Red Flag Laws Aren’t

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The most alarming thing about what are styled “Red Flag” laws isn’t that they threaten to take guns away from people.

It is that they aren’t laws, at all.

Well, they aren’t laws – in the sense of any having been violated as the prerequisite to enforcing them. What “Red Flag” laws do is empower the effective conviction – and punishment – of people who are “guilty” of having worried someone. Perhaps a vengeful estranged or former spouse. A white coat who is “concerned” that you aren’t taking the drugs he prescribes – or declined to answer certain questions you’d rather not answer.

Possibly someone you don’t even know – who read something you wrote (or heard something you said) and didn’t like it. Enough to make a call – anonymously – to express their “concern.”

Hut! Hut! Hut!

As for (repeated) example the Hut! Hut! Hutting! of people legally carrying weapons in public.

It is a legal irrelevance – under these laws – that you didn’t actually break any. Much less were convicted of having broken any. Your offense is having been accused.

And that’s the danger. Not the guns – per se – but rather the precedent.


If it becomes “legal” to seize someone’s guns because “someone” – whoever it may be –  asserts they are concerned about that person, fears they may do something – then is there any logical reason to disbelieve the same principle will eventually be expanded upon to encompass other things that some people also worry about?

Things like speech they don’t like, for instance?

How unlikely do you suppose it is that the same people who urgently believe it is necessary and ought to be legal to seize someone’s guns because they are worried about their state of mind – or so they assert – would not also assert the same with regard to words that worry them?

In fact, the two are already intertwined. For how does one assert worry in regard to the person who owns a gun other than by referring to what he has said or written? Indeed, it must be so, since by definition, “Red Flag” laws accost the person who hasn’t done anything. Well, other than being someone that someone else is “concerned” about.

Thus, we face the specter – those of us who own guns – of having to worry that something we might say, as in an article, for instance, might engender “concern” in someone else.

With the result being an inclination not to say it, at all.

Of course, that is exactly the point. Or rather, the point of “Red Flag” laws is not to seize people’s guns without their having done anything illegal to justify it – although that is certainly an element of it. What is foundationally intended is to use the fear of power – as distinct from law – as a universal cudgel to stifle the smallest expression of dissent.

It is not enough to take people’s guns – though it is necessary to do this, ultimately, in order to assure their submission to everything else that follows. What is absolutely necessary – to the establishment of absolute power – is to establish in the minds of the people that anything they say can and will be used against them – just not necessarily in a court of law. Whenever whatever they say in any way “worries” those who have the power to punish them for saying it.

This is how it already works in Chyna – under what is styled the “social credit” system. People are rewarded by not being punished for saying (and doing) only that which doesn’t “worry” those who have the power to punish them at any time – and in real time. Post something wrongthinkful online – or visit a wrongthinkful site – and the consequences are immediate as well as extra-judicial.

In Chyna, there is no law – other than power.

06-15-22_EP on KMED     

And that law is in the process of being applied, here.

Never forget, as well, that it was first applied – well, advocated – by the man who many misbelieve is the man who stands opposed to such things. The Orange Man. Some will recall what he said: “Take the guns, due process later.” Here is the full quote, uttered back in 2018 after the Parkland shooting:

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court. Because that’s another system, because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of firearms — they saw everything — to go to court would have taken a long time, so you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Italics added, to emphasize the point.

So now the man is gone, but the laws that criminalize those who haven’t violated any are coming. So as to establish the implicit intimidation that the new man seeks to enshrine as the law, encompassing everything, in time.

. . .

Got a question about cars, bikes or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in! Or email me directly at if the @!** “ask Eric” button doesn’t work!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at and I will send you a copy directly!

Share Button


  1. If ‘Gun Control’ Doesn’t Disarm the Government, It Is Authoritarian Propaganda

    This underscores the dark reality: police exist to protect the social and political order, not to serve the interests of average people. They are the Praetorian Guard of the ruling class.

    Armed protection for you is bad, but for them it is good, more leftist/satanist inversion, do as I say not as I do.

  2. The horror:

    ‘Among the sticking points standing in the way of a final deal on what could be the first significant bipartisan gun safety legislation in decades is an age-old question: How do you define a boyfriend?

    ‘The question may sound frivolous, but … for millions of women who have been threatened with a firearm by an intimate partner, it is deadly serious.

    ‘Current law bars people convicted of domestic violence or subject to a domestic violence restraining order from being able to buy a gun, but it applies only if they have been married to or lived with the victim, or had a child with them.

    “There are many people who committed domestic violence who aren’t actually charged with domestic violence — they are charged with simple assault, but they unquestionably committed an act of domestic violence,” Senator Chris Murphy said.’

    What’s wrong with this picture? Let me count the ways:

    1. First, the pejorative, sexist assumption that a ‘boyfriend’ threatens ‘millions of women.’ [See the federal Violence Against Women Act for another ugly, bigoted example.]

