Cali Democrats Are Supercharging ‘Red Flag’ Law with Soviet-Like Informant System

Having been largely stymied on the federal level, anti-gun Democrats — and a few moderate Republicans — have increasingly embraced a relatively new tactic to undermine the Second Amendment and impose confiscatory gun control measures on the state and local level.
Those particular measures are known as “red flag” laws, or gun violence restraining orders, which permit law enforcement officials to act upon petition-requested, court-ordered confiscations of legally-possessed firearms owned by an individual that close family members or law enforcement officers fear may present a danger to themselves or others in the near future.
While that may sound reasonable on the surface to some — nobody wants dangerous people who pose a threat to others to possess guns — the reality is that such laws are ripe for ideological abuse against law-abiding individuals by both family members and legal authorities.
Furthermore, those laws all but trample the fundamental notion of due process and presumption of innocence in that an individual’s firearms are confiscated prior to there being a hearing on the matter in which the subject is permitted to defend themselves.
California is a state that has already had such a “red flag” law in existence for several years, but new legislation would significantly expand who is permitted to file a gun violence restraining order against somebody.
This could open the door to the eventual implementation of a Soviet-era, KGB-style program in which supposed associates, friends, and neighbors spy on each other and tattle to the government about those who aren’t in perfectly line with the accepted party politics of the ruling regime — in this case, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.
The expansion was introduced into the California legislature as an amendment to the existing gun violence restraining order law and was dubbed AB-61. That bill was passed out of the Assembly by a vote of 54-17 on May 6 and now awaits action in the Democratic-controlled state Senate.
As the law already existed, close family members and law enforcement officials were permitted to submit a petition to the court to have an individual’s lawfully-owned firearms confiscated for up to 21 days if it was believed that they posed a threat of imminent harm to themselves or others.
The law further allowed for petitioners and the court to extend the confiscatory period up to one year, if deemed necessary, and also allowed for a renewal of the initial “ex parte” petition and order for an additional 21-day period within three months of that initial order’s expiration.
Aside from some grammatical changes to the existing law’s wording, the amendment expanded the pool of who was deemed authorized by the state to submit the GVRO petitions.
That pool now includes a subject’s employers, co-workers, and employees and teachers of secondary and post-secondary schools.
How soon before this law is amended and expanded yet again, next time giving friends, neighbors, or even minor acquaintances the ability to turn in gun owners they don’t like or fear to state authorities? That question isn’t that far out of the realm of possibility.
There were some minor stipulations to those additions, such as a requirement that petition-filing co-workers be in close or regular contact with the subject of the petition for at least one year.
Additionally, school teachers and employees who wish to file such petitions will have to first obtain administrative approval from the school, and the subject has to have been in attendance at the school for at least six months.
Those purported protections are cold comfort, however, for the lawful gun owner in California who may happen to work with fervently anti-gun co-workers, or for those who attend — or whose children attend — a high school or university that employs similarly-minded anti-gun individuals.
To be sure, the mere filing of a GVRO petition doesn’t automatically mean one of the confiscatory orders will be granted.
Given the plethora of liberal activist judges in the judiciary system, however, it isn’t hard to imagine that at least some of those judges hold anti-Second Amendment views and would be perfectly happy issuing the orders while allowing the dust to settle afterward, once the firearms had already been confiscated.
What is happening in California with this “red flag” law is truly frightening in an Orwellian, Soviet-style big government sort of way, and what makes it even worse is that other states are looking to California as a model for their own anti-gun legislative efforts.
It remains to be seen if Democrat-controlled California will proceed with the proposed expansion of its “red flag” laws — and whether the higher courts will allow such laws to stand.
But one thing that is abundantly clear is that, at least in terms of California, gun owners are increasingly being targeted by the government for disparate treatment for ideological reasons.
Cali Democrats Are Supercharging ‘Red Flag’ Law with Soviet-Like Informant System Cali Democrats Are Supercharging ‘Red Flag’ Law with Soviet-Like Informant System Reviewed by STATION GOSSIP on 11:54 Rating: 5

