United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia
Source:
The Millennium Report
URL Source: http://themillenniumreport.com/2019 ... azi-germany-or-stalins-russia/
Published: Mar 22, 2019
Author: Chuck Baldwin
Post Date: 2019-03-22 06:08:46 by Hondo68
Keywords: Trump, Graham, Rubio, gun confiscation bill, absolutely WILL sign it
Views: 1723
Comments: 21
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin conducting hearings next Tuesday, March 26, on Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—otherwise known as a national “red flag” gun confiscation bill. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Marco Rubio (R-FL). If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law. I am writing this open letter to Senators Rubio and Graham, President Trump and the untold numbers of legislators, judges and lawmen that will be working together to facilitate and execute the confiscation of the arms of innocent American citizens—citizens who have not even been charged with a crime. I have purchased a full-page ad in the capital city newspaper in my home State of Montana, the Helena Independent Record, in which the following letter will appear this Sunday, March 24. I urge readers to feel free to use, copy, promote, publish, etc., this open letter in an attempt to bring this information to the attention of as many people as possible. The GOP faithful are mostly in denial about what Donald Trump and many Republican senators are up to. They refuse to acknowledge that Trump, Graham, Rubio, et. al are about to enact a gun confiscation bill that rivals anything in Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia. If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns. The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself. Again, I urge everyone to take this open letter and get it into the hands of as many people as you can. If the American people do not arise in massive numbers against this bill, it WILL pass. We are getting NO HELP on this from the NRA or the vast majority of so-called pro-Second Amendment Republicans. Ron Paul, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and a few others are trying to warn the American people about this communistic bill. But that’s about it. I beg you, folks, distribute this open letter to your friends, your family members, your neighbors, your sheriffs, your chiefs of police, your legislators, your local judges—distribute this letter to EVERYONE. We don’t have much time. And I mean that literally. [Begin my open letter to Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, et. al] I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I say what I’m about to say. “Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process. Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course. You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual. Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote: Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis. This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality. Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”? There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc. Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. “Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent. Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized. And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous. It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place. Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever. Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above. So much for equal justice under the law. It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down. Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws: The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years. We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man. I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms. Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans? At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns. Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community. Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing? In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart. As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law. I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down. Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country. “Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God. [End open letter] And here is a short video of this letter on my YouTube channel. Feel free to share the video version of this letter as well. Folks, please take this seriously. Our liberties—and maybe our lives—hang in the balance.
Poster Comment: LibertyFellowshipMT This open letter was delivered by Dr. Chuck Baldwin prior to the message on Sunday, March 17, 2019, during the service at Liberty Fellowship. The letter addresses the "red flag" gun confiscation law (Senate Bill 7) currently being proposed by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). President Donald Trump is also pushing this gun confiscation bill. This open letter addresses the egregious unconstitutionality of "red flag" laws and the dangerous ramifications that will result should this bill become law.
My Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et. Al
Published on Mar 17, 2019
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. How is that any different than our drunk driving laws? You can be fined, thrown in jail, have your license revoked, face thousands of dollars in legal fees -- all for merely having a BAC over .08. You haven't done anything wrong. No one was killed or injured. No property destroyed. No laws broken. Yet you can lose everything over something you "might" do while driving with a BAC over .08. Now compare that to temporarily turning in your shotgun.
Bullshit. He picked up his handgun, struggled with the officers, and the gun fired. No one was hit, but not for lack of trying by the psycho.
A restraining order does the same thing, yet the author hasn't complained about that.
I'm your neighbor. I know you own guns, and I see you yelling at your kid out in the yard. As a "concerned citizen" I call the cops and say your child is in danger. Later, cops send a SWAT team to your house - you answer the door with a cellphone in your hand. Bang! Bang! Rat-a-tat-tat! You're dead. They'll even shoot your miniature poodle. Because of one nosy neighbor who doesn't like guns.
