via Suzanne Hamner of Freedom Outpost
When politicians allow "children" to determine legislation based on the "children's" emotions and passion, these politicians have negated the voices of adults that seek to temper passion with reason. The lamestream enemedia succeeded in sensationalizing a tragedy, exploiting children's emotions and shaming those expressing a rational and reasonable viewpoint when opposing the gun control/confiscation agenda and narrative after the Parkland shooting. State legislatures in several States hastily enacted legislation that would allow confiscation of firearms. What constitutionalists have been warning the public about regarding the goal of gun control, more appropriately "people control," is no longer a possibility, but a reality.
Breitbart News reported:
The next chapter of the Parkland, Florida, school shooting saga has begun. Anti-gun interest groups and politicians have used the Parkland shooting to launch what, until recently, they regarded as a distant dream — a wave of state legislation authorizing the confiscation of firearms.
Quietly, but quickly, a raft of identical gun confiscation bills have been filed by liberal politicians in states across the country. They are all copies of a ballot measure that passed in Washington State in November 2016. And that ballot measure was loosely based on a California gun confiscation law enacted in 2014 and a much older Connecticut law from 1999.
The first bill in the recent wave was actually enacted before the Parkland shooting. Oregon’s SB 719, a Democrat bill which passed with only one Republican vote, was signed into law in August 2017. Since the Parkland shooting, copy-cat bills pushed by progressive legislators anxious to signal their opposition to guns have moved with alarming speed in blue states. On Wednesday, the Vermont Senate approved its version, S 221. In Rhode Island the bill is H 7688.
In total, more than a dozen states are now considering similar gun confiscation laws. Even red states like Kansas, where SB 431 has been submitted, are considering them. On Thursday, Ohio’s Republican Governor John Kasich jumped on the bandwagon and called for a similar law in his state.
While constitutionalists have argued that anti-constitutionalists are "anti-gun," in actuality, anti-constitutionalists are "pro-gun" as long as the guns are centralized into the hands of governmental authority – it is the private ownership of guns that anti-constitutionalists oppose. Remember, government enforces all laws outside of natural law through use of guns. So, anti-constitutionalists have no difficulty with government using guns to confiscate the guns of private citizens nor do anti-constitutionalists have a problem with all the guns being concentrated in the hands of authorities – military, federal, State and local law enforcement, and security agencies guarding the politicians and elites. These people don't want private citizens to possess guns. However, no man or group of men have the authority to determine the rights of another. When that occurs, it can be described as subjugation or enslavement – tyranny, if you will. Moreover, these self-appointed "authorities" have no idea how to confiscate guns from criminals or keep criminals from obtaining guns on the black market. But, I digress.
While no one wants guns in the hands of criminals or psychopaths/sociopaths, these "red flag laws" provide "for an 'extreme risk protective order' that direct police to confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any person who is targeted by such an order," according to Breitbart News. These laws may seem reasonable at first, but further evaluation indicates these laws are written so loosely that ordinary citizens are at risk of having their guns confiscated by law enforcement when citizens have not broken any laws.
As Breitbart News indicated:
These gun confiscation measures grossly violate the due process and Second Amendment rights of lawful gun owners. The constitutional problems are as follows:
The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte” provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.
Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner. [Once government gets its foot in the door, a situation will arise where legislators will amend the law to include neighbors, physicians, clergy, and government officials such as Child Protective Services, Adult Protective Services, employers, and co-workers. There is never a roll-back on requirements; only expansions.]
Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may in trouble.
Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns. [Think government "no fly" list when contemplating these provisions.]
The extreme liberal (anti-constitutional) ACLU declared these confiscation laws threaten due process. One has to consider that when the ACLU raises a warning, there is a problem. However, even concerns by the ACLU won't prevent "anti-constitutionalist, pro-confiscation of firearms" State legislators from acting upon passion, fueled by "emotional-driven" children the lamestream enemedia exploited to promote an agenda, to violate the God-given individual unalienable rights of non-criminal citizens while denying these same citizens of due process.
Does anyone remember Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut? It appears the gun confiscation laws in that State failed in preventing a school shooting tragedy, despite what drivel was spouted to the populace.
As constitutionalists have been saying all along, despite denials from the anti-constitutionalists, the ultimate goal of gun control, aka people control, is confiscation of firearms from private citizen ownership. Those supporting God-given individual unalienable rights, recognized and protected by the Constitution for the united States of America, have been right all along. Anti-constitutionalists are no longer denying it due to corrupt politicians willing to engage in tyranny at the behest of the perceived majority. In order to engage in the fantasy of "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill," politicians are willing to violate the natural God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms, in order to guard against government tyranny, deny just and impartial due process to the people, and forego probable cause to seize private property. Moreover, these State legislature politicians are unwilling to allow time for emotions to quell in order that rational and reasonable minds contemplate all facets of the issue using the Constitution for the united States of America as the foundation upon which to base law.
Most importantly, one could say these politicians are willing to "cow down" to a brilliantly media-groomed "child" who thinks like a child, behaves as a child, possesses a grandiose sense of self, and engages in a verbal "temper tantrum" when HIS wants are not immediately satisfied. And, since the "child" returned to school, the lamestream enemedia has dropped their "faceman." The enemedia no longer needs the child since anti-constitutional, tyrannical despot George Soros, with all the power of his organizations, has backed this child's gun confiscation movement.
At a time when anti-constitutionalist, open borders, unfettered, unvetted illegal alien invasion supporters mind not that Islamic jihadists adhering to Sharia law enters this republic, citizens will be unable to defend themselves in the spread of Sharia should the Islamic terrorist supporting organizations embedded in the US use these laws incrementally by engaging in false narratives to law enforcement agencies against their neighboring citizens. Citizens will be unable to use armed resistance in the face of insurrection within by Islamic jihadists, communist supporting politicians, increased government tyranny and despotism infringing upon God-given individual unalienable rights, and the criminal element intent on preying upon the defenseless.
As history has shown, an unarmed populace is defenseless against a government intent on democide to silence opposition to ensure compliance and subjugation. America is not immune despite what anti-constitutional gun confiscation advocates proclaim. Since constitutionalists have been right about their agenda so far, one can call bull manure on any of their claims related to their people control agenda.