6 comments:

  1. I remember when anything over 7% was considered usury in Michigan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where are the RED FLAG laws on Politicians? DEMAND they do the exact same thing-PLUS.
    Politicians, Police, Judges, Government Workers make Life & Death deadly decisions every day. WE should be able to make ONE call and have them suspended from office and blocked from making any decisions until they are cleared for duty.
    Red Flags on priests! Why did it take DECADES for the politicians to do ANYTHING about those THOUSANDS of pedophiles??! There must be "reporting centers" so politicians(Gov. Employees) can be immediately suspended pending investigation.
    Public Servants are also expected to be held to Higher Standards due to their positions and maintaining the Public Trust.
    How come there is never a "War on Political Corruption"? Never investigation of how these "Sacrificing Public SERVANTS" get so RICH in office? Audit THEIR finances.
    Therefore when they come out with such demands of their EMPLOYERS, their EMPLOYERS have the Right and Duty to make the same demand of THEM.
    WE demand THEY provide ALL their social media and computer searches, their e-mail accounts, Bank accounts and financial records for examination. Also Mental Screening, physical records, testing for steroids and illicit drugs. They must also wear GPS trackers so we can evaluate where they are spending their time. Screening for pedophilia and any other sickness.
    If it is good enough for US it is certainly good enough for Our EMPLOYEES.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nationwide as I recall. "special" laws had to be written to go over 12%

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/90bdec03b5722a48d3f0d1a90a133305d0a9f853904096fb6554c4ae8cad148e.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1dfb6f2daa391554845e6c75ab95003cc3760a59c43ff011b3981d8a615e8488.jpg



    The experiment called America will soon be at an end if the Communists have any say in it.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that "Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them." (Miranda v Arizona) What’s that mean? Well, it means that in order to lawfully effect a Right/Liberty protected by our Constitution (nullify it, limit it, license it or restrict it) the powers that be (state or federal) are required to comply with the Constitution’s Article V Amendment process before they expediently make an end-run around our Constitution to take away (or “infringe” upon) your Right of self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

    A few elected bozos and the stroke of an executive’s pen doesn’t cut it my friends. Telling you they have the “authority” to by-pass the Constitution by passing some goofy law because ‘they’ voted on it is what’s known as acting under “the color of law.” The color of law is defined as the actions of an ‘official’, be it law enforcement or legislative, purported to be in the conduct of their official duties when, in fact, they have no lawful authority to actually ‘act’ or conduct themselves. An example might be law enforcement making arrests of peaceful protestors or phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue. Another example would be a legislature passing laws effecting areas where they have no lawful authority to legislate.

    “Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” and expand the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that doesn’t exist, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the aforementioned Supreme Court stated in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama that the individuals should “engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Without said lawful Amendment the Supreme Court’s Marbury vs Madison comes into play: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

    If the Supreme Court’s declarations mean nothing, Hamilton made clear in Federalist 78 that “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Jefferson said much the same thing in 1798 when he said “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” The Supremacy Clause (Article 6 clause 2) codifies this very principle; that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.

    If politicians, judges and law enforcement don’t care to comply with our Constitution (the ‘highest’ law of the land) which they’ve sworn an Oath to, then the People shouldn’t worry about complying with their ‘gun laws’.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

    ReplyDelete
  6. The only entity that can commit Genocide is Government. Government with its mandate to enforce its "laws" with violence; often homicide, is the most dangerous of all. Government has killed hundreds of millions of totally innocent citizens for no reason but some kind of "politics".


    Where are the "red flag" laws to be held against Government. That red flag law is guns in the HANDS of citizens.



    Taking the guns from citizens; lets not fool ourselves that is what is going on here, will enable Genocide by Government YET ONCE AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.