Trump starts grabbing guns with red flag laws

[Israel Chai]

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html?fbclid=IwAR0RDfK-qwFyZiWqNDze6M8YgZ7URcFN9-e1mE39hnUQualZ2AfDJXyX1jY

Former Marine said he’d ‘slaughter’ antifa. The FBI, using Oregon’s new red flag law, took his guns away
Updated Aug 30, 2019; Posted Aug 30, 2019
An ex-Marine threatened to ‘slaughter’ antifa. The FBI, using Oregon’s new red flag law, took his guns away

Shane Kohfield speaks outside of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's home on July 20, 2019.
By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh | The Oregonian/OregonLive

Shane Kohfield stood outside the home of Portland’s mayor in July wearing body armor and a “Make America Great Again” baseball cap, a large knife strapped to one shoulder and a copy of his concealed weapons permit displayed on the other.

Using a loudspeaker, he warned the right-wing activists who turned out to condemn the city’s handling of recent violent demonstrations that they needed to protect themselves against their anti-fascist, or antifa, rivals.

“If antifa gets to the point where they start killing us, I’m going to kill them next,” Kohfield, 32, said. “I’d slaughter them and I have a detailed plan on how I would wipe out antifa.”

That threat pushed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task to take a series of extraordinary steps against Kohfield, including temporary seizure of a cache of his firearms under Oregon’s new “red flag” law aimed at preventing gun violence, The Oregonian/OregonLive has learned.

Shots Not Fired: A new Oregon law takes guns from people who may do harm

In 2017, the Oregon Legislature narrowly passed a law giving judges discretion to pry guns from people not convicted of a crime who show signs they might shoot themselves or someone else.

The task force also had the ex-Marine committed to a veterans’ hospital in Portland. He spent the next 20 days there.

The moves came as city officials and law enforcement prepared for potentially violent clashes Aug. 17 during a right-wing rally and counterprotests planned in downtown Portland that had become inflamed with incendiary political rhetoric nationwide. Police worried that they would end in catastrophe.

Though Kohfield wasn’t accused or charged with any crimes, police took no chances and prevented him from attending the rally as he repeatedly had promised to do on social media after his confrontation at Mayor Ted Wheeler’s house.

The episode shows that federal law enforcement may be beginning to take a more aggressive tack toward potential political threats, said Michael German, a retired FBI agent and fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School.

“Clearly, this latest incident shows how effective proactive policing can be in reducing the chance of violence,” said German, who has monitored political street clashes in Portland and other parts of the country over the last few years.

“It also makes you wonder if they’d been proactive from beginning whether all of this would have grown into the menace it has become.”
Portland Protest June 2019

Will Proud Boys, antifa showdown mark a tipping point for Portland?

“We’ve been sitting on a powder keg and everything is kind of coming to a head.”

The FBI declined to provide additional details about the case or answer questions submitted by The Oregonian/OregonLive.

“The Portland JTTF’s role is to assess, address, and mitigate any given threat against the people of Oregon appropriately,” Beth Anne Steele, a spokeswoman for the bureau’s Portland office said in an email Friday.

“Sometimes that mitigation takes the form of criminal prosecution, and sometimes it involves a holistic response, including consultation with threat assessment teams or others to divert a person before a significant violent crime occurs.”

***

Kohfield, who spoke with The Oregonian/OregonLive, suffers from bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, medical records show.

He returned home Tuesday from the VA hospital and maintains he never planned to hurt or maim other people. But he understands why he alarmed police.

“I looked unhinged. I looked dangerous and have the training to be dangerous,” said Kohfield, who lives with his father in Canby and receives disability payments for physical and psychological injuries he sustained during two tours of duty in Iraq.

By leveling vicious warnings, Kohfield said, he hoped to deter others from causing physical harm.

“I figured that the key to de-escalating the situation was to not be the most violent person in the room,” he said. “It was to be the scariest person in the room.”

A supporter of President Donald Trump, Kohfield said he isn’t affiliated with Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys or other right-wing groups that have organized marches and demonstration throughout Portland over the last 2 ½ years, some that have devolved into bloody brawls and riots.

He brought an American flag to protest fascism in Portland. Then antifa attacked him

"I remember thinking there was a very good chance that I could be beaten to death," Paul Welch, who came to demonstrate against the right-wing group Patriot Prayer on Aug.4, told The Oregonian/OregonLive.

His protest activity, he said, has been limited to the event outside the mayor’s house and a right-wing rally last fall in downtown Portland, both organized by local conservative activist Haley Adams.

“I was watching on the news that city of Portland did nothing to protect the people against antifa,” Kohfield said. “I figured I’d show up to protect these people.”

***

By the time he popped up at the mayor’s house, Kohfield was already on the FBI’s radar.

He had landed there in March after he sent a letter to Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw, a first-term Republican congressman and former Navy Seal, according court documents filed in Clackamas County.

