling away of civil liberties for the benefit of left wing billionaires.
“As usual Boch paints an out of control paranoid far right response. Red Flag laws if written correctly would have provisions for redress so the person who had his guns taken could file a motion in court to have them returned without spending thousands in lawyers fees. If he did not get his guns returned and believed he was still unjustly dealt with then yes he could get a lawyer”
What State has passed a Red Flag Law that meets the criteria of being written correctly?
Don’t you have like a poop chute to plow? Or an orgy you are missing out on?
So, being the proper little Leftist/fascist sheeple that you are (with delusions that, “comes the Revolution” the leaders are going to listen to a f***wit like YOU???? It is to laugh!!), you literally care nothing about little things like “presumption of innocence” or “due process” or “right to face your accuser” or “right to present evidence on your own behalf” or NOT taking your “life, liberty, or property” UNTIL you have had due process, and been ADJUDGED guilty/liable, do you, dacian the stupid?
Hell, your heroes, Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and their ilk, never let little issues like THAT get in their way, did they?? After all, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, can you?? And doesn’t “the end justify the means”??
If you weren’t so stupid and pathetic, you’d be laughable. As it is, you provide at least clown car level hilarity – you’re fun to laugh at, as you flounder around in search of an actual thought. But you’re STILL too stupid to insult, dacian the stupid.
dacian, the Dunderhead, sorry bub, but we both know the real goal of anti-gun radicals. Gun confiscation period. Red Flag Laws without dure process BEFORE the confiscation is UNCONSTITUTIONAL considering the 2nd and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. You know, that document you love to hate?
The fact more murders are committed by other means is proof positive that your Red Flag Laws will serve only one purpose. Confiscation of guns. Once the government seizes something, anything, you have hell to pay trying to get it back.
Why UN-AMERICAN? Sureley the Government has the right to impliment LAW CHANGES in the interests of nthe majority if the majority of the ELECTORATE so decide. Just like any constitutional DEMOCRACY. That’s what governments are elercted to do after giving due consideration for minority interests. To my mind do NOT include the right of ownership of more firearms than are nessessary to comply with the conditions of the American Constitution.
Nobody needs more than a single 9mm or .38 handgun to fullfill any imagined requirement for HOME defence. [There is no practical handgun suitable for ‘street’ self defence and you know it. Any such weaponry is mORE liable to get you l killed than it is to save your life.] Nobody needs more than a 5-shot bolt action Rifle of suitable calibre [though I might be prepared to exclude from that .22Rimfire] for hunting and nobody requires more than 25 rounds of ammunition for immediate use FOR those firearms You could have all that and still remain within the suppossed require ments if the relevant paragraphs of the American Constitution.
AND of course l it should be born in mind that far less than HALF of ALL Americans who COULD ownn firearms do not do so. This means that, with an estimated 400million LEGAL firearms in the USA and an unknown number of ILLEGAL ones. that some persons must have completely unnessessary ARSENALS and I am of the opinion that it this the good members of the government are aiming at -at least in the first instance
You are dead wrong. We have a constitutional right to bear arms, protect ourselves and that includes FROM the Government. The Founding Fathers were very clear about protecting ourselves from enemies Foreign and Domestic including a dictatorial government. Who are you to tell people how many firearms they need and for what purpose they may use them. In this current environment there is no greater need than to be well armed as a deterrent to this socialist move to disarm the Country and intimidate its citizens. So if you don’t like it you try and come and take our firearms and don’t expect some poor cop or solider to do it. You want them, you come and get it. If we were all that irresponsible people like yourself wouldn’t even be around to complain. So take a hike.
In reality 2a was never written for the common man to own arms. It was written to give the states the right to have their own hunter, killer militias to murder slaves that might revolt. It was done in response to the slave uprising in Haiti that was going on at the time and both Jefferson and Madison knew about this and were worried about it and their surviving letters prove it beyond all doubt.
There were anti-gun laws on the books before the Revolution and after the Revolution and none were rescinded, in fact they continued to become more numerous as time went on and as the population exploded in the U.S. from mass immigration.
2A was deliberately written in the vaguest of terms so the Federal Government could indeed outlaw or restrict guns from the hands of the proletariat. It has been that way since it was written.
Even in infamous Scalia decision stated that “The courts had the right to regulate firearms” which was a slick and disingenuous clap trap stating they could indeed ban firearms if and when they chose to do so. Since then the bans and restrictions on semi-auto weapons have continued to escalate. So much for 2a, it was as much of a joke then as it is today.
“In reality 2a was never written for the common man to own arms. It was written to give the states the right to have their own hunter, killer militias to murder slaves that might revolt. It was done in response to the slave uprising in Haiti that was going on at the time and both Jefferson and Madison knew about this and were worried about it and their surviving letters prove it beyond all doubt.”
Where are these surviving letter? You have yet to produce them. You other “cite” was as bogus as it never produced this evidence either.
herr dacian the dog killing nazi posing as a limey subject.
Jethro if you were a product of higher education you would have noticed that the syntax that Albert uses and the syntax that I use are very different, but all this is way over the head of a high school dropout.
