Gun Control

Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws Imagine 'Due Process' That Does Not Exist on Paper or in Practice

Here is how the states with "red flag" laws fail to protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.


When President Donald Trump endorsed "red flag" laws on Monday, he described them as providing "rapid due process" to people accused of posing a threat to themselves or others before suspending their Second Amendment rights. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.), who plans to introduce a bill aimed at encouraging more states to enact such laws, says they should provide "robust due process." But as I note in my column today, due process is neither rapid nor robust under most existing red flag laws, which 17 states and the District of Columbia have enacted. There is little reason to think the situation will improve as more states rush to do something about mass shootings.

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last March, David Kopel, a gun policy expert at the Independence Institute in Denver, emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards aimed at protecting the constitutional rights of respondents in gun confiscation cases. Kopel's recommendations include requiring that petitions be submitted only by law enforcement agencies after an independent investigation, allowing ex parte orders (which are issued without an adversarial process) only for good cause, limiting them to one week, limiting subsequent orders to six months, requiring clear and convincing evidence, providing counsel to respondents, giving them a right to cross-examine witnesses, letting them sue people who file false and malicious petitions, and giving them advance notice of confiscation orders. Here are some of the ways existing laws fall short of those criteria.

Who can file a petition?

According to a handy summary prepared by the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, just five states (Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Rhode Island, and Vermont) require that petitions come from police officers or prosecutors. In the other 12 states and D.C., lots of other potentially aggrieved (or well-meaning but mistaken) people, such as blood relatives, in-laws, current and former cohabitants, current and former intimates, physicians, and mental health specialists, can also file petitions. A pending California bill would add employers, co-workers, and school personnel to that state's already lengthy list of potential petitioners.

When are ex parte orders allowed?

Every state and D.C. allow judges to issue gun confiscation orders without giving the respondent a chance to rebut the claims against him. In some states, the standard for such ex parte orders is minimal. New York requires "probable cause" to believe the respondent is "likely to cause serious harm" to himself or others. Other states are stricter. Vermont requires showing by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the respondent poses "an immediate and extreme risk."

How long do ex parte orders last?

The maximum length ranges from a week in Nevada to six months (for "good cause") in Maryland. Fourteen days—twice as long as Kopel's recommendation—is the most common limit.

What is the standard of proof for final orders?

Most states require clear and convincing evidence. But a preponderance of the evidence (any probability greater than 50 percent) is enough in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Washington state, and Washington, D.C.

How long do final orders last?

Orders issued after an adversarial hearing typically last up to a year (twice as long as Kopel thinks appropriate), and they can be renewed. Illinois and Vermont have six-month limits, while Indiana and New Jersey impose no time limit. Instead the respondent has to win back his Second Amendment rights by proving he is not dangerous.

Do respondents have a right to legal representation?

Colorado is the only state that provides counsel to respondents who cannot afford a lawyer or choose not to hire one.

Do respondents get a chance to cross-examine their accusers?

Not necessarily. In some states, Kopel says, "The accuser and witnesses supporting the accuser never need to testify in court, where they would be subject to cross-examination. Instead, persons can simply submit an affidavit."

Do respondents have a civil cause of action against petitioners who lie?

No state lets petitioners sue their accusers for knowingly misrepresenting facts in their petitions. While dishonest petitioners could theoretically face criminal charges, Kopel says, such cases are hard to prove and are almost never brought. He argues that the threat of litigation is necessary as a deterrent to people who would otherwise abuse the system to hurt people they have a grudge against.

Do respondents have advance notice before gun confiscation orders are executed?

In some states, Kopel says, "a respondent never receives notice of anything until
the police show up to confiscate his or her firearms," which "creates an inherently volatile and dangerous situation for law enforcement and the public." (See, e.g., the Gary Willis case in Maryland.) Kopel argues that "the safer approach is to authorize no-notice confiscation only when a court has made specific factual findings about why such an approach is needed."

How do red flag laws work in practice?

The actual performance of red flag laws tends to be worse than the promises on paper. While Indiana notionally requires that a hearing be held within 14 days of a gun seizure, for instance, a 2015 study found that gun owners waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms. Although Maryland officially requires evidence of an "immediate and
present danger" for ex parte orders, judges issue them in virtually every case.