    2. Second, a lifetime ban on exercising a Second Amendment right for the misdemeanor offense of ‘domestic violence’ — courtesy of the late Senator Frank “Gun Grabber” Lautenberg (D-NJ), 1994.

    3. Third, as Senator Murphy notes, an accused person can be charged with BOTH domestic violence AND simple assault. This can be a double jeopardy prosecution (e.g., DV tried in county court; assault in municipal court), giving the accuser two bites at the apple in separate trials.

    Assault is a crime dating back to colonial days. ‘Domestic violence’ is an offense created out of whole cloth, half a century ago.

    Ditch the politicized crime of domestic violence, and the ‘boyfriend problem’ goes away.

    Don’t expect any such constitutional respect from sold-out RINOs.

    • Hi Jim,

      My sister’s husband is a retired Marine officer. He was previously married to an uber-bitch who (naturally) told the court she was “afraid” of him . . . and (of course) that he had guns. Cue the expected treatment – absent any evidence of his being a danger to anyone.

    • I read a case not too long ago, of an ex-boyfriend who “Red Flagged” his ex-girlfriend after a bad break-up. After the police summarily disarmed the woman (for her saaaaafety), he shot and killed her. I surmise the Red Flag provision worked very well for him. Not so much for the woman.

  3. Fact is, there are people who have no business owning guns. They can’t take the responsibility.

    There should be a vetting process, and it should be done at or prior to time of purchase. “We reserve the right to refuse sales to anyone” should be posted on the front door of every gun shop in the country. Responsible retailers would be sure to educate and evaluate every customer, and follow up with after-sales services to make sure they’re using it properly. Manufacturers could run online forums and in-person seminars and range day activities, encouraging interaction with other owners, demos etc. A lot of this happens now, so I don’t belive it would be an undue burden, and certainly shouldn’t be codified into law -although over time it might take on the flavor of “a well regulated militia.”

    But that’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, because there’s always going to be the big box retailers who are just going to make the sale. The most they’re willing to do is let you dry fire and run the FBI check, getting them off the hook for anything that might happen next. And manufacturers love gun restriction laws because it keeps the focus on the end user, keeps new entrants from coming in and taking away share and freezes innovation.

    Oh, and I guess racism.

    • Hi RK,

      You make a very solid point. Of course, the problem is that private businesses – as they are wrongly styled – have become (via court ruling) “public accommodations” and cannot refuse service – except, of course, when it comes to certain permissible or “mandated” things, such as Face Diaper wearing.

      I argue that one of the essential – foundational – concepts that must be resurrected and respected is that of private property, as well as free association. Both are intimately connected. If you are not free to choose with whom you associate – in personal and business affairs – then you are not and cannot be free, period.

    • Not sure if you’re just being provocative here but I don’t think your points are solid at all. Your comment reeks of cloverism even though you state you don’t advocate new laws. You start off with a judgmental and paternalistic blanket statement that some people “have no business” owning guns. Why is that? Then you list a lot of “should”, “would”, and “be sure to” being thrown around as well as the casual “I don’t believe it would be an undue burden.” I find it very interesting that the spirit of your language tracks the new lexicon of the gun grabbers who now are calling for, not “gun control” but “gun responsibility” laws. Is Bloomberg sending you checks or something?

      You might be surprised to learn that gun shops, including those sections big box retailers, aren’t exactly like other shops. Try going in one and shouting or even jokingly saying some wild shit, especially something political about not liking certain folks or the gov’t, and see what happens. I have not been in every store but every store I’ve been in has had some interesting signs up about, in so many words, this kind of thing.

      Store sell products to make money. They are not diviners of intent in any context. As far as “vetting”, the whole concept is ludicrous. Event the FBI “checks.” Folks who obviously can’t buy a product in a store because of this buy it in the street. No one can ever know what a person might do one minute later. Past performance is no guarantee, good or bad. Manufacturers should be held liable for actions taken after a sale? What about after resale in the street? Where does this logic end? Why not apply it to every potential “dangerous” product?

      Marshaling businesses and manufacturers to do the bidding of the gov’t or some other entity or institution in the name of “health” or “safety” or “responsibility” according to their viewpoint sans laws is what we saw with the renamed flu scam. No one who values freedom or liberty should be advocating this or the same with respect to our natural rights to self defense against perpetrators of aggression under any circumstances.

      • Yes, Anonymous on June 17, 2022 At 11:24 am, your comment was quite inline with my thoughts as I read what ReadyKilowatt wrote.

        I was also thinking about how a person has to pay extra to have a motorcycle license. Not only is it more money for the State, it’s likely due to somebodies saying certain others, “have no business” driving a motorcycle.

        Slippery slope, indeed.

        It all reminds me of this bit:

        ‘There Is No Such Thing as a Public Health Expert’

      • Who said anything about government forcing retailers to do anything? Laws aren’t morals. The sooner we get that into our heads the better. There’s a moral argument that can be made that some people shouldn’t have access for firearms. You wouldn’t thing about handing a gun to a toddler going through the terrible twos, or the learning challenged kid in the neighborhood. But that’s not the government’s call, it’s up to us, we the people.