The five-page letter, included in the court filings, accused Portland’s mayor and police of permitting anti-fascist activists to commit “savage attacks” against conservatives at protests, including the November rally where Kohfield said he was assaulted by masked demonstrators.

Patriot Prayer, antifa to face off in Portland one month after brutal riot

"This weekend is starting to look like the biggest rally of the year that the far-right will hold. It could be combustible."

Kohfield told Crenshaw that Congress needed to take immediate steps to declare antifa a terrorist organization. Otherwise, he and other veterans would have no choice but to begin systematically killing antifa members “until we have achieved genocide.”

Kohfield included a detailed outline of how he would carry out the mission, which he argued would be legally justified if the federal government refused to act.

The U.S. Capitol Police shared the letter with the FBI’s Portland office, which assigned the case to a Clackamas County sheriff’s deputy serving on the area’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, court records show.

Deputy Jeremy Stinson interviewed Kohfield and his father at their home in April, according to the court documents.

Stinson learned Kohfield had served in the Marines and kept guns in the house. Kohfield told the deputy he would defend himself the next time members of antifa attacked him.

***

Nearly four months after the visit, the deputy was notified that Portland police had opened a non-criminal inquiry known as a threat investigation in response to the remarks Kohfield made July 20 at the mayor’s house.

“I can’t say that he won’t kill someone,” Kohfield’s father told Portland police during their investigation, according to court records.

He also told police that his son was taking medication for bipolar disorder, drinking heavily and had become increasingly agitated.

“(Kohfield’s father) provided that Shane was really upset by Portland’s ‘liberal government’ and the state of the federal government,” the court documents read.

Stinson included all these details in a July 25 affidavit seeking an “extreme risk protection order” against Kohfield, which a judge approved the same day.

Such protection orders, introduced in Oregon in 2018, allow authorities to pry guns from people not convicted of a crime who show signs they might shoot themselves or someone else.

Each protection order stands for a year but can be extended indefinitely. Those who have their guns taken away can appeal the decision.

Judges statewide received 122 extreme risk protection order petitions through July 2019 and granted 98 of them, said Phil Lemman, Oregon’s acting deputy state court administrator. Kohfield’s is only the sixth approved in Clackamas County, records show.

According to court documents and Kohfield, law enforcement officers served him with the order on Aug. 7 while he was visiting family in central Oregon.

***

It’s not clear why law enforcement waited nearly two weeks to serve the order, but they did so only days after a pair of deadly mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, on Aug. 3 and Dayton, Ohio, the following day.

Kohfield, who was unarmed, said at least a dozen officers stopped him while he was leaving a relative’s home outside Prineville.

Officers said they planned to take Kohfield to the VA hospital in Portland. He said they then served him with the protection order.

“I was told that I didn’t have a choice,” he said. “The cops were great. They were respectful and compassionate.”

Kohfield said he was placed under psychiatric observation for five days. He said that he then volunteered to remain at the VA hospital for another two weeks.

According to Lemman, the state court administrator, Kohfield surrendered an AR-15, a pistol, a rifle and a shotgun.

The ex-Marine said he is done with attending protests or political demonstrations in Portland.

“I have done everything I can possibly do to keep both sides from killing each other,” he said. “As long as they keep duking it out like this, it will achieve nothing.”

-- Shane Dixon Kavanaugh; 503-294-7632

Email at [email protected]

Follow on Twitter @shanedkavanaugh

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.

[Ulli]

Imo there is nothing wrong with red flag law. If somebody speaks like this, he should better have no guns. In addition he has mental health problems.

This guy belongs to the risk group of men with mental problems, that is for most shootings responsible.

[angryChineseKahanist]

Unfortunately, threatening to kill is not protected by free speech.
Sorry, there's no way to defend this guy.

[Israel Chai]

He said he'd defend himself against antifa. He's a marine. That's not a group that does mass shootings, especially considering he's conservative. Liberal freakaboos will not be flagged, people who want to defend themselves against them are.

This is just under Trump. Who would president Hilly decide needs to be red-flagged?

[Ulli]

He said he'd defend himself against antifa. He's a marine. That's not a group that does mass shootings, especially considering he's conservative. Liberal freakaboos will not be flagged, people who want to defend themselves against them are.

This is just under Trump. Who would president Hilly decide needs to be red-flagged?

I think his language is a problem. If he would have stated, "I would defend my home with my weapon if it would be under attack", there would be another case. But to state that he will slaughter antifa members is totally unacceptable. It expresses anger, violence and a lack of controll. I wouldn't like to have such a neighbour with guns. And it is in the most cases not necessary to kill people in order to stop an attack. You can threaten them to shoot, or shoot them in the leg or scare them away with warning shots.
I use in conflicts always the lowest measure that promises success. Killing is the highest form of escalation. In the last 10 years, I was only once forced to threaten somebody with violence. Then the guy run away.