Even when clear and convincing evidence is required for a final order, the thing to be proven—usually a "significant" risk but in some states a mere "risk," "danger," or "risk of danger"—is vague and undefined. When standards are amorphous, judges are especially likely to err on the side of issuing orders, because they imagine that failing to do so could lead to terrible consequences. The possibility that a respondent will unfairly lose his Second Amendment rights is bound to pale in comparison to the possibility that he will use a gun to commit suicide or murder. That psychological dynamic helps explain why judges in Florida issue final orders 95 percent of the time.

Donald Trump can talk about due process. Lindsey Graham can talk about due process. David French can talk about due process. But when push comes to shove, state legislators will give it short shrift, and so will judges, because they both have strong incentives to cast the net as widely as possible, the better to catch potential mass shooters. Never mind that red flag laws are mainly used to protect people against their own suicidal impulses, or that so far there is no real evidence that they prevent homicides. The point is to do something about mass shootings, whether or not that thing works or produces benefits that outweigh its costs, which in this case consist mainly of constitutional rights unjustly lost.

NEXT: Vox Misses the Mark on Video Games and Gun Deaths

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Red flag laws are not a good idea. There are solutions that will help, but this isn’t it.

    1. Red Flag laws are also an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment.

      These laws also violate the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

      1. Indeed.

        1. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

          …….. Read More

      2. “These laws also violate the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.”

        Yeah, but something has to be done to save lives, common sense infringements, I mean, gun control laws are appropriate and no rights are absolute. Oh, and the children.

        The answer is clearly more guns to deter future shootings. All of the businesses that demand their customers disarm at their establishments should be shamed for leaving their customers vulnerable to a violent death.

        Tell the management and owners you will not patronize a business that cares so little for your safety.

        1. And when tell the management and owners, point out the illogic of their position. People entering with the intent of doing harm are going to ignore the sign. Which means the sign only serves to disarm are the people you actually want to be there when the sign-ignorers show up.

    2. I’m sure you will change your mind once Trump tells you that this is a great big byootiful idea.

      1. Poor JFree. He does not understand how to criticize politicians of all stripes.

        1. Hey I sympathize. Life must be a real bitch as a dingleberry munching bot. Such a short window to express – well – something. And then its back to the hole

          1. Well, that explains a lot that youre a dingleberry muncher and only have a few seconds to post a troll comment and then start eating dingleberries again.

            Good luck with those butt crumbs there, JFree.

      2. And if land taxes were somehow grafted onto the legislation that’s all it would take for you to claim it was a byootiful idea!

        1. They don’t even need to be grafted in. Just get Roberts to declare it a tax!

    3. “there are solutions that will help”

      Damn Shitlord, all this talk about going after violent extremists puckered your butt right up, huh?

      1. Hi sqrsly.

    4. Remember when many of these same Republicans were apoplectic about the assumption of guilt in the Kavanaugh hearings and the Russia investigation? Unfortunately, hypocrisy seems to be the most bipartisan aspect of politics.

  2. Anyone who supports red flag laws is either lying or doesn’t understand how courts and bureaucracies work. I don’t care how much “due process” the system has, it is only as good as the people in it. And in a system like this the judge will nearly always default to taking the person’s guns. If the judge takes the person’s guns and nothing happens, the judge can claim he did the right thing. If something bad happens, the judge can say at least he tried. If, however, the judge refuses to take the person’s guns and they end up doing something horrible, the judge will be blamed as the judge who could have prevented some tragedy but refused to do so. No judge will ever get any credit for letting someone keep their guns. It is only downside.

    These laws are nothing but an excuse to disarm people. They are not going to protect anyone but would do an enormous amount of harm to people’s right to bear arms.

    1. What John said nothing more to say

      1. There’s always something more to say.

        1. Yeah, as Hihn painfully reminds us.

    2. Yup. These gun grabbers and their RINO cohorts cannot repeal the 2nd Amendment, so these “Red Flag Laws” are the next strategy to end run the Constitutional right of the People to keep and bear Arms.

    3. I remember that one of the things driving my state to switch from “may issue” concealed carry permits to “shall issue” was the fact that anti-gun judges in liberal counties would point blank refuse to issue the permit no matter how good the petitioner’s reason was. I don’t see any reason to believe that political bias won’t be a part of this process as well.