        A more practical example is the military, which proved it in Vietnam with McNamara’s Morons. You get someone with a sub-85 IQ, hand them a gun and the first thing they do is shoot the sarge in the back for forcing them to fight.

        • RK wrote, “There should be a vetting process, and it should be done at or prior to time of purchase.”

          Consider this:

          ‘Jamaica’s Experience Shows That Even Draconian Gun Control Will Not Stop Gun Violence’

          “… another blow to the gun control lobby is background checks’ failure to avert shootings. One study published in the Annals of Epidemiology concludes that the implementation of such policies “was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate … in California.”

          For Massachusetts, the evidence is quite similar, with research not only revealing that background checks’ impact on gun violence is unclear but also that the denial of firearms licenses has no appreciable impact on violent crimes.” …

          By your line of reasoning there should be a vetting process before a person can buy, own or posses: a baseball bat, a hammer, a steak knife or a pocket knife and it would probably be a good idea if some people were required to wear thick padded mittens on their hands and feet so they are less likely to beat anyone to death? Or, better yet, wrap them in bubble wrap?

        • You seem to want to take and not take the cloverite position here. Morals are a personal belief, typically unenforceable on others absent coercion by gov’t or some other collective entity, like a gang. You are entitled to control yourself with those. Not others. Children are the responsibility of their parents. Two year olds? Learning challenged kid? Come on now. Care to offer another involving adults?

          As far as your ‘Nam analogy and the slaves…er…conscripts involved, you’ve got a seriously skewed version of right and wrong in such a situation, especially from a libertarian perspective. It’s so strange it almost seems like your taking the piss.

        • Hi RK.

          There is an OLD saying that you might wish to remember; “When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging”… 🙂

          I have no problem with morals. They are personal rules. Ethics on the other hand are external. I have a BIG problem with imposing group think on others.

          You state that “There’s a moral argument that can be made that some people shouldn’t have access for firearms”. I’ve seen this before. Its usually from well meaning people, who see a problem and want their solution to be imposed. Either by government or some Ethical means. Thomas Sowell stated it best’ “There are no solutions. Only trade offs”.

          Ends do not justify means. One has to examine the consequences of the course of action one is proposing.

          “We the people” is a collective. Its an abstract. It doesn’t exist. What does exist is the individuals involved. They have rights. Those rights come with responsibilities. That is far too often forgotten in the modern age.

          Firearms and other tools should be stored securely if one has children. Once those children are deemed responsible (by the parent), they should be trained in the use of those tools, and also the responsibilities that go with such access. Mine are. They have been taught the four rules from an early age.

          Rule One: ALL guns are loaded, NO EXCEPTIONS. Rule Two: Muzzle pointed in a safe direction at ALL TIMES. Rule Three: Finger OFF the trigger until you have a target. Rule Four: Know your target, and whats beyond it. They have also been taught the reason for each rule and how it applies. They have also spent many, many hours being trained in the proper use of those tools. I consider it my responsibility to make certain that they have that training and the responsibilities that go with it.

          In regard to the conscripts involved in Vietnam. Do you remember fragging?… Conscription is just another name for slavery. I have no personal problem with slaves killing those who have aided and abetted their enslavement. Do you know why conscription was ended?
          Because the resistance to it was starting to endanger the Empires access to cannon fodder.
          Without that cannon fodder, the Empires various murderous policies would have ground to a halt. We obviously can’t have that, now can we?… Hence the end of conscription, and the rise of the mercenary military that we have today.

    • Hi RK.

      The focus SHOULD be on the end user. Should hammer and axe makers make certain that their tools aren’t misused? How about power tools in general? How about snack food makers? Snack food abuse has killed many more people than guns. Should the makers of snack food be held responsible for its abuse? How about we focus on the individual and their choices, rather than some inanimate object?

      Do you understand the potential liability that a business would be in, in such a situation? Some would howl about ist and ism this that and the other for them not selling. Others would howl if they did and it was abused. Its a no win situation. Just as the Progs would
      want it to be.

      Firearms are simply tools. They are used MANY more times for defense, and preventing crime, than to commit it. But since that fact doesn’t fit the Usual Suspects agenda, it is
      ignored. John Lott wrote a fascinating book titled More guns, less crime. You might wish to examine it.

      • I was in Granby the day that Marvin Heemeyer bulldozed the town. He got a raw deal (to say the least) from the inbreds on the town council, but were his actions justified? He had friends in town who had some idea of what he was planing. No one ever stopped by to check up on him, no one thought it odd that he was growing more and more isolated, no one even asked if he was OK.

        Grand County is where I became a libertarian. There are a lot of people there who would fit right in here. They want to be left alone. But when your neighbor suddenly drops off the radar that’s a sign of a problem. I’m not saying someone should have called the cops on Marvin, but someone should have cared enough to help him out of the downward spiral. That’s my point. He didn’t build the dozer on a Sunday afternoon. It took him weeks. Weeks with no contact, no interaction and weeks not spent at his usual hangouts. No one checked up. No one reached out to him.