You also seem to think that everyone in the world has the same warped ideology that you do. In reality you are the minority, not Albert, or myself or the majority of the American people either.
If you’re the product of a higher education herr dacian you need a refund. My GED certainly educated me better than any school you attended.
I stand by my claim. Your phony albert hall persona is all over the place syntax wise and you use improper slang trying to convince every body that you are a limey.
You cannot spend a lifetime in your mothers basement and then try to pretend you’re well traveled and know about other countries.
Your ignorance shines through.
to Jethro
quote———My GED certainly educated me better than any school you attended.———-quote
That was more hilarious than a Rodney Dangerfield joke. You must enjoy making a complete fool of yourself.
I don’t know Mr Dacian, your arguments flow the same as Mr Halls. I mean you share this common knowledge and experience of being great firearm gurus. If you are not, it is a great coincidence.
However, as we see what has happened in the last few years, you may be in the minority as firearm sells are setting all time highs, and newer demographics are embracing the freedom culture. Even polls showing banning of firearms of any type are lower than before. People see thru the BS.
Like you would know what the word “syntax” means.
You probably think it’s the extra charge added to cigarettes or liquor sales.
Hilarious, but true, herr dacian. You are both uneducated and mentally ill. And you prove it with every comment you make here.
to Storm Trooper
How many times do I have to repeat myself. If you want your documentation on the Letters of Jefferson and Madison then read Carol Anderson’s book. Its all documented in it.
Carol Andersons book did not have these supposed letters.
Try again. Is she your only “source” for these supposed letters?
Put up or shout up young man.
I’ll repeat it once again.
The reason we have those SBRs (scary black rifles) is that if me and ten thousand of my friends decide that the existing government is not fit to govern and constantly violates our Rights, we get the chance to make needed changes. That is the reason for the 2nd Amendment Albert. That’s the reason we are citizens and not subjects.
The People get to make the final decision.
“Why UN-AMERICAN? Sureley [sic] the Government has the right to impliment [sic] LAW CHANGES in the interests of nthe [sic] majority if the majority of the ELECTORATE so decide.”
Ever hear the phrase “tyranny of the majority?” Of course you have.
That’s why the US is a Constitutional republic — not a monarchy, not a mob-rule democracy.
“To my mind do NOT include the right of ownership of more firearms than are nessessary [sic] to comply with the conditions of the American Constitution.”
Albert, show us exactly where in the US Constitution where it limits the number of arms that a citizen can possess.
With 400+ million guns,
1+ trillion rounds of ammo,
if we were the problem,
you’d know it.
But, just keep pokin’ the bear.
takin’ his honey,
like that’s a great idea.
Not that “needs” should even factor into it. Who am I to tell my neighbors how many golf clubs, surfboards, guitars, horses, pets, cars, anime figurines, wine bottles, shoes, shot glasses, or screwdrivers they should and can own? One should do it!
I do like the mechanical engineering part of guns as well as some historically interesting weapons, one 9mm per house definitely wouldn’t cut it. Someone who doesn’t know may think they are all the same, but different guns have different purposes, feel, capabilities, a gun I would carry mowing the grass or around the house is different than one out and about, hiking in bear country, use for plinking, for competition , or when your city calls for a curfew/lockdown due to BLM riots.
The thought the police could run off with your collection, maybe with some rare or expensive guns, and scratch them up, lose them, or otherwise damage them during a red flag taking (just in case, no crime committed) is especially repugnant.
Yo Al, Molon Labe, ya limey cuck.
Nothing more American than listening to Piers Morgan tell you what you “need.”
Nearly 250 years and people still don’t get it.
Albert Hall — you know so little about what’s un-American that I strongly suspect you are from that little island called England that we defeated 246 years ago when they tried to disarm our citizens. Also, you evidently know nothing about firearms.
Someone who knows as little about personal hygiene as you know about firearms would make a similar argument as you did, “Nobody NEEDS more than one pair of underwear. Some persons must have completely unnessessary [sic] ARSENALS of underwear, and I am of the opinion that it this the good members of the government are aiming at -at least in the first instance.”
Or to use a sports analogy, someone who knows as little about golf as you know about firearms would make the argument, “Nobody NEEDS more than one golf club. Some persons must have completely unnessessary [sic] ARSENALS of golf clubs, and I am of the opinion that it this the good members of the government are aiming at -at least in the first instance.”
“Why UN-AMERICAN? Sureley the Government has the right to impliment LAW CHANGES in the interests of nthe majority if the majority of the ELECTORATE so decide.”
That is why we were not founded as a pure Democracy, but a blended Republic where the majority cannot run over the rights of a minority. That is why real Democracies fail, and are not able to protect to the rights of all of society.
“Nobody needs ”
That is a childs argument. Do better.
Umm, hate to break it to you, Albert the Subject, but NO, “the government” DOESN’T have the right to “. . . impliment LAW CHANGES in the interests of nthe majority . . . ” There is this little item called a “Constitution”, you daft ass, that strictly LIMITS what government can do. The Second Amendment to that Constitution specifically says we (“the People”) have the RIGHT to “keep and bear arms”.