This red flag policy is a good thing.

[Israel Chai]

I think his language is a problem. If he would have stated, "I would defend my home with my weapon if it would be under attack", there would be another case. But to state that he will slaughter antifa members is totally unacceptable. It expresses anger, violence and a lack of controll. I wouldn't like to have such a neighbour with guns. And it is in the most cases not necessary to kill people in order to stop an attack. You can threaten them to shoot, or shoot them in the leg or scare them away with warning shots.
I use in conflicts always the lowest measure that promises success. Killing is the highest form of escalation. In the last 10 years, I was only once forced to threaten somebody with violence. Then the guy run away.

This red flag policy is a good thing.

So we've retreated to our homes. If they come and try to assault us in the street, we can not use violent language to say what we'd do back to them, or our guns are gone.

It's also just about for anyone, and so liberals will be redflagging people that will defend themselves against leftists and not kids who shoot schools and can't legally get a gun in the first place.

Citizens have been murdered by red flag laws for over a year now.

[Joe Gutfeld]

Trump is caving in to the PC crowd.

[Israel Chai]

Trump is caving in to the PC crowd.

Or he was left wing like last week and just pretended to be right wing for a minute to do more left wing stuff. The guy who put the first homosexual strip club in a casino is caving to the PC crowd. Say that out loud and get back to me.

[Israel Chai]

Thankfully, some Americans understand their constitution and presumption of innocence. Hey Ulli! I red flagged you as someone who will waste all your money in the future based on some comments you made that were pro-frivolous purchase. Give me all your money to hold now, you can't be trusted to do the right thing with it, your future is a red flag. I will keep you safe and fed.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Gun confiscation under 'red flag' laws is unconstitutional
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano | Fox News
Judge Napolitano: The dangerous urge to do something in the face of tragedy

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano weighs in on the dangers to the Second Amendment by both political parties in the wake of mass shootings. What confiscating guns or 'red flag' laws will mean for your constitutional rights.

When tragedy strikes, as it did in two mass killings this month, there is always the urge to pressure the government do something.

Governments are animated by the belief that doing something — any demonstrable overt behavior — will show that they are in control. I understand the natural fears that good folks have that an El Paso or a Dayton episode might happen again, but doing something for the sake of appearance can be dangerous to personal liberty.

When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread. The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies.

TRUMP NEGOTIATING WITH SENATE DEMS ON GUNS

Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.

Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership. It doesn't take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.

It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.

Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison's hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.
More from Judge Andrew Napolitano

    Judge Andrew Napolitano: Second Amendment bars many gun restrictions being proposed after mass shootings
    Judge Andrew Napolitano: Can government punish twice for the same crime?

By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states.

    The concept of a “red flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.

Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — the Bill of Rights.

The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.

Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.

Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso and Dayton. Both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness. But because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.

Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.

The government's job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce the ability of madmen to get those weapons? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?

These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “red flag” laws.

The concept of a “red flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person might do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.

The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Republican proposal lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — "a more likely than not" standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the “might happen standard” is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence.

In 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.

The "might happen" standard of “red flag” laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did — to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do — as opposed to what a person actually did do — to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.

Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?

[Israel Chai]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose-trump-gun-control?fbclid=IwAR2s6PzCczQrjTrpx540sIkdYbvVaZLVLokBCJjTvHctf-p49-nl0ejFMeg
StopTrumpGunControl.com

easier to read here on pdf https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5389/attachments/original/1567445253/fpc-policy-brief-red-flag-laws.pdf?1567445253