        Society isn’t government issued. Communities aren’t boundries on a map. And the only way to get rid of the govenment is to take on responsibility for our fellow man ourselves. And that includes admitting that some people might not be up to the responsibility that comes with the rights. That might be temporary, might be for their entire lives. But I’d rather have that decision made by friends and family (and communities) than government any day. And once we stopped, government stepped in to fill the void. And look how that’s turned out.

        • Another weird interlude with your feelz. Firearms weren’t even an issue. No one killed. Dude couldn’t handle the “responsibility” of bulldozer ownership. It’s a fine line between checking up on someone and being a nosy busybody. Bad things are still gonna happen to good people in this life. Choose freedom and liberty.

            • Hi RK.

              In a sane system there would be a free market. If you need a kidney, you would be able to purchase one. Using either personal/family/charity funds. A free market would also provide incentives for people to sell them, and also research into creating them (look at the advances in 3D printing of complex organics for example). Its when Gangs get involved that massive problems arise.

              While its still going to be decades (unless we get a lot more funding and genius flashes) this is the future for transplants.


            • Hi Rk,

              We all have needs. The question is: Who shall meet them? Or rather, who is obliged to meet them? Does the need of X impose upon Y an obligation to meet X’s need? A moral obligation? Or a legally enforceable one?

              I do not see how – as a moral matter – any free adult ought to be legally obliged to meet the needs of any other adult (absent their having in some legitimate – freely agreed to – contractual manner placed themselves in the moral/legal position of being so obliged).

              Even with regard to the “hard cases,” such as indigent adults and children. There is certainly a moral case to be made that those who can help ought to help. But even in these case, the idea that the mere fact that someone – anyone – has “needs” and those “needs” justify forcing, through law, others to meet them is not merely morally problematic it is hugely dangerous for the precedent it sets and the principle it enshrines. For it will lead to much more than meeting the needs of hard cases. It will empower redistributionist policies and undermine the principle that property rights – our property in ourselves – ought to be respected without qualification.

              And that gets us to where we are right now.

        • That whole comment about Granby (and, ‘our culture’ as I see what I think you may mean) is yards away different from how this comes across as: RK wrote, “There should be a vetting process, and it should be done at or prior to time of purchase.”

          Bionic Mosquito has written much about where it seems the drift of your Granby comment flowed. I.e. there needs to be more than just the N.A.P. etc…

          Here’s just one sorta close example:

          ‘The Destruction of the Society Without Meaning’

          “… a society is destroyed only when the individuals who make up that society are destroyed.”…

          Long ago, The Daily Bell wrote about private courts & justice as a part of a solution.

          Here’s one example, I’ve read many others:

          ‘Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice’

          There’s this, too:

          ‘The Not So Wild, Wild West’

          “We do not plan to debate the issue of the starting point, but will be looking at the “efficacy of market-like arrangements for internal … peacekeeping.”8 […]

          In the following pages we describe the private enforcement of rights in the West between 1830 and 1900. This description does allow one to test, in a limited fashion, some of the hypotheses put forth about how anarchocapitalism might function.” …

        • Hi RK.

          On the emotional level I understand what you are saying. But that’s the problem with that approach. Emotions are all too easy to manipulate. They can be used to justify many courses of action, that turn out to be worse than the problem. Look at the War on Drugs, Terrorism, and Poverty to name but three. All of them are based on the emotional appeal of a simple “solution” to complex problems.

          As Thomas Sowell has stated; “There are no solutions. Only trade offs”. It all comes down to expecting each individual to be responsible for their own actions in actions. Rights and responsibilities naturally go together. From my perspective, no I am not my brothers keeper.
          He is perfectly capable of making his own choices. If he makes bad choices, then he owns the consequences.

          While I totally agree that the NAP is necessary, but not sufficient for a functional system. It is the very bed rock of such a sane system. The only principle more basic is that you own yourself and your works.

          As far as I’m concerned, one can mix in what ever culture/traditions one wishes to, as long as they do not violate property rights and/or the NAP.

          If you examine the situation, government is the result of people wanting to delegate things that should be part of their personal responsibility. While there is nothing wrong with delegation itself (division of labor) coercing others to fund that delegation is simply theft by delegation. Delegating something that is wrong, doesn’t change that it is wrong.

          Of course, the various Gangs maintain their rule/scam by virtue of the majority being too apathetic/ignorant to understand the hoaxes involved. Which doesn’t make it right, but does make it very profitable for the Gangs and those who own them.

    • Obviously, you either don’t own guns nor have purchased them in the US in the last 35 or so odd years. The retail purchase process in all 54 States and territories consists of a federal form consisting of several questions related to whether or not you have broken any laws or have a record and why. You also get an FBI NICS background check via your voluntarily supplied information. You also submit to State police background check for any local law enforcement issues the federal FBI check might pass over. All States I have been in have these processes in place and it has been so for decades. The US has some of the most stringent requirements for gun ownership in the world. If you don’t know you are talking about, please don’t and just ask questions. Constitutional rights are not something to really be debated or sussed away, as politicians have been trying to do since 1787. There is no issues in the constitution about felons ownership of guns or whether citizens can own the same weapons as military or cops. Because in the constitution, the people, ALL CITIZENS, are the military and cops….