I know the whole concept of a “constitution” is foreign to your subject soul, and the idea that a mere document could overrule the whim of your queen shocks your very subject nature . . . . but that IS our system (“If you can keep it”). Sorry, subject – “need” doesn’t enter into it, nor should it. And YOUR idiot opinion of MY need DEFINITELY doesn’t enter into it.
Sod off, swampy.
Albert Hall, the British Subject. Not in this country. You see we have this thing called the Constitution. it is the law of the land and by that law you can’t confiscate property without due process.
It’s sad this idea of red flag laws is being considered at the national level as a compromise.
School shootings / mass shootings are going to continue to happen until the guns are confiscated. When they say “how many lives is it going to take” that’s a threat. In the end you’ll be allowed to own a shotgun that can only hold upto two rounds max or a lever action .22 that can hold upto five rounds max; IF you have a carry permit.
“Oops, we fed all of your firearms into the shredder, sue us.”
Red flag order = we’re from the government and we’re here to kill you.
“vexatious”……..some insomnia sufferer has been reading the dictionary all night again.
WELL, DONE!!!! Groucho’s duck dropping as I type.
SH; RE; LMAO…….
firstly, it’s fenneman’s duck.
next, vexatious is not something common that you find around the house.
Oh, trust me, “vexatious” is something I encounter on the daily. After all, I get the “privilege” of seeing the immature, ignorant, uneducated, illogical, ahistorical idiot ramblings of dacian the stupid and MinorIQ every day, on this very forum.
Supreme Court has ruled you need a warrant to enter anyone’s house. A warrant requires reasonable proof that you have committed a CRIME. Red Flag Laws do not have the same requirements for having someone try to remove your firearms because in most cases there has been no crime. Remedy? If your state has Make MY Day or Castile domain laws, treat anyone trying to get into your house without a warrant accordingly. Perhaps after they have to come and collect a few of the confiscators they will acknowledge that Red Flag Laws are Unconstitutional.
The bravado sounds impressive but they have already shot and killed a few gun owners being served with red flags, usually confused to find themselves in the situation at some weird time of the day or night.
When coming with a red flag order, the gun owner has already been identified as a threat armed with guns, the police will come armed and armored up with tactical advantage. It won’t take much resistance or non-compliance for them to go full on attack mode, at best the gun owner will be barricaded but with no where to run.
Load the lawsuit pipeline and get test cases before the courts.
For how many years were lawsuits filed against cigarette companies before the finally got the ruling they wanted?
Use the same strategy on the Leftist Scum ™.
Alinsky’s ‘Rules For Radicals’ –
#4 – “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Not to mention that that these laws do nothing to actually help the person who is reported to be in trouble. The authorities swoop in, confiscate their firearms, which likely infuriates the person, then do nothing to get them any sort of emotional or mental evaluation or help, leaving them free on the streets to acquire another firearm or other weapons, with which they might still inflict that feared harm upon themselves or others.
Anyone too dangerous to be walking around with a gun is also too dangerous to be walking around without a gun!
Hey unspoken are you really that afraid to die? If you have nothing worth dying for do you have anything worth living for? I have had lots of time to range my driveway, shit on the pungi sticks, and collect greek fire. Who’s to say that we won’t take the offensive? Albert Hall, how long you been a pillow biter? If you poke the bear and get mauled is it the bears fault?
Does anybody know the degree that the jackboots go to find guns in a red flag house?
If somebody has guns well hidden to the point that the Nazis would have to tear into walls to get to them, will they do that?
You bet they will. Years ago I knew a biker outlaw, the cops had a warrant and knew he had gunms too, they tore his house apart and found his stash hidden in his walls, ( metal detector) . The place looked like a tornado hit it.
In a state with no permits or registration how do they know you even have a gun(s) beyond the word of somebody making the claim?
We all know nobody would ever pull a Jussie to get revenge on somebody. Just like SWATing never happens.
To me, the so-called “Red Flag” laws are unConstitutional because they presuppose the guilt of someone without benefit of trial. They pre-suppose they can abrogate someone’s 2nd Amendment rights solely on the accusations of another person, without benefit of hearing or trial, or even evidence.
Red flags are for race tracks.
I never thought a day would come when the past childhood (then the USSR) would be coming to the States. This reminds me of how we never ever trusted anyone…not your own spouse, not your children that could turn you in to the state, and certainly not your neigbours, either. It is a miserable existence, and one not fit for humans. Red Flag laws will work nicely…for the government and those they want to disarm, abuse, and kill. Not so much for the rest of us.
In a nutshell:
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=875,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/108/801/086/original/895b76629bcdefe5.jpg
We have done the work to outlaw any gun control..so let them illegally pass what ever they want till the hangings start!
More Red Flag laws can target … depressed people.
In Canada, red flag laws have been extended to revoke driver’s licenses of people who report being depressed to their physicians. Just in the extremely remote chance they may choose to drive into oncoming traffic.
Note, i said depressed, NOT suicidal. Coming soon to a state house near you!
Comments are closed.