      1. “”I don’t see any reason to believe that political bias won’t be a part of this process as well.””

        I think it’s a safe bet that it will.

        1. I think the Left is counting on it.

      2. My point doesn’t even take into account the political bias of many judges who would just grant every petition because they want guns banned. This would be a disaster.

        1. Exactly. These types of judges already denied every CCW permit after District of Columbia v. Heller was decided.

          With these gun control laws, they will grant every confiscation petition brought.

    4. I’d say they’re lying, and hoping we assume they’re stupid.

  3. No state lets petitioners sue their accusers for knowingly misrepresenting facts in their petitions.

    How about for knowingly misrepresenting facts in rape accusations?

    1. Why not perjury charges? If intentionally falsely lying on a court document is not perjury, what is?

      1. Some may call it good police work.

      2. Perjury is a criminal offense. That means the charge has to be brought by the prosecutor. For a variety of mostly-good reasons, prosecutors enjoy unlimited discretion about which cases they will or will not pursue. But for those same reasons, they almost never bring perjury charges.

        So no, the threat of perjury is not an adequate mitigation to the risk of false accusations.

  4. Anyone who is *that* dangerous should also not be allowed access to transportation or social media. Temporarily, of course.

    1. And they should be committed to a psychiatric institution until they are a proper servant of the state. You know, like the Soviets did.

    2. Well, just for a year, but renewable annually with a simple signature from a judge.

  5. One thing about our current legal system is the lack of true accountability. Instead of making people personally responsible for legal screwups, we’ve got tons and tons of procedures which don’t do a very good job. It’s like politicians creating one regulation after another to simulate what free markets routinely solve day in and day out.

    Here, for instance, all these restrictions on how to issue the initial ex parte order. And yet, in the end, the complainant suffers no repercussions for lying their ass off, as long as they say “I thought …”.

    I would gladly substitute true accountability for all those half-assed unaccountable procedures. You accuse me of being unstable and get a judge to ok taking my guns away? Great — now when I get my real hearing a week later, where I get to counter this, if that order is not upheld, what do you suffer? A week without some constitutional right seems appropriate. How about we throw your ass in jail, at your expense, for as long as I was without my guns? After all, you took away my right to self-defense, so why not lock you up so you don’t need your own right to self-defense foe just as long?

    1. I’m guessing you’d have to prove malicious intent on the part of the petitioner to throw their ass in jail for making an invalid claim. Same as now with those who make reports to child protective services.

      1. No. I want it to apply whether intentional or not. I want the accountability that comes from making the decision to accuse someone without being really sure.

        The legal system is a dangerous deadly weapon. Using it sure require as much accountability as shooting a gun or driving a car.

  6. In those States which do not provide legal counsel for the accused, I guess one is left to decide whether a $400-per hour lawyer is worth the effort. The real point of most “gun-control” laws is to make ownership more burdensome, more expensive, and an ever-bigger hassle, thereby reducing the number of people who will own them. Before too long, if this trend is allowed to continue, only the relatively wealthy, will have access to firearms. Gee, imagine that. Only rich people, who are mostly white, will have guns. The new Amurica.

    1. I know the reason why my woman didn’t bring her AR-15 when we moved to Maryland and ended up just giving it to her dad was because of the heavy barrel rule. That and the fact that we’d have to pay something like $75 for a FFL transfer or some shit. And then get it all registered, etc. Well, she could have gotten a heavy barrel but it may not have fit and it was going to be a PITA and she wanted her dad to keep it because they’ve had a terrible wild hog problem on their land and we’d only use it at the range. Anyway, we would have brought it if not for the stupid barrel law, which was designed exactly as you say, to just be an impediment.

      1. I am curious — a “heavy barrel” restriction? I am assuming you mean something like a target barrel? Like the one I had on my sleeved Remington 700 in 220 Swift for long-range target shooting? Why would adding a couple of pounds to a rifle make it more dangerous?

  7. It’s going to be interesting when some red-flagger goes after Trump. Will his Secret Service bodyguards be taken away for a week?

    1. For some reason that reminds me of all the people that filed a complaint about Kavanagh after the hearing.

      The FBI found nothing, but that wasn’t good enough for the mob mentality.

    2. Or better yet. What happens if you report a police officer for red flag? Something you can see coming is the LEO exclusion. Because some animals are more equal than others.