    • Hi Anon,

      The Bourla Thing that runs Pfizer is particularly loathsome. His characterization of those who are “hesitant” about taking the frugs he’s pushing as “criminals” is an interesting example of projection. I hope he gets what’s coming to him.

      • Don’t forget, the Bourla Thing did NOT take his own poison. I think he tried to get a twofer out of his excuse, a la “I’m allowing those that need it more to get it first.”

        Lying piece of manure.

      • Hi Eric

        Typical demon /satanist inversion, the criminal breaking the law forcing bioweapon injections isn’t the criminal, the person being force, the victim, is the criminal. These leftists lie 24/7, don’t they realize they are exposing the fact they are lying demon/satanists? They should be called on it every time, conservatives have to wake up, shove back.

        the double-speak involved is intensely characteristic of the reversal of reality practiced by satanists… is white….. up is down….bad is good
        do as we say not as we do……inversion typical of leftists…the rules don’t apply to them….

        Demons invert/reverse all that they touch. The psychopath uses the same trick.

  4. “Red flag” laws are aptly named. They might as well have come from the good ol Soviet Union, filthy fucking China or that backward piss pot North Korea.

    • “They might as well have come from…”

      They came from The Very Same mindset.

      You can tell what they are by their fruits.

    • Indeed Black, many of those sent to the gulags were sent for “psychiatric reasons”.
      So politicians, aka professional liars, decide you must be “mentally ill” if you don’t like and trust them. No guns for you, sucker.

  5. With any luck, this red flag crap will pass, then be stuck down as a due process violation. Then it can go away forever.

    In the mean time, it will be used for harassment purposes. Eventually someone will decide not to comply and forcefully resist.

    Hopefully, many local sheriffs will see this as the violation it is and decline to enforce.

    It really is time to start breaking the US into smaller countries.

    • I’ve been thinking about that perspective for awhile, “With any luck, this red flag crap will pass, then be stuck down as a due process violation. Then it can go away forever.”

      I heard that from some people about mask requirements at work. And, vax requirements.

      I once thought the same thing about seat belt laws.

      …Incrementalism, don’t work that way.

  6. The issue that no one seems to see is that if one is dangerous enough to take weapons away from then why are they still on the street afterwards?

    “Don’t fear the weapon, fear the man” I forgot where this quote came from…but it’s true im my experience.

  7. I tend to agree the real danger of red flag laws is the (perception) of their legitimacy. The opportunity of some karen-stazi to impose their will upon the world because of their feels makes them absolutely pulsate with joy.

    Odd synchronization in my personal life (again). Quite the daytime drama for a bunch of construction workers lately…

    Me and all my guys carry our pistols to work pretty much any given day open or conceald as we live a constitutional carry state.
    I had the field superintendent on one of our new construction, unoccupied, residences call me with a “question.”

    Hey man, I don’t know who, but one of the HVAC guys called his office and wanted to know if one of the electrcians with the gun on his hip would put it in his car cause he’s (not comfortable with it.)

    So I asked which one with a gun on their hip? we all carry every day. Also, no. We can leave, or he can leave, I’ve already spoken with the builder who owns the property and he’s 100% fine with us carrying and is glad we do, so karen’s feels dont matter. Why the hell does he want my gun in my vehicle? So I can put it away and come out to a broken window and a missing gun? Actually just tell him hell no, he can move to San Francisco or New York with the rest of the fearful gun scared faggots if he doesn’t like it. The short of it. The “guy” I mean scared little naive child ended up leaving, we stayed.

    Do not give these insufferable karens an inch. Wanna know how we ended up with tranny groomers twerking in front of 8 year Olds, Vaccine maa’m-dates, asset forfeiture? Apprasement that’s how. Piss on these cowardly degenerates don’t ever play along, ever.

    • That’s awesome. Totally agree. I will admit, though, I’m waiting for the Brandonjin “Chad” meme on this one.

      • The odd thing about it is I knew the guy somewhat.
        I see him on jobs here and there he’s seen me carry on site before. I even helped him get his car pulled out of the mud one day when he got stuck. In retrospect I wish I’d stayed out of it, let him call a tow truck, get it good and hard in the half frozen slop.
        First I thought I might have gotten a little too amped about it. Then I realized if I live in an area with favorable laws I can’t let a bunch of authoritarian craybabies flip it. Because they will. They are locusts who only devour and move on to the next field to devour some more. I think I didn’t go hard enough. All these “people” respond to is feels so I make it feel REALLY uncomfortable to be an insufferable busy body

    • “cause he’s (not comfortable with it.)”

