National Gun Forum banner

How ‘red flag’ laws violate Bill of Rights

467 Views 2 Replies 3 Participants Last post by  Wag
Harold Pease
Aug 22, 2019

Most now understand that “red flag” laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and many Republicans, including the president, now seem willing to join Democrats, after the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton by crazed left-and right-wing extremists, to put dents in the Second Amendment hoping these laws “might” somehow help.

But few realize they also virtually emasculate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the amendments “red flag” laws damage and how.

Amendment I. “Red flag” laws encourage police-led searches of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially violent speech, thus subject to the removal of one’s weapons laws. Liberty ends when free speech, press, assembly and religion end.

Amendment II. This amendment was specifically designed to protect the First Amendment giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founders had, even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, which threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But red flag laws go further, potentially allowing thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses. Anyone that can approach a judge with the claim someone is a danger to himself and/or others, the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime, all this without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.

Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today computers and electronic devices are our papers, and effects include our weapons of self-preservation. It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove their automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines they Might use to harm themselves or others.

Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore, probable cause was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime; a warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under red flag laws this action violates.

Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be... deprived of... property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under red flag laws. None were charged with a crime, arrested or convicted before gun confiscation. Without due process all of our rights and properties are unsecured. It is that simple.

Amendment VI lists the rights of the accused, the due process procedure entitled to all citizens, in “all criminal prosecutions.” Although red flag laws are not criminal prosecutions, they have the same effect. They accuse and administer punishment. They are speedy, but not public, as constitutionally required. None were “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; ... confronted with the witnesses against him; ... [allowed] compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and ... [allowed] the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Where was the impartial jury? None of these four constitutionally-required conditions were met prior to confiscation, as no crime had been committed. Those targeted by the government in red flag laws had no opportunity to resist confiscation.

Amendment VII reads “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Twice mentioned is common law which is the underlying principles of justice that govern all human relationships—natural law—whether fully understood or not.

This amendment speaks to property exceeding $20 in value, of which all guns exceed. Although largely fallen into disuse because of the now unrealistic money requirement specified, the amendment suggests the importance of common law and jury (peers) trials, rather than judges, making the decisions regarding property. Certainly red flag laws exempt juries and confiscate property (guns).

Six of the 10 Bill of Rights’ amendments are severely damaged by red flag laws with due process, the backbone of our judicial system, the greatest fatality. This is certainly the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights since the Obama sponsored National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which already effectively neutralized Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
See less See more
  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
What we need is a class action suit against these laws and let the SCOTUS decide.

"Red flag" laws are unconstitutional and very dangerous in the hands of a DemocRATic anti-gun politician.
  • Like
Reactions: 1
These amendments were written specifically to establish our rights BECAUSE The Founding Fathers had just freed themselves from the tyranny of a government which had imposed...

...wait for it... flag style laws. As a matter of fact, that government on the other side of the pond has continued to do so to this day, ever since we booted them off the continent.

And now, we have those who want to take us back to where we started from and allow government intrusion into our lives once again.

  • Like
Reactions: 1
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.