More on Red Flag laws from America's First Freedom

Posted On: Thursday - June 6th 2019 8:08PM MST
In Topics: 
  US Police State  Liberty/Libertarianism  Orwellian Stupidity

Here is more on the Orwellian anti-gun, anti-Constitutional "Red Flag" laws from the NRA magazine, as Peak Stupidity discussed this past Saturday. The excerpts here are from the 2nd article, by a pro-2nd Amendment lawyer from Arizona named Dave Hardy, and it deals specifically with new laws passed in Colorado (signed by the Democrat Governor there).

A very important point in all Constitutional matters is that the most basic jurisdiction, the COUNTY, with its ELECTED sheriff is the final authority on the law. (OK, he's supposed to be. In the lefty wonderlands in the cities, some Senator says "blow me", and the mayor says "how long?") I used to read the Constitution/Libertarian sites, and you learn some of this stuff.

Well, the sheriffs in most of the counties in the state of Colorado are not ready to enforce these Orwellian laws as described in the article thusly:
Colorado’s latest experiment came in April, when Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed into law Colorado’s version of a “red flag” law. The new law allows petitions to be filed by any relative of a gun owner, as well as by anyone who has resided with him or her during the past six months (in other words, any vengeful ex-spouse or romantic partner). The petition must allege that the person who is its target: 1) owns guns; and 2) poses a “significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others.”

If the court finds a basis for these claims (and remember, the gun owner cannot argue against them, since he or she has not yet even been notified that the petition was filed) the court must issue an order commanding the gun owner to give up his guns to law enforcement or to a federal firearms license holder (FFL). Afterward, the gun owner would finally get a hearing (at which the vengeful ex-spouse or other petitioner can testify by telephone). Next, the court can order the guns held for a year, then has the power to renew the order at the end of the year. The court can also, under certain circumstances, issue a “civil search warrant”—a concept with no constitutional meaning. The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to be based upon probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, not a judge’s guess that there is a risk that a law-abiding person might commit one in the future.
Yeah, this law has been passed, which shows you a) how little regard most politicians have for the US Constitution and b) how the violation of one Amendment in the Bill of Rights can impact the ability to uphold the other ones. It is some Orwellian shit, people, but the Oceanian authorities in 1984 never had to deal with citizens armed with semi-auto shotguns, ARs, and AKs, unless I read an older version. This NRA article has blurbs about a number of sheriffs in Colorado:
Even before the law was signed, Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams announced: “I’m refusing to enforce a law I believe is unconstitutional, and I believe my constituent base is in agreement. I can’t enforce a law that I believe goes against our state Constitution or our federal Constitution.”
The next excerpt is from Sheriff Bill Elder of El Paso County, the most populous in the state, at just under 1/4 million people (Colorado Springs is there. I guess Denver is spread out over several counties.):
“My deputies will not,” he said, emphasizing the word, “search for or confiscate firearms. Nor will we execute any warrant that is not signed by a judge and based upon probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.”
This is why the office of Sheriff is a very important one, and the people need to keep a close watch and possibly friendly terms with their local Sheriff or deputy thereof.

When I wrote that many sheriffs are "not ready" to enforce this type of law, it meant two things. Indeed, at least from their words, many of these Colorado guys take their oath to the Constitution seriously, amazingly enough (not as amazing in rural areas, but still...) There is another aspect: This kind of law is a set-up for some kind of violent stand-off. Granted, it doesn't prescribe a mass weapons confiscation, sure to be a losing battle at this time for The Man. There won't usually be a big crowd ready to back-up the gun owner, as it's a very un-due-process-like deal in which the confiscatee may not know about this until a cop car is at the end of his driveway. However, not all will go quietly. This is something that has got to also make the Sheriffs nervous, no matter what their principals, and not ready to enforce the law for that reason.

Red Flag laws, besides being unconstitutional, are a recipe for trouble. However, or BECAUSE of that, the ctrl-left persists:
Phil Weiser, Colorado’s attorney general, argues that any sheriff who refuses to enforce the law should resign.

“If a sheriff cannot follow the law, the sheriff cannot do his or her job,”
I guess this guy swore HIS oath on the Koran or something. He doesn't understand the Sheriffs' job or he doesn't understand the Constitution, or the idea of right and wrong. Many of the county's Sheriffs are planning on suing the state of Colorado about the Red Flag laws. That's all well and good, but personally, I think just standing down and un-ashamedly not complying shows more guts and means more. Will they fire all of them? Can they? Can the people elect new guys just like them, and have the old Sheriffs be picked as deputies? DO! NOT! COMPLY!

No comments

WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)