      … I have no words, anymore. For that.
      Guys like that, people like that, it’s like a sticker tag line stuck on their forehead, or something? A dunce cap?

      [Learned something new:

      “In fact, Scotus believed the pointed shape of the hat would, in some metaphysical way, act as a reverse funnel for knowledge, with wisdom flowing into the pointed tip, and spreading into the brain below.”

      …I digress.]

      The rest of what you wrote, is pretty good stuff.
      You & your crew are,… cool. And, inspirational.
      Keep on, keepin’ on.

  8. Unconstitutional, and theater.

    People who want to be destructive will find a way to do it anyway, whether you take their guns away or not.

    If a person really is that dangerous, they can be held in a psych ward, and the procedure (and legal threshold) for doing this is clear and well established—as are the legal protections for the person being held. It’s hard to do, but not impossible, and generally only used when clearly necessary.

    If the person is not that dangerous, do we really need to take their guns at all? I don’t see any reason why it can’t wait for due process, if it even needs to be done at all, in such a scenario.

    This is yet another version of lawfare. The Left using the “law-abiding” nature of the Right against it. And the usual suspects see nothing wrong with that, and roll over. Again.

  9. Red flag “laws” are gun confiscation one person at a time. To confiscate guns across the board would be problematic, but this way it can be done without massive push back.

  10. These red flag infringements pit people against one another and create a snitch society. All manner of resentments, perceived slights, suspicions, and outright political motives are put into play. It has a chilling effect on speech. Absent actual harms, terms like “danger to self or others” or “mentally ill” become subjective judgments. Very pseudoscientific, which they love. Kinda like “you might be sick.” I think one purpose of the renamed flu scam was to condition people for this next step towards disarming the people.

    • ‘Very pseudoscientific, which they love.’ — Anon

      In a case I witnessed, the defendant in a weapons seizure proceeding in NJ was directed to a court-appointed psychiatrist, to determine whether he had anger issues.

      Interview time, including evaluation questionnaire: 1.5 hours
      Cost: $1,500 (twenty years ago)

      Red-flag laws benefit a vast infrastructure of bottom feeders who profit from lawless inquisitions of blameless citizens.

      These days, those hit with a red-flag proceeding can expect to pony up $10,000 for lawyers and shrinks, just to mount a minimal defense.

      Budget $25,000 to $50,000, to mount a serious defense against gun-grabbers.

      If you ain’t got the do re mi, boy
      If you ain’t got the do re mi
      Why, you better go back to your beautiful Texas
      Oklahoma, Kansas, Georgia, Tennessee

      — Woody Guthrie, Do Re Mi

      • Even the term “anger issues” as an excuse for disarming people. It’s so f-ing transparent. They destroy livelihoods, mandate batshit insane diapers and mystery gene therapy shots as a condition of participating in society, inflate the currency to enrich their cronies while “making the economy scream” in order to transition to ready player one communism for you, promote wicked sodomism to children no less, constantly threaten your exercise of your natural right to self defense, constantly and maliciously impugn whites and males generally and on and on and on. Then it’s like “why you so angry?”

          • I might’ve argued with you 3-5 years ago. Today, there is no doubt. Someone else mentioned this phenomena as a strategy to be used against law follower types. Yeah, they’re back door confiscating your guns but don’t get angry, ‘cause then they’ll confiscate your guns, mmmmkaaay? Catch-22. Shades of anarcho-tyranny as well.

  11. Trump: “Because that’s another system, because a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures.”

    Translation: Because the government courts are so pathetically slow and inefficient, employing some of the laziest and dullest people on earth, we are to be made vulnerable to punishment on a whim.

    Got it.

  12. Well, most of us on this site are hated by roughly a 1/3 of the population. If this crap keeps accelerating, we’re all in trouble and it’s going to get ugly. I think that’s what they want.
    Great stuff Eric as always.

    • “…Hated by roughly a 1/3 of the population…”

      At LEAST, Chris! And you can be damn sure they’ll use the “law” against us in any way possible like the cowards they are.

  13. Red Flag ‘laws’ are in essence an extension of asset forfeiture ‘laws’. Each egregiously unconstitutional. The Patriot Act,,, NDAA,,, and others are gross violations of the constitution Americans have shredded.

  14. When the SWAT team is stacked outside your front door because your Karen neighbor “red-flagged” you after your dog pissed on her lawn… remember, nobody lives forever, and you will need to ask yourself “Would I rather die as a free man now… or live a few more years so I can die in a nursing home while minimum-wage Mexican personal-care aides let me lie in my own waste as they they finger-fuck their cell phones and the television blasts the Jerry Springer show at full volume?”

    • Lololol, best/worst images. Please don’t forget the Sudanese workers as well.

      Many Americans really are so weird PAYING BIG BUCKS to put their parents into one of those places

  15. Good points all Eric,
    This is just another step down the slippery slope toward total tyranny. If the PTB can get rid of cash and force “digital currency” on us it will be game over. Then we’ll get the commie social credit score to ensure we’re good little serfs, otherwise – no soup for you! Or anything else. Trudeau did it in Canada and I’ve yet to hear of any serious blowback on him; just proves the courts main function is to rubber stamp whatever their masters do.

  16. Political Expediency is the law, not the Constitution, obviously. Wherever it is politically expedient to do so, the Constitution is ignored; when the Law cannot be ignored, it is re-interpreted.

    Take the Law prohibiting slavery, AND involuntary servitude. What possible interpretation of this Law could possibly allow conscription by the military? Combined with the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition’s on violating the life, liberty, and property of any citizen, plus the takings clause, there is no possible interpretation of the Constitution that could ever logically square that circle, wherein the U.S. Government has the legal right to force a citizen into military service.

    The Second Amendment is written with the most specific language, and simple language, than most other clauses in our Law. Any and all Congressional legislation concerning weapons are a violation of this Law.

    All this being said, and obviously everything from direct taxation, the central bank, and the entire regulatory structure are all also direct violations of the Law, the most disturbing aspect to me is this: the words of the Constitution are expressions of principles, a set of principles that the Law is founded on, principles that were held by the founders to be universal, immutable, and natural. The principles are universal to all times and places, are so basic and fundamental to humans that to deny these principles is to deny basic humanity, and that these bedrock fundamentals are naturally occurring as a consequence of the unique consciousness belonging to homo sapiens sapiens.

    The underlying principles are what is important, not legally parsing each word in each sentence or clause. That is why I have never understood the continual complexity of Supreme Court decisions; there is no reason for complexity. Take the Second Amendment.

    Obviously, there are several principles involved here: the principle of self-defense which also presupposes self ownership. The principle of republics being free and sovereign, of free states defending their own systems of principle, and the principle of police power being held by states, not the federals.

    And the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. Does this not also apply to the Law? As in, all Laws are to be applied equally, and cannot contradict or negate the principles of other Laws in the Constitution?
    And as a matter of principle, should not courts, when asked to interpret the meanings of the words in our Law, err on the side of expansion of protections and never assume the government (or anyone else, do you think these Laws dont also apply to “private” actors?) has a legitimate interest in weakening protections for some public purpose?

    Is not a cell phone your property and an “effects”?

    Anyway, red flag laws are just another in the long line of Law violations that are the end result of the Constitution itself. If presented with the Constitution, and asked to pledge your allegiance to it and to abide by it as a matter of sacred Law, would any of us agree to such a vague and insanely opaque Law? Granted, when it was written I am sure no one could have imagined how each word would be tortured by legalisms, when written the authors were creating a basic framework that bound together free States in a loose confederacy, nothing more. But those anti-federalists had it down, didn’t they? They knew what the Constitution really was, a way to create the path to empire, which would someday put the Republic into the graveyard of all other republics.

    i have been debating whether to obtain a CCW. Doing so is admitting I am accepting the violation of my Constitutional protections. Political expediency is the law of the land; so must we all decide when and for what we are willing to lose life, liberty, and property, even to the most precious of property; our life.

    It is amazing to me that abortion can have a protection found for it in our Law, yet the right to police protection is nowhere to be found.

    • Only you can answer that Andy. I’ll share some of my thoughts on the matter.

      I never really liked the idea of sending my fingerprints in, so I never did in several states. Plus the sheriff’s office restricted their hours for processing applications to times during the week when I was at work (normal business hours). So, it was really easy never to get around to it.

      I moved, and now live in one state but work in another. No reciprocity is possible, and no out-of-state permit is possible, because I work in the People’s Republic of Pritzker. Between that, and the fact that my workplace is posted and an extremely non-permissive environment (technically I can’t even have a pocket knife), and given that essentially all of my time is spent either at work or at home, it just never made sense for me to get a permit in my home state. And at this point (well, it goes into effect soon) my home state is constitutional carry so there’s really no need to do that.

      Here’s what’s interesting: Carrying while doing certain things can run you afoul of the fish & game laws. Here’s an example: You can legally spotlight deer, as long as you are not hunting them that way. But if you are carrying a pistol while doing it (even if it’s for self-defense, and you have a carry permit, and you have no intention of shooting anything) a game warden would get you for poaching, and you would probably lose in court. I can also foresee potential problems with carrying a pistol while hunting in an archery-only season.

      It remains to be seen how going “constitutional carry” might change stuff like that, and I don’t want to be a test case. I’m sure the test cases will be fascinating. But my spidey-senses tell me that “constitutional carry” probably won’t actually mean, in practice, quite what a lot of people think it does.


      • RE: “carrying a pistol while hunting” Etc…

        I’ve wondered about that, too.

        Our overlords really are bastards.

        And, likely psychopaths.

        RE: “I don’t want to be a test case.”

        You already are. All of us are.

        …What are you made of?

        • Helot,

          Snips and snails and puppy dog tails.

          And no, I’m not a test case. At least, not as long as I don’t get tangled up in the justice system.

        • Here’s another story.

          I once worked with a lawyer to help me with a traffic ticket issue (we won).

