"Red Flag" Laws

Here we go again. More “common sense” “gun control”! Conveniently ignored, of course, is the basic fact that inanimate objects require no control whatsoever, as they are merely implements employed by human beings. It goes without saying that focus groups would recoil at the term “people control”, so better to focus on the machined metal and/or plastic implements. Now, naturally, “code control” is also necessary since guns may be printed. In the hands of the ‘woke’, justifications for coercion are unlimited.

The law as it once existed in the US, would have stopped such legislation as un-Constitutional. When it comes to fundamental Constitutional rights, the supreme court (sic) has traditionally applied the highest level of scrutiny to infringements on fundamental rights. Such laws must be “narrowly tailored in furtherance of a compelling state interest”. That was then.

As regards non-fundamental right infringement, the state has it easier. For the rule to pass Constitutional muster, the state must merely show a “rational basis” for the law or rule. This will be interesting (if not disgusting). Eventually, scotus will likely rule on so-called “red flag” laws. So, will they apply the highest level of scrutiny? - “narrowly tailored… compelling state interest”? - as it has for other (than the Second Amendment) rights? Or, will is simply apply a rational basis test?

That test, however, has a wee problem. You see, since time immemorial, psychologists and psychiatrists have tried to design tests to predict dangerousness - to determine a priori, which individual(s) is, in fact, dangerous. Trouble is - and not for want of trying - no such test has ever been scientifically proven to reliably predict who is dangerous! So, it is well within the realm of possibility that courts - even the supreme court (sic) - will find such laws Constitutional, but to do so, they will have to ignore the clear scientific evidence and employ an “IRRational basis” test. When this happens in today’s america (sic), there would hardly even be a ripple of notice. Beginning with federal spending and on down the list you see, little rational has been done in washington (sic) for several generations. The rule of law has become the rule of straight-face lies in perpetual repetition by state mouthpieces. Goebbels springs to mind. Plus ca change.

How can the citizens not see? Can they really not see the mountain of lies? It seems we, too, are being ruled by a “not-see” party. One of the first acts of the homophone political party in Germany in 1933 was to disarm the populace, beginning with Jews and political opponents. Since “equity” reigns, that could never happen here… .

8 Likes

These proposed laws allow virtually anyone to initiate a “protective order” deeming an individual dangerous and unfit to possess a firearm. It can be a neighbor who doesn’t like you, a former girlfriend, someone you date; virtually anyone who comes into contact with you.

It isn’t hard to figure out how this will work if/where implemented. The same folks who band together to manufacture dem votes from the living and the dead, will, instead use surreptitious means to discover who owns guns. They will then file for protective orders agains thousands, scores of thousands, even millions of legitimate gun owners. We know hoe they operate.

The law goes even further, beginning with “you can’t prove a negative”. Finally, the ability to challenge such an order - through the quaint but no longer operant notion of due process of law - is stringently prohibited by these laws, making their determinations a one-time, one-direction act. They cause, in effect, unchallengeable and permanent disarmament. Talk about potential causes for civil war II!

6 Likes

Red flag laws should be unconstitutional

No one red flags criminals or certain demographics

Definitely targeting conservatives and white folks

3 Likes