  8. There’s not that much difference between the democrats and the republicans.
    Gun grabbing while denying due process is a good example.

  9. It is amazing. I read this article, and my initial thought was: Thank you Reason, for pointing out where the potential pitfalls are in drafting a Red Flag law. The article is basically a road map on what not to do when the Red Flag law is drafted. Very helpful.

    Where I differ from many here is recognizing that there are instances where an exception is warranted. And separating the mentally/emotionally disturbed from guns seems like a reasonable exception, considering the extreme cost that occurs when they commit mass killings. To me, the key is to make it a very, very, very limited exception.

    I do not favor gun control, as a rule. I am all in for ‘open carry’ and ‘shall issue’ legislation. But it is very foolhardy to have mentally/emotionally disturbed people walking around with guns.

    1. To me, the key is to make it a very, very, very limited exception.

      To me, the key would be to ensure the very, very, very limited exceptions remain very, very, very limited generations from now.

      1. The founder thought they had that covered by adding the words “shall not be infringed” in the 2A and “shall make no law” in the 1A. Even their explicit wording did not keep it so for generations.

        1. I had the Commerce Clause in mind, but yours are excellent examples.

    2. We could solve a lot of the problem you speak of by police actually enforcing the law against threats. Most of these guys threaten people with guns numerous times before they do anything. Yet, the police basically refuse to arrest someone for making threats even though it is a felony.

    3. “”I do not favor gun control”‘

      Yet you do favor gun control when you believe exception is warranted.

      What happens when the exception is expanded beyond what you feel is warranted? What happens when judges rubber stamp the requests? What happens when the list of flagged behaviors goes way beyond what you accepted?

      Have you learned anything regarding governments inability to keep something simple, simple? Look at the sex offenders registry, look at the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

      You seem to miss the reasons why government can’t be trusted to enact something like this in a reasonable, limited way. We don’t need another example of good intentions gone bad.

      1. Vic….Sorry for the delay, went out to dinner with DW (Dear Wife). You ask a fair set of questions, so I shall answer.

        What happens when the exception is expanded beyond what you feel is warranted? Answer: I’d use the political process to effect a change in the law to repeal that expansion.

        What happens when judges rubber stamp the requests? Answer: I honestly don’t think a Federal judge will rubberstamp much of anything, FISA excepted. But in a case like this, there would be repeated reviews, with attorneys. Keep in mind we are talking about an exceptionally small number of people relative to the entire population.

        What happens when the list of flagged behaviors goes way beyond what you accepted? Answer: I move to Texas. 🙂 All kidding aside, that is where the political process comes in.

        The PATRIOT Act has to be the most ironically named law ever passed by Congress. It is anything but patriotic. I cannot argue your point here; you are correct. Government brings bureaucracy and unwanted complexity.

        The problem here is pretty straightforward. Mentally/emotionally disturbed people should not have guns. This is just common sense. The Founders probably never mentioned this because they would have thought it complete lunacy to give guns to people who are messed up in the head. It just goes without saying. The downside risk (mass killing) outweighs the temporary loss of unencumbered 2A rights.

        It is not about the gun; it is about the person holding it.

        1. “”Vic….Sorry for the delay, went out to dinner with DW (Dear Wife).””

          No biggie. I hope people have a life outside of post here. 😉

          The questions were not so much for you to answer, which is fine of course, but as food for thought. You really do seem naïve about how government will truly abuse your idea though. There is ample evidence that they will kick the door open if they get their foot in.
          How would you feel if they government expanded your idea well beyond what you believe is reasonable. Would you feel bad about being an enabler? I would be horrified and regret I helped empower them.

          You may have noticed I don’t say the Patriot act and I use the correct P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act for reasons you pointed out. However, I feel you slightly missed my point. My point isn’t about the expansion of bureaucracy and unwanted complexity. It’s about how it was sold to the public one way, then applied in other ways and it’s abuse. This will be the end result of enacting the plan you speak of. Government can’t help itself. It’s best not to open the door unless you plan to allow them to kick the door wide open. Which I don’t think you really want.

    4. Exceptions disprove the rule.

      Why should government stop at what you believe is an exception. Once you allow for exceptions why can’t they start adding their own?

    5. Absents of good ideas do not make bad ideas better.

    6. And of course the issue of codifying something too closely related to thought crimes and classifying thoughts in a pre-crime category.