Red Flag Laws Raise Red Flags of Their Own
written by:  matthew larosiere, joseph greenlee, and adam kraut“
1Presently the state of the law in: California, Cal. Penal Code §§ 18125, 18150; Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-14.5-103; Connecticut, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 29-38C; Delaware, 10 Del. Code Ann, §§ 7703-7704; The District of Columbia, D.C. Code Ann. §§ 7-2510.02-04; Florida, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 790.401; 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 67/35, 40, Ind. Code Ann. § 35-47-14-2, Md. Code Ann. Pub. Safety § 5-602, Mass. Ann.Law. ch. 140 §131R, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:58-23-24, N.Y. C.P.L.R. Law §§ 6341-43, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 166.527, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.94.030, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 8-8.3-1 et. seq., Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 §§ 40534054.2Proponents often present red flag laws as mental health bills. For example, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine claimed his red flag bill would “get them the mental health treatment that they need, get them whatever help that they need.” Jon Schuppe, Red flag laws often have bipartisan support. But do they stop mass shootings? NBC News, Aug. 6, 2019, https://nbcnews.to/2KvpzWY. Indiana state representative Wendy McNamara explained , “we want to make sure that we find help for these individuals.” Isaiah Seibert, Want to prevent gun violence? Some states turn to ‘red flag’ laws, NC Health News, Aug. 13, 2019, https://bit.ly/2ZcTlFf. Sheriff Tony Spurlock, a leading proponent of Colorado’s law, argued that the law “will help save and support mental health.” Jennifer Kovaleski, Blair Miller, Colorado lawmakers introduce new ‘red flag’ gun violence and mental health measure, The Denver Channel, Feb. 14, 2019, https://bit.ly/2Zi17Oi. Cf Thomas Massie, John Lott, ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are the Wrong Solution to Mass Shootings, National Review, Aug. 12, 2019, https://bit.ly/2ZgfjYa (“red-flag laws are not specifically about about mental illness. Indeed, only one state law even mentions the term.”).3See Shelby Arnold, Alisha Desai, & David DeMatteo, Keeping Guns Away from Potentially Dangerous People , Vol 49, No. 8 Am. Psychol. Ass’n 27 (2018) (“These laws may also overstate the relationship between gun violence and mental illness, which propagates stigma and may discourage people from seeking mental health treatment.”).4 Cal. Penal Code § 18125 (reasonable cause), D.C. Code Ann. § 7-2510.04 (probable cause), Fla. Stat. Ann. §790.401(4)(c)(reasonable cause), 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 67/35 (f) (probable cause), Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-603(a)(4)(2019) (probable cause), Mass. Ann.Law. ch.140 § 131T(a) (reasonable cause), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-23(e) (good cause), N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6342(a) (probable cause), R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-4(a) (probable cause), Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.94.050(3) (reasonable cause). Cf. Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 § 4053 (clear and convincingevidence).5U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV.
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION4are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”6Put another way, this “Minority Report”7 style legislation purports to predict crime before it occurs then attach a court order stripping that person of their rights and com-pelling them to give up—or have seized by armed police—their prop-erty (guns, ammunition, gun parts, etc.). Failing to abide by these court orders generally results in serious criminal liability.8 Those who find themselves subjected to such an order are not typically given a right to an appointed attorney,9 must engage in lengthy and onerous pro-cesses to “defend themselves”10 and face difficulty in having their property returned after being seized.11 Lastly, many “red flag” laws provide no deterrent to prevent individuals from maliciously accusing others.12History of the IssueThe first “red flag” law was adopted in Connecticut in 1999.13 Indiana came second in 2005.14 California was next, adopting a similar law in 2013,15 and creat-ing the framework that other states would work from. It was not until 2018 that these laws gained momentum. As of August 2019, seventeen states and the District of Columbia have some form of red flag law. In the 115th Congress (2017-2018), Sena-tors Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) and Lindsey Graham (R - SC) introduced the first federal bill on the topic, the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2018.”16 Senator Marco Rubio introduced a similar bill in 2019.17Red flag bills came front and center in mid-2019. After a series of horrific murders, the public push to “do something” in response to the murders landed, for one reason or another, on red flag laws. This was likely because of their perceptibility as moderate gun control, and the suggested (imperfect) connection to “mental health reform.” In any event, red flag laws found bipartisan support in 2019, albeit with passionate detractors.186Rhode Island ACLU, An Analysis of 18-H 7688 and 18-S 2492, Relating to Extreme Risk Protective Orders, http://riaclu.org/images/up-loads/180302_analysis_RedFlagsLegislation.pdf (last visited Aug. 18, 2019). 7Minority Report, (20th Century Fox, 2002). ( an action-detective thriller set in Washington D.C. in 2054, where police utilize a psychic technology to arrest and convict murderers before they commit their crime. Tom Cruise plays the head of this Precrime unit and is himself accused of the future murder of a man he hasn’t even met.)8E.g., In Illinois, it is a Class A misdemeanor. 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. 67/65. In Colorado, it is a class 2 misdemeanor. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-14.5-111. In Washington, the first two violations are gross misdemeanors that extend the firearms prohibition an additional five years each, and the third conviction is a class C felony. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 7.94.120.9Of the 18 jurisdictions that have imposed some red flag law as of August 13, 2019, only Colorado provides for appointed representation for those subject to orders. See Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-14.5-104(1).10Respondents are put in a position of having to “defend” against an accusation that they are a danger to themselves or others.11See Parker GF., Circumstances and Outcomes of a Firearm Seizure Law: Marion County, Indiana, 2006-2013,https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827648 (Finding that gun owners in Indiana waited an average of more than nine months before a court decided whether police could keep their firearms ).12Some states, like Colorado, provide no civil remedy for victims who were maliciously accused. Other states, like Maryland, do. MD. PUB. SAFE-TY § 5-609.13Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 99-212.14P.L.1-2006, SEC.537, eff. Mar. 24, 200615CA Stats. 2014, c. 872 (A.B.1014), § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2015 16 Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2018, S. 2521, 115th Cong. § 932 (2018).16Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2018, S. 2521, 115th Cong. § 932 (2018).17 Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019, S. 7, 116th Cong. § 3042 (2019).18Thomas Massie, John Lott, ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are the Wrong Solution to Mass Shootings , National Review, Aug.12, 2019, https://bit.ly/2ZgfjYa.“Red flag” laws provide no deter-rent to prevent individuals from maliciously accusing others