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. Do the cops come to your house while you're drinking and arrest you because you might get in a car and drive?
Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. As I have said before, these red flag laws are NOT good, and will end badly !! They are being pushed by those seeking total power. If Trump really does endorse this crap, he can forget getting a second term, even if he does support more tax cuts ! He will see his base evaporate !!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) "No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson " AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now run by idiots.
So you're willing to sign an affidavit -- under penalty of perjury -- to that effect? A judge will accept your assessment that the child is in danger because his dad merely yelled at him in the yard and sign an order of protection to seize his guns -- not even knowing if the dad has any guns? A SWAT team will be dispatched, not two patrol officers as they did with Gary Willis? Finally, are you a member of any group below authorized under Maryland law to file such a petition?
Even better, arrest me because I might purchase alcohol.
What about a restraining order where they remove guns?
Against who ????? Do you mean a restraining order to block the confiscation, or do you mean a restraining order against the target of the confiscation ? Please be more clear & specific!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Never Pick A Fight With An Old Man He Will Just Shoot You He Can't Afford To Get Hurt "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) "No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson " AMERICA! Designed by geniuses. Now run by idiots.
tl:dr: It appears that this bill would be similar to a restraining order. If a family member felt threatened that individual (or a cop on that individual's behalf) can petition the court to issue a protective order demanding the confiscation of firearms. Kris Kobach is cited as suggesting "The seizure of guns without any hearing at all." - This doesn't appear to be true. He also claims: "Based on the testimony of one unrelated person" - also seems untrue. Believe whatever you choose to believe - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s7/text/is (b)Minimum requirements for extreme risk protection orders A qualifying State or tribal law shall have in effect the following minimum requirements for the issuance of an extreme risk protection order: (1)Petition for extreme risk protection order (A)In general A law enforcement officer, or family or household member of an individual, may submit a petition to a State or tribal court, on a form designed by the courts administrator of the State or similar office, that— (i)describes the facts and circumstances necessitating that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the respondent because the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by— (I)having a firearm or ammunition in his or her custody or control; or (II)purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; (ii)is accompanied by a sworn affidavit, signed by the petitioner, stating the specific facts that give rise to reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent; (iii)identifies the quantities, types, and locations of all firearms and ammunition the petitioner believes to be in the current ownership, possession, custody, or control of the respondent; and (iv)identifies whether there is a known extreme risk protection order already in effect against the respondent. (B)Good faith notice A petitioner who submits a petition under subparagraph (A) shall be required to make a good faith effort to provide notice to other family or household members of the respondent, or to any other known third party, who may be at risk of violence because of the submission of such petition. (2)Issuance of extreme risk protection orders (A)Hearing (i)In general Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (1), the court shall— (I)order a hearing to be held not later than 14 days after the date of such order; and (II)issue a notice of the hearing ordered under subclause (I) to the respondent. (ii)Telephone hearing A court may conduct the hearing required under clause (i) by telephone, pursuant to local court rules. (iii)Determination If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period the court determines is appropriate, which may not exceed 12 months. (B)Consideration of evidence (i)In general In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court— (I)may consider relevant evidence, such as— (aa)a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others; (bb)a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months; (cc)evidence of a serious mental illness; (dd)a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order; (ee)whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence; (ff)whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others; (gg)the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent; (hh)the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person; (ii)corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent; (jj)relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and (kk)witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court; and (II)shall consider whether a mental health evaluation or chemical dependency evaluation is appropriate. (ii)Presentation of evidence Anyone who offers evidence or recommendations relating to the petition submitted under paragraph (1) shall— (I)present the evidence or recommendations in writing to the court and submit a copy of such evidence or recommendations to each party or the attorney for a party; or (II)present the evidence under oath at a hearing at which all parties are present. (iii)Mental health and chemical dependency evaluations If a court determines that a mental health evaluation or chemical dependency evaluation is appropriate under clause (i)(II), the court may order the appropriate evaluation.