      This is really in George Orwell and Phillip Dick territory.

    7. “”To me, the key is to make it a very, very, very limited exception.”‘

      What do you think should happen if the government goes well beyond your very, very, very limited exception?

    8. Involuntary psychiatric holds (so-called ‘5150’ hold) already address the issue of mental instability. In my state, a doctor or cop can lock you up for 72 hours and extend that to 14 days
      (and longer, but at 14 days the ‘safeguard’ of review kicks in).

      I can assure you from long experience, they are often abused. If you can’t afford a lawyer? Good luck. Even if you can, a facility can make it impossible for you to even call them by, for example, drugging you into a stupor or simply not giving you a phone. Angry protest only proves you are a ‘threat,’ and thus ensures a lengthier stay for ‘combativeness.’ See how this works yet?

      For those who do get out more or less intact – good luck getting any accountability among the miles of red tape and pathologically-ingrained CYA. Those are just the broad strokes. As they have since their advent, psychiatry and pharmacology can be exploited toward evil ends in myriad ways. If the state wants you in a psychiatric facility, they have many means of getting (read: pushing) you into one.

      I work in addiction treatment and post-9/11, I’ve watched the ongoing merger of psychiatry and the state’s punitive goals worsen to a very alarming level. The state is accruing dangerous powers while oversight is steadily dwindling. The constant barrage of fearmongering propaganda has taken a heavy toll on America’s psyche, and unless we’re willing to assume the risks and pay the price to restore it, liberty is on the way out! Those who ARE aware understand we are witnessing nothing less than an unprecedented totalitarian social control scheme coalescing before our very eyes – and often to our delusional cheers.

      If people knew how many people are beaten, raped or die suspiciously in state psychiatric hospitals; If they knew just how close we’re coming to the barbarity of Soviet psychiatry (I’m waiting for the ‘Sluggish Schizophrenia’ diagnostic code to resign in utter disgust), they might actually think twice about giving the state even more power to ‘protect’ them.

  10. “Republicans Who Support Gun Confiscation Laws….”

    And to think that, once upon a time, that phrase would have been akin to “Vegetarians who love bacon cheeseburgers”. But I guess if you love Trump, you gotta love his New York values as well.

    1. “”But I guess if you love Trump, you gotta love his New York values as well.””

      If you are a NYer and hate Trump, do you self hate your NY values?

  11. The incentive is to grant these injunctions. The very fact that it’s difficult to predict a person’s future behavior will probably make injunctions more, not less likely.

    I mean, who wants to be the judge who failed to prevent a massacre? Judges lose elections over that kind of thing (or if they’re federal judges, they get a chilly reception at cocktail parties).

    On the other hand, how many judges lose elections for being super-cautious about stopping a mass murder? If the person fails to carry out a mass murder, you can credit the injunction. If they defy the injunction and commit a massacre with illegal guns, then that just shows the government Did What It Could.

  12. “He argues that “the safer approach is to authorize no-notice confiscation only when a court has made specific factual findings about why such an approach is needed.”

    Yeah, because just like no-knock warrants, no-notice confiscation will not be abused.

  13. Thought for the day:

    Why didn’t the authors of the Second Amendment write: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, and, every angry Wacko/Incel shall be able to easily acquire Weapons which shall enable him to rapidly murder a large Number of Strangers, and, Law-Enforcement Officers shall be forced to approach every possible-Crime-in-progress Situation with the Assumption that every Suspect may be carrying a concealed semi-automatic Weapon, and shall therefore bear a corresponding Mandate to shoot and kill any Suspect who behaves in a Confusing or Unexpected Way for any Reason whatsoever, in order for the Law-Enforcement Officers to avoid being shot and killed Themselves“? If that is what they meant, why didn’t they write it in? And if that is not what they meant, why should we interpret the Amendment as if it were?

    1. You sure this really qualifies as a thought? I have my doubts.

    2. “If that is what they meant, why didn’t they write it in? And if that is not what they meant, why should we interpret the Amendment as if it were?”

      I’d say uck off, but you’re not even worthy of that much of a response.

  14. Let’s be clear about something. This is gun confiscation. Something many gun grabbers said they would not do. Of course we knew they were lying. Anyone who approves of this approves of confiscation. It doesn’t matter if they say or believe it will be limited.