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION5Present State of the Issue Currently, seventeen states and the District of Columbia have enacted some form of red flag law.19 The policies vary in several meaningful ways, cov-ered herein. Who Can Bring a Petition?The exact method as to who can petition the court for an order to be issued against another varies from juris-diction to jurisdiction. In some states, family or household members can submit a petition.20 In others, it is restricted to law enforcement or other state offi-cials.21 And there are some in which a much wider net of individuals, including mental health professionals, educators, school administrators, former roommates, or even co-workers are able to submit a petition.22What Happens After A Petition is Brought?The manner in which an order is issued varies by jurisdiction. In all states, orders can be issued ex parte (that is, without the presence of the person against whom the order is sought). Orders can also be issued after the subject person receives notice and has a hearing, although the manner in which the laws are worded seems to suggest that ex parte is the more commonly used method. Generally, “final” orders—that is, those after a hearing—last up to a year. Most states allow the restricted party to request a hearing to terminate the order early.23 Most states allow the original petitioner to request that the order be extended once the initial year has concluded.24The standards of proof required to obtain an order also vary from state to state. In ex parte pro-ceedings, ten states and the District of Columbia require only that a petitioner show “probable,” “good,” or “reasonable” cause for an order to attach.25 Of all evidentiary standards, these require the lowest amount of proof to meet their burden—and are especially easy to satisfy when the opposing party is not present to defend himself. This mallea-ble, easily cleared standard is inconsistent with the “extreme risk” the laws’ titles purport to require.2619California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont.20California (Cal. Penal Code § 18150), Colorado (C.R.S.A. § 13-14.5-103), Delaware (10 Del.C. § 7704. “Petitioner” defined as “[a] family member of the respondent...” 10 Del.C. § 7701), District of Columbia (DC ST §§ 7-2510.02, 7-2510.04. “Petitioner defined as “[r]elated to the respondent by blood, adop-tion, guardianship, marriage, domestic partnership, having a child in common, cohabitating, or maintaining a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship...” DC ST § 7-2510.01), Hawaii (2019 HI S.B. 1466, effective January 1, 2020. “Petitioner” defined to include “family or household member of the respon-dent...”), Illinois (430 Ill. Comp. Stat 67/35. “Petitioner” defined as “a family member of the respondent...” and “family member of the respondent” de-fined as “a spouse, parent, child, or step-child of the respondent, any other person related by blood or present marriage to the respondent, or a person who shares a common dwelling with the respondent.” 430 Ill. Comp. Stat 67/5), Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-601. “Petitioner” defined to include spouse, cohabitant, person related by blood, marriage or adoption, individual who has a common child, current dating or intimate partner, or current or former legal guardian. Id.), Massachusetts (M.G.L.A. 140 § 131R. “Petitioner” defined to include “family or household member.” Id.), Nevada (2019 NV AB 291, eff. Jan. 1, 2020. Sec. 11(2)), New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-21. eff. Sep. 1, 2019. “Petitioner” defined to include a “family or house-hold member.” Id.), New York (McKinney’s CPLR § 6341. eff. Aug. 24, 2019. “Petitioner” defined to include a “family or household member.” McKinney’s CPLR § 6340.), Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 166.527), and Washington (Rev. Code Wash. § 7.94.030).21Florida (Fla. Stat. § 790.401), Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-1. “Petitioner means a law enforcement agency...”), and Vermont (13 V.S.A. § 4053).22District of Columbia (DC ST § 7-2510.01. “Petitioner” defined to include a “mental health professional”.), Hawaii (2019 HI S.B. 1466, effective January 1, 2020. “Petitioner” defined to include “medical professional, educator, or colleague”), Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-601. “Petitioner” defined to include a “physician, psychologist, clinical social worker, licensed clinical professional counselor, clinical nurse specialist in psychiatric and mental health nursing, psychiatric nurse practitioner, licensed clinical marriage or family therapist, or health officer or designee of a health officer who has examined the individual...” ), and New York (McKinney’s CPLR § 6340. “Petitioner” defined to include “a school adminis-trator” or their designee, including a “school teacher, school guidance counselor, school psychologist, school social worker, school nurse, or other school personnel required to hold a teaching or administrative license or certificate, and full or part-time compensated school employee required to hold a temporary coaching license or professional coaching certificate.”).23Connecticut is currently the exception.24Connecticut lacks a renewal process. Indiana and New Jersey do not require renewals.25See supra, Note 4.26“Florida nevertheless allows judges to consider any evidence they deem relevant, and its “significant danger” test is inherently vague, notwith-standing its “clear and convincing” standard of proof. Some states are even looser, requiring only “a preponderance of the evidence,” meaning any likelihood greater than 50 percent that the respondent poses a “significant” risk.” ” Jacob Sullum, ‘Red Flag’ Laws Leave Gun Owners Defenseless, Reason.com, (Aug. 7, 2019) https://reason.com/2019/08/07/red-flag-laws-leave-gun-owners-defenseless/.
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION6Moreover, despite being presented as an emergency solution to imminent crime, many of the laws require no imminence. In contrast, civil protection orders often do.27Whether, when, if, and to whom firearms are relinquished varies from state to state. Some states require that firearms, ammunition, and magazines be surrendered to law enforcement or a licensed dealer.28 Other states allow a person to relinquish their firearms to another individual, provided that person is not prohibited from pos-sessing firearms and ammunition or is a Federal Firearms Licensee.29Several states require that any license to carry a concealed firearm be relinquished at the same time.30In Colorado, the accused person’s concealed carry license is automatically revoked as soon as the initial petition is filed.31In ten states and the District of Columbia, ex parte orders can last from 14 to 21 days. The ex parte order will then automatically expire, unless a hearing is held, at which time a final order may be issued. In five states, the evidentiary standard to obtain a final order is still an extremely low, preponderance of the evidence standard.32 While most final orders may last up to one year—an excessive dura-tion for an emergency order—a final order obtained in New Jersey lasts indefinitely, unless a court orders the termination of the order after a hearing.33Potential for AbuseBecause red flag laws are rooted in third-party enforcement, there is an inherent potential