Trump can’t support Red Flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously
Given the mass murders due to gun violence last weekend — 22 in El Paso, Texas, 9 in Dayton, Ohio, 11 in Chicago, 4 in Baltimore — it is easy to see why President Trump would seek a national solution: It is a national problem. Still, the Constitution specifically forbids a national solution — even a state solution — without a new amendment to the Constitution altering the Second Amendment, because self defense is an individual right, even God given, not a right from government.
The Second Amendment reads: “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.” At the time of writing, “militia” was the citizen, and “shall not be infringed” meant off limits to government.
The only constitutional solution is a new amendment processed through Article V, which requires a two-step proposal and ratification process, the latter requiring three-fourths of the states. Anything short of this is a serious “infringement” (a violation) of the Constitution, and a single violation justifies future violations until this particular freedom — self defense with a firearm — is lost to future generations.
Red Flag laws are thought to be the “go-to legislation” for the presumed mentally unstable of society that could resort to violence against themselves or others. These potentially allow thousands of innocent citizens to be punished only upon the fear that a crime might be committed. Secret lists of innocent people are created by family, acquaintances, and potentially disgruntled ex-lovers or spouses.
Under Red Flag laws, anyone can approach a judge with the claim that someone is thought to be a danger to himself and/or others, and then the sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate the alleged offenders weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime — all without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior. This legislation flies in the face of presumed innocence first — which, until now, has been the backbone of our judicial system.
Red Flag laws are based entirely upon the assumption that someone may commit a crime, rather than the fact that someone has committed a crime. If we disarm enough, we will get the supposed perpetrator before he commits a crime. His speech or behavior is viewed a red flag. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Castro — all socialists — would have loved such laws. They could have labeled and disarmed their opposition before they did anything.
“Under Colorado’s proposed law, anyone can make a phone call to the police,” according to the Washington Post. “They don’t even have to be living in the state. There is no hearing. All the judge has before them is the statement of concern.” Moreover, “little certainty is needed. Some states allow initial confiscations on just a ‘reasonable suspicion,’ which is little more than a guess or a hunch.” Within just nine months of Florida’s Red Flag law passage just last year, “judges granted more than 1,000 confiscation orders. In the three months after Maryland’s law went into effect on Oct. 1, more than 300 people had their guns taken away.” In Anne Arundel County, “a 61-year-old man died when the police stormed his home at 5 a.m. to take away his guns.”
The biggest problems with Red Flag evaluations is that they happen “ex parte,” meaning without the defendant present to defend himself. Due process, guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in three places, is denied. In the case of “ex parte,” a second hearing is scheduled, some weeks later, where the defendant must provide evidence proving his innocence. He must prove himself innocent of something that he never did, nor probably thought of doing, but was previously punished for by the forcible confiscation of his weapons. We are dangerously close to destroying the backbone of our judicial system, the presumption of innocence.
Some remember going down a similar path with Japanese Americans many years ago. More than 110,000 were feared to be potentially dangerous in World War II and thus were rounded up in secret raids throughout western states and placed in “relocation camps.” No crimes had been committed, and the United States later had to pay reparations to descendants for this injustice.
Both mass murderers appear to be politically motivated. The 21-year-old El Paso mass shooter, a Trump supporter, traveled 650 miles to target a community at least 80 percent Hispanic for his victims. The far-left Dayton, Ohio mass shooter and Elizabeth Warren supporter worshiped Antifa and hated ICE. Both far left and far right think the other is crazy and capable of violence, which is the foundation for Red Flag laws. Both want the power of government to remove the other. An ominous cloud hangs over America if its citizens flood authorities with calls to take away the gun rights of the other. Historically, government is happy to do both. El Paso and Dayton may be equivalents to Fort Sumpter in the Civil War.
Red Flag laws violate not only the Second Amendment but amendments I, IV, V, VI, and XIV as well. They essentially eviscerate the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. President Trump cannot support red flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Articles related to “Trump can’t support Red Flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously”
Guns: Ownership, accessibility, typology, and legal controls
The American Revolution was successful because citizens had guns
I believe Ben Franklin said it best regarding “red flag” laws: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Laws such as this have existed in recent times, the most famous being in Germany where the law was administered by the government organization known as the Gestapo. Further examples include thus far fictional literature of the novel 1984 and their “thought police.”