How “red flag” laws violate the Bill of Rights
Most now understand that red flag laws violate the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and many Republicans, including the president, now seem willing to join Democrats — after the recent shootings in El Paso and Dayton by crazed left- and right-wing extremists — in putting dents in the Second Amendment, hoping that these laws “might” somehow help. But few realize that they also virtually eviscerate the Bill of Rights. What follows are the constitutional amendments red flag laws damage and how.
Amendment I
Red flag laws encourage “police-led searches” of our social media, thus effectively “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” constitutionally protected in the First Amendment. Disagreeable speech is labeled “hate” speech, thus potentially “violent” speech, and is therefore deemed subject to the violation of weapons laws. Liberty ends when freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion end.
Amendment II
This amendment was specifically designed to protect the First Amendment, giving the people the ability to resist tyrannical government as the Founding Fathers had — even by revolution if required. Any law, state or federal, that threatens the Second Amendment as written by the Founding Fathers is unconstitutional. In New Mexico, that includes requirements for firearm storage and background checks for private firearm sales. In New York, it includes banning bump stock devices. In Washington State, it is I-1639, which “classifies semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for recreation and self-defense as assault weapons and prohibits young adults under the age of 21 from purchasing them.” These violate “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” which “shall not be infringed.”
But red flag laws go further, potentially allowing 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. Anyone can approach a judge with the claim that someone is a danger to himself and/or others, and a sheriff is sent to disarm and confiscate his weapons. Those identified are punished without having committed a crime. All of this is done without a shred of evidence of unlawful behavior.
Amendment IV
Amendment IV reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Today, computers and electronic devices are our “papers,” and “effects” include our weapons of self preservation. It is “unreasonable” and unconstitutional to confiscate them on the assumption that they may be used inappropriately. We might also wish to remove automobiles, knives, hammers, or medicines that they might use to harm themselves or others.
Continuing, “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” Heretofore “probable cause” was based upon evidence of having actually done something, not opinion that someone might do something. Again, there exists no crime! A warrant alone is not due process. “Supported by Oath or affirmation,” means by government agents who have sworn allegiance to protect and preserve the Constitution, which under red flag laws this action violates.
Amendment V
Amendment V reads in part: “No person shall be … deprived of … property, without due process of law.” Due process is denied thousands under red flag laws. None are charged with a crime, arrested, or convicted before gun confiscation. Without due process, all of our rights and properties are unsecured. It is that simple.
Amendment VI
Amendment VI lists the rights of the accused, the due process procedure entitled to all citizens, in “all criminal prosecutions.” Although red flag laws are not criminal prosecutions, they have the same effect. They accuse and administer punishment. They are “speedy” but not “public” as constitutionally required. No one is “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; … confronted with the witnesses against him; … [allowed] compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and …[allowed] the assistance of counsel for his defence.” Where was the “impartial jury?” None of these four constitutionally required conditions are met prior to confiscation, as no crime had been committed. Those targeted by the government in “red flag” laws have no opportunity to resist confiscation.
Amendment VII
Amendment VII reads, “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” Twice mentioned is common law, the underlying principles of justice that govern all human relationships — natural law — whether fully understood or not.
This amendment speaks to property exceeding $20 in value, of which all guns exceed. Although largely fallen into disuse because of the now unrealistic money requirement specified, the amendment suggests the importance that common law and jury (peers) trials, rather than judges, make the decisions regarding property. Certainly red flag laws exempt juries and confiscate property (guns).
Six of 10 Bill of Right Amendments are severely damaged by red flag laws with due process, the backbone of our judicial system, being the greatest fatality. This is certainly the greatest threat to the Bill of Rights since the Obama-sponsored National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which already effectively neutralized Amendments 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Bill of Rights.
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 “How red flag laws violate the Bill of Rights”
Poll: Do you support Red Flag laws regardless of whether or not they violate the U.S. Constitution?
Trump can’t support Red Flag laws and the Constitution simultaneously
I support universal background checks, red flag laws, raising the age of purchasing a firearm. Restriction if convicted of domestic assault. Only in our country do we have this domestic terrorist problem with semi and automatic weapons. Weapons of war should remain only in the military.
Only in our country due we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You should read the preamble to the Bill of Rights. They were written out to limit the power of the government and states these rights should not have ANY infringements or clauses against them. Many Supreme Court cases have stated these rights cannot be changed. If they are, the law is unconstitutional and invalid. This is the expansion of fascism in America.