for abuse by third parties. Concerns include fraudulent, malicious, or reckless petitions. Against a backdrop of “swatting,”34 and combined with the lax standards of proof, red flag laws threaten ordinary Americans with potentially deadly encounters with police.35 The laws, as presently written, invite domestic terrorists to weaponize the court system to strip the rights of their ene-mies or political opponents.36 The potential for abuse is exacerbated by a distinct lack of neces-27See Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders (CPO); Statutory Summary Chart, American Bar Association, Mar. 2014, https://bit.ly/2Mv6zLI.28California (Cal. Penal Code § 18120), Colorado (C.R.S.A. § 13-14.5-108), Connecticut (C.G.S.A. § 29-38c. Law Enforcement serves a search warrant to remove firearms. ), Delaware (10 Del.C. §§ 7703, 7704), District of Columbia (DC ST § 7-2510.07), Florida (Fla. Stat. § 790.401(7) ), Hawaii (2019 HI S.B. 1466, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.), 430 Ill. Comp. Stat 67/35(g)(2), Indiana (IC § 35-47-14-2), Maryland ( Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 5-604), Massachusetts (M.G.L.A. 140 § 131S), New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-26), New York (McKinney’s CPLR § 6342 ), Oregon ( O.R.S. § 166.537 ), Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-4), Vermont (13 V.S.A. § 4059 ), and Washington (Rev. Code Wash. § 7.94.090). 29California (Cal. Penal Code § 18120), Colorado (C.R.S.A. § 13-14.5-108), Connecticut (C.G.S.A. § 29-38c), Delaware (10 Del.C. §§ 7703, 7704), New Jersey (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-26), Oregon (O.R.S. § 166.537 ), and Vermont (13 V.S.A. § 4059 ). 30 Colorado (C.R.S.A. § 13-14.5-108(1)(b)), District of Columbia (DC ST § 7-2510.07(b)), Florida (Fla. Stat. § 790.401(7), Massachusetts (M.G.L.A. 140 § 131S), Oregon (O.R.S. § 166.537 ), and Washington (Rev. Code Wash. § 7.94.090).31This exacerbates the due process concern, as the license itself is an interest lost immediately upon petition. See, e.g. , C.R.S.A. § 13-14.5-110(3).32“Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.” Legal Information Institute, preponderance of the evidence, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence (last visited Aug. 19, 2019).33N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-25.34“Swatting is a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service (via such means as hoaxing an emergency services dispatcher) into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address.”Swatting, Wikipedia, (last visited Aug. 18, 2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting.35The enforcement of red flag laws have already claimed human life. In Maryland, law enforcement arrived at 61-year-old Gary Willis’s home at 5:17 a.m. to confiscate his firearms. Taken by surprise, Willis answered the door with his firearm in his hand. After a brief argument over the firearm, an officer fatally shot Willis. Maryland Officers Serving Red Flag Gun Removal Order Fatally Shoot Armed Man, CBS News, Nov. 6, 2018, https://cbsn.ws/2zJ2sTw. 36This potential is summed up in a tweet by President Trump. “ Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!” @realDonaldTrump, TWITTER (Aug. 13, 2019, 12:01 AM), https://bit.ly/2PgiAGS.This malleable, easily cleared standard is incon-sistent with the “extreme risk” the laws’ titles purport to require.
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION7sary penalties for those who bring fraudulent, malicious, or reckless petitions, and a lack of statutory civil remedy for victims of abuse.How Effective are Red Flag Laws?There is no conclusive evidence that red flag laws are effective in deterring violence.37 Given their “pre-crime” nature, it is extremely difficult to quantify what, if any, effect the laws have on deterring or preventing vio-lence. Moreover, in some instances, the laws are not even utilized or layed dormant for a period of time before being put into action.38What is the future of red flag laws under present law?Whether new laws sail through or are passed bit-terly, what’s certain is that repealing extant law is incredibly difficult. Marriage to new and unproven policy is problematic. Sunset provisions, which would enable legislatures to look back and assess the efficacy of laws, while not curative of prob-lems, are helpful.Despite the novelty of “red flag” laws, they have to-date failed to include a sunset provision. Given the perilous nature of establishing a system designed to eliminate constitutional rights through ex parte proceedings, a sunset provision would be prudent in case the system is ineffective and abused as many suspect it will be. Our Position & Our Position’s Connection to Values/PrinciplesFirearms Policy Coalition is firmly against the adoption and implemen-tation of red flag laws in all current forms. The laws deprive individuals of their right to due process of law before their rights are eliminated and property seized, a result that should offend anyone who values the Constitution and what it stands for. “Red flag” laws are riddled with constitutionally unsound principles, as well as practical issues. For one, there are no provi-sions for a court-appointed attorney to represent an accused individual during the proceedings, resulting in people potentially having to expend thousands of dollars to avail themselves of any defense. Many red flag laws lack provisions requiring the return of seized property after the expiration of an order. This means that individuals who seek the return of their rightfully owned property must take  independent and expensive legal action in order to have their property returned.39 Making matters worse, such legal action is often fruitless, as govern-ments have not always been required to return fire-arms to their lawful owners.40 This makes red flag laws especially harmful to financially disadvantaged indi-viduals, who are most likely to be the target of abuse from the government,41 and also most likely to be vio-lently victimized.42 Far from protecting potential vic-tims, red flag laws manufacture a new class of victims, with a dangerous potential to disarm those most likely to need a competent mechanism of self-defense.M37Found. for Econ. Educ., (Aug. 10, 2019), https://fee.org/articles/7-reasons-to-oppose-red-flag-guns-laws/ (“The evidence,” The New York Timesrecently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”).38Peter Jamison & Peter Hermann, Some US lawmakers want a ‘red flag’ law. But states have had mixed results, Washington Post. (Aug. 8, 2019), https://wapo.st/2HfHcJq (“California’s law went nearly unused for two years after its passage in 2016. Not a single request for a gun to be removed has been filed under the D.C. measure, which took effect at the beginning of this year.”).39Because there is no mandatory return of seized property, individual seeking their property back must formally petition the state for the return of their property, often requiring independent counsel to be successful. 40See City of San Jose v. Rodriguez , No. H040317, 2015 WL 1541988 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015) (no constitutional violation when city seized and refused to return arms to citizen with Second Amendment rights intact); Walters v. Wolf, 660 F.3d 307 (8th Cir. 2011) (due process violation but no Second Amendment violation).41See Criminalization of Race and Poverty , Institute for Policy Studies, https://ips-dc.org/criminalization-of-race-and-poverty/ (last visited Aug. 20, 2019).42Jim Norman, Young, Poor, Urban Dwellers Most Likely to Be Crime Victims, Gallup, Nov. 6, 2015, https://bit.ly/2z