    1. If they get their way on this (and I suspect they may) there will be more mass shootings anyway. Then the cry will come up that we just “can’t afford the delay imposed by due process”.

      1. According to Eric Holder, the confiscation itself is the due process.

  15. They also imagine a psychiatric professional practice that doesn’t alter its illness definitions according to political or cultural pressure.

    I’m not entirely opposed to this in theory, but reality is that professionals and politicians are obviously not immune to shitty people with agendas that harm people who trust them.

    1. What revision is the DSM up to now?

  16. I hope this passes as a national law as soon as possible.
    Because I am going to submit the list of registered democrats the day after it passes. (and all their bodyguards if they are elected officials)
    They are all bat-shit crazy.

    1. In other words your plan is to draw the attention of the police?

    2. +1000

  17. So if I think that someone is, um, off their rocker, and liable to cast a vote that would be dangerous to democracy, can I have their voting rights suspended? Or perhaps someone is going to write an inflammatory editorial; can I have their right to free speech suspended?
    Or their right to associate, or travel?
    Because it’s all common sense, right?

  18. people accused of posing a threat to themselves or others

    We are so used to hearing this phrase that no one seems to analyze it. Being a “threat to yourself” shouldn’t be the business of the state at all. Being a threat to others should (if the existence of such a threat can really be determined, which it usually can’t).

  19. Politicians who support this notion will regret the day they ever heard of red flag laws. Their legacies will carry a Supreme Court scolding and perhaps be the landmark of their careers. The Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves.

    It’s especially important to the justices because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

    These laws were created to dilute power licensed to the psychiatric community and transfer it to unqualified persons, e.g., local judges, disgruntled aunts, et al. Democrats and weak minded Republicans are victims of the bum’s rush. They’ve been hoodwinked by Bloomberg’s rhetoric and haven’t read his 2018 data.

    It reveals gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Generally, since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent.

    The natural next step for any Nazified government was to codify empowerment of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends, neighbors, judges, police officers, boyfriends, girlfriends, classmates, teachers, faculty, employers, co-workers and everyone except those actually qualified to judge mental competence. Soon they’ll want to choose an upper age limit for people to be “allowed by the government” to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

  20. “We are so used to hearing this phrase that no one seems to analyze it. Being a “threat to yourself” shouldn’t be the business of the state at all.”


  21. The harder gun nuts push dopey absolutism, the more severe the backlash that sensible Americans will impose on the gun nuts.

    (Second Amendment rights are as unlimited as First Amendment rights, which explains child pornography laws.)

    1. As a “Reverend” you should know that the right to bear arms was endowed by God, the Creator. “Sensible” Americans understand that. But I have been seeing your drivel for years; you are clearly not acquainted with God, nor with actual sensible Americans.

      1. I don’t think he’s a reverend of that god.

  22. Even if you fight the denunciation or the red flag is short term, the record is forever.

    How many really angry ex-spouses would use this as one more tool to harass the other. Mine would for sure.

    Public denunciation of those not toeing the PC line of the minute is so Mao 1966.

  23. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Read More

  24. The left knows that if they create enough hysteria and have sufficient moral outrage they will cause politicians to acquiesce in ways that moves the ball closer to their underlying goal. When you start with the preconception that citizens belong to, are connected to and derive their rights from a government then it is easy to conceive of why the 2nd amendment is so unnecessary by those on the left. It is another one of their so called antiquated positions that truly evolved and civilized societies devoted to their fellows greater good have no need for. The fact that for the majority of human existence government or ruling class was based on tyranny is completely lost on their Utopian collective minds.

  25. Soon after these laws with all of their “safeguards” are passed it will be determined by our betters that ownership of a firearm is proof that a person is “a hazard to themselves or others” and therefore should have their guns confiscated “for their own good”. Unless, of course, said person is a member of a protected class (LEO, politician, liberal hollywood “actor”, etc.).

    Soon afterwards, “porn” will be banned with “porn” being defined as any anti-abortion or pro-second amendment rhetoric.

  26. These types of laws will escalate to full blown door by door confiscation of not only guns, but anything they want. Politicians will never provide answers to any complex problem. Once you give up your guns to the Marxist liberals, you have given up everything else and now are a slave to their demands that won’t stop with taking away of guns.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.