          At the time, this lawyer had recently won a case where another client had been busted by Fish & Game for poaching. Why? Because the man had been seen carrying a rifle in the woods, on his own property. Which, of course, was legal to do. Apparently there was no other evidence of illegal hunting.

          OK so the game wardens lost that time, in that state, in that court, and a precedent was set. This was an example of overreach. But this guy had to pay a lot of money for that, and it also illustrates the lengths that police/prosecutors may go to in order to make their point.

  17. This all makes me wonder why Ohio’s guvnuh, DeWine, just allowed teachers to be armed in classrooms AND allowed nearly everyone to carry concealed without any permits.

    I never trusted DeWine. Does he want Ohioans to be protected? Or is this being set-up to show, via multiple in the works FFF (Fed False Flags), that ‘more guns don’t do anything’?

    Perhaps I’m being a bit too paranoid on this one…

    • You may be right – that it is intended to set up more opportunities for “false flags” – however, the false flaggers are going to be hit by real bullets.

  18. Once again, the Psychopaths In Charge take an oath to “protect and defend” the Constitution, then immediately engage in ways to get around it. Red flag “laws” are a direct in your face violation of amendment five, being confiscation of property without due process. Likewise a loss of liberty without due process.
    In other words, they are more criminal than the the private sector variety.
    Every government is founded on their assumption of authority to kill you if you disobey. They would prefer you not be able to shoot back at them.

    • Precisely that, John. These “laws” are a clear and willful circumvention of ACTUAL Constitutional law, and if being “weird” or “different” or “worrisome” is cause for the deprivation of life, liberty or property, we’re ALL slaves. Just a matter of time before some realize this.

    • As an example of that, in CA, some 85 percent of the “Red Flag” court orders to seize firearms were initiated by LEOs themselves. More or less, an end run around the Constitutional requirement that a warrant may be issued only on PROBABLE CAUSE. Never mind how easily said seizures can be used by enemies with a grudge, a form of, as others have cited in this thread, “LAWFARE”.

  19. Red Flag Confiscation empowers your neighbor to become an agent of the state.

    Like my busybody neighbor whom I was having a pleasant conversation 2-weeks ago then the mass shooting topic came up. She spouted the usual lie that mass killings only happen in the good old USA. I countered with the Beslan Russia School murder that killed 350 mostly children, and Russia is not a *Second Amendment* type country under Putin. She won’t talk to me now and is secretly waiting for the red flag laws to call in the Stasi to take my guns.

      • It’s highly effeminate.

        Mom logic. “I’m cold, so you have to wear a sweater.”

        I sometimes refer to this stuff as “toxic femininity.” Usually get a lot of dirty looks afterwards. Hey, I call it like I see it.

  20. ‘Laws that criminalize those who haven’t violated any are coming.’ — eric

    Some states already have red flag laws, whether they are called that or not.

    I’ve attended weapons seizure hearings in New Jersey. There was a Soviet show trial aspect — with the judge openly mocking the Second Amendment — that still leaves me shaken and appalled, years later.

    A federal red flag law would mean yet another trampling of states rights by the out-of-control, megalomaniacal US fedgov.

    What Republiclowns share completely with Demonrats is their contempt for the Tenth Amendment.

    They just luuuvvvvvvvvvvv Big Government … as long as they’re in charge of it.

    A party headed by the likes of Mitch McClownell in the Senate makes me puke in disgust.

    • “A party headed by the likes of Mitch McClownell in the Senate makes me puke in disgust.”

      The turtle & his rinos are pouring untold millions into the Alabama primary to ensure Shelby’s perky little handmaiden (Britt) is installed rather than a firebrand conservative (Brooks). Brooks’ mistake was hitching his wagon to the trump train.

  21. “… I think it’s going to be a critical meeting to try to figure out exactly where we’re stuck and where we can unstick,” he said.

    He said the framework signed by 10 Republicans and unveiled on Sunday was “an agreed set of principles” but noted “coming up with text is harder.”

    “Sometimes when people use the same word they mean it differently or people hear it differently. So getting it in writing is critical,” he said.

    On the debate over restricting firearms for people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, Cornyn said Democrats “want to expand that definition and I’m begging them to come up with something that I can get my arms and head around.”

    “We need something very clear and so far we haven’t gotten it,” he said.

    Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.), the lead Democratic negotiator, said “I think we have more issues than that and they’re all overcome-able.”

    “There’s always going to be some polite disagreements over how that turns into text,” he said.”

    I guess writing down words – in text – such as, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” wasn’t what he had in mind when he was talking about, “an agreed set of principles”.

  22. My wife and I got our HQL and CCW here in SOMD. The courses were taught by former AGWs who had to point out that “red flag law are GOOD! red flag laws SAVE LIVES!”

    Of course, I had already known what red flags laws have resulted in, at the hands of MD AGWs, not that long ago. TBH, I don’t think anyone but the instructor believed what he was saying. Not even sure he believed it either because it was more of an affirmation than anything else.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here