[Israel Chai]

Read 'Em And Weep, Anti-Gunners: Dana Loesch Proves, Once Again, Why Red Flag Laws Are Dangerous

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/09/11/read-em-and-weep-antigunners-dana-loesch-proves-once-again-why-red-flag-laws-are-dangerous-n2552896?fbclid=IwAR0YPcZhCDrc9EtMTwLjonBjNf3be-oDDTPjOYEg8pcKCszm8amMT0dHku8

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as red flag laws, have been all the talk in Washington. Politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to think red flag laws are the answers to the mass shootings taking place in our country.

The House Judiciary Committee proved once again that they don't understand or value the Constitution. They green lighted ERPOs, despite many Second Amendment advocates concerns over the lack of due process. 

Talk radio host and pro-gun activist Dana Loesch compiled a Twitter thread giving Americans 10 reasons why we should all be against this move.


Ten reasons why you should oppose #RedFlagLaws, a brief thread.

1) #RedFlagLaws are an inversion of “innocent until proven guilty.” The standard of evidence is low and while state laws vary, many different people, not just family, can report you.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is the bedrock of our justice system. Prosectors have a job to prove the defendant is actually guilty. With ERPOs, a person is deemed guilty and it's up to them to prove themselves innocent. Rather contrary to what our Constitution says.