For one thing, they've actually drunk enough alcohol to achieve the prohibited reading (assuming the test is reasonably accurate) , not just possessing some booze at home. It's apples and oranges, to be a victim of red flag, you just have to own a gun and have some crackpot make a complaint. Secondly, I don't endorse drunk driving legislation, aka pre-crime. There's no injured party, so no real crime has been committed. .
It is true, there is a provision for a hearing before a judge where the burden of proof has been shifted to where the gun confiscation victim has to prove that he's not a danger. FAKE JUSTICE. Try to prove a negative, nearly impossible, the accuser must prove their accusation in all other jurisprudence!
Where, let's say, an ex-wife is threatened by her husband. She goes to court a gets a restraining order where he has to stay at least 1,000 feet away. In addition, since he poses a threat, his guns are taken away. That's the existing law that's been around a long time. I'm asking how this new "Red Flag" law is any different than what we've been doing.
And...YOU, as a supporter of Democratic-Globalist intrusion and fascist policy, are somehow to be believed over pro-constitution Kris Kobach? Not on MY planet.
CHECK and MATE.
The way it is written suggests that the hearing is set to establish the protective order. Subsequently - the gun-owner must convince the court that he/she poses no further threat. I'm only arguing that Baldwin isn't being entirely honest.... SB 7 will never even come anywhere near a vote in the senate.....
In Maryland, I don't think the defendant is present at the hearing. I could be wrong. In other states, the defendant is there and can present his side of it.
So,you are pleased that cops,no doubt including yourself or a close family member,can come onto private property to confiscate other private property WHOSE OWNERSHIP IS PROTECTED BY THE US CONSTIUTION,and then murder the citizen for trying to protect his property as well as his CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Good to know.
In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
where yah bein
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
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.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#2. To: hondo68 (#0)
(Edited)
By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms.
#3. To: hondo68 (#0)
Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms.
#5. To: misterwhite, hondo68 (#2)
(Edited)
By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#6. To: misterwhite, hondo68 (#2)
(Edited)
How is that any different than our drunk driving laws? You can be fined, thrown in jail, have your license revoked, face thousands of dollars in legal fees -- all for merely having a BAC over .08.
The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.
Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.
#7. To: Deckard (#1)
#8. To: Deckard (#5)
As a "concerned citizen" I call the cops and say your child is in danger.
•Law enforcement
•Health professional
•Spouse or family member
•Someone the person is dating or has children with
•Current or former legal guardian
#9. To: Deckard (#6)
Do the cops come to your house while you're drinking and arrest you because you might get in a car and drive?
#10. To: Stoner (#7)
As I have said before, these red flag laws are NOT good, and will end badly !!
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
" What about a restraining order where they remove guns? "
#12. To: hondo68 (#0)
Senate Bill 7, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019—
#13. To: misterwhite (#2)
How is that any different than our drunk driving laws?
#14. To: Jameson (#12)
Kris Kobach is cited as suggesting "The seizure of guns without any hearing at all." - This doesn't appear to be true.
#15. To: Stoner (#11)
Do you mean a restraining order to block the confiscation, or do you mean a restraining order against the target of the confiscation ?
#16. To: Jameson (#12)
Kris Kobach is cited as suggesting "The seizure of guns without any hearing at all." - This doesn't appear to be true.
#17. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#6)
Do the cops come to your house while you're drinking and arrest you because you might get in a car and drive?
#18. To: hondo68 (#14)
It is true, there is a provision for a hearing before a judge where the burden of proof has been shifted to where the gun confiscation victim has to prove that he's not a danger.
#19. To: Jameson (#18)
The way it is written suggests that the hearing is set to establish the protective order.
#20. To: misterwhite (#3)
Bullshit. He picked up his handgun, struggled with the officers, and the gun fired. No one was hit, but not for lack of trying by the psycho.
#21. To: Jameson (#18)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]