2) You don't have to be in the room (and advance notice isn't required) for the petition to be granted meaning you must wait to defend yourself. Most laws provide no penalty for abuse and no state law allows for civil cause of action against false accusers.

We have no way to know that someone isn't going to use red flag laws for retaliation. Think of the ex-boyfriend or girlfriend who would love to get back at their 2A-loving former significant other. See how that could be a problem? There's nothing to keep them from lying and making false accusations.

3) Time varies as to how long until respondents can have their day in court. A study conducted on Indiana's law, which said 14 day wait, revealed that the average wait was 9 months. Rights delayed are rights denied.

Even when a person does finally have their day in court, it's not exactly something that is jumped on right away.

4) @davekopel , who has done excellent research on this, has noted that of the four states with the oldest gun confiscation laws, Connecticut, Indiana, California, and Washington, no research has revealed any statistical reduction in crime. #RedFlagLaws

(Also still No. 4) Furthermore, Kopel notes that nearly 1/3 of such orders are improperly issued against innocent people.
1,753
8:57 PM - Sep 10, 2019

And those states that have implemented these laws haven't had any reductions in crime. California implemented their red flag laws in 2016 yet we had the Thousand Oaks shooting last November, the Poway Synagogue shooting in April and the Garlic Festival shooting in July.

5) No advance notice is given ahead of serving a #RedFlag order. That worked out horribly for Maryland resident Gary Willis, who was shot and killed when answering his door early morning before the sun was up. This puts LEO in a HORRIBLE position of enforcing these orders.
1,737
8:59 PM - Sep 10, 2019

6) Counsel is not provided (Blumenthal draft does, it's of little solace considering), meaning you could be like FL man Jonathan Carpenter, who is waging an expensive court battle to clear his name and reclaim his property because his name was too similar to a drug dealer's.
1,733
9:00 PM - Sep 10, 2019

Florida resident Jonathan Carpenter's case is a prime example of red flag laws gone wrong. A woman filed a complaint against a drug dealer with the same name. Police came knocking on Carpenter's door, confiscated his firearms and then he had to go to court to prove they had the wrong person. It wasn't until he showed up in court, the plaintiff saw him and told cops they had the wrong person, that Carpenter was allowed to get his guns back. 

7) We aren't arresting people, we're arresting guns. State laws ignore the very reason the petition was granted in the first place: danger resulting in violence or mental instability. No mental evaluations given, no charges for a crime.

How will confiscated firearms be stored? Local police will be tasked with figuring out storage and bearing the cost of any liability or insurance -- at a time when some struggle with budgets to afford body cams.

Our law enforcement agencies are struggling as it is to keep afloat and provide for their community. Taxing them with additional issues, like the liability of temporarily storing and protecting firearms.


Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
Replying to @DLoesch @davekopel

9) This isn't just about the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't matter if you're a "gun nut" or even own guns. The deconstruction of due process calls into question your 5th and 14th Amendment rights, too.
1,881
9:08 PM - Sep 10, 2019

Cherry picking what rights are worth keeping and protecting is dangerous. It creates a slippery slope for the government to come in and take away whatever right is important to you (whether it be your right to free speech, religion or even voting).

You can't be okay with forfeiting others' rights if you don't want yours forfeited down the road.

10) Lastly (not really, but I'm sticking to 10), if there is enough evidence to strip you of your rights THERE IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CHARGE YOU or commit you. There are NUMEROUS other options to start fixing this problem WITHOUT sacrificing due process.

The biggest issue our nation has is the lack of law enforcement. Yes, we have cops, the FBI, the CIA, ICE but what we're missing is adequately enforcing every single law that's on the book.

Anti-gunners want to strip more rights guaranteed to us by the Second Amendment but they're not looking at the flaws that already exist, the biggest one being with background checks. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) isn't a completely wholesome system. Assuming a criminal decides to go through the "legal process" of purchasing a firearm, there's a chance that he or she may be given the green light when really they're a prohibited possessor. That's not something that will be fixed by adding another law. It's something that's fixed by enforcing the law and requiring every government agency, at every level, to provide their convictions to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which oversees NICS.
Recommended
WATCH: CNN Reporter Repeatedly Baits Justice Gorsuch To Bash Trump. But He Wasn't Having It.
Beth Baumann

The other issue is to stop letting people off with a slap on the wrist. If the court thinks you're mentally unfit or unstable enough to take away your firearms, there's a pretty good chance they have enough evidence to convict you of a crime. Right?

let's start by:
- demanding all agencies comply with reporting prohibited possessors to the federal database to stop ineligible people at point of sale.
- demanding prosecutors stop reducing charges and judges issuing weak sentences for felony gun crimes & reduce recidivism...


Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
Replying to @DLoesch @davekopel

... and let's demand that schools stop coddling dangerous offenders. When kids make rape lists on bathroom walls, have them evaluated. When they message classmates threatening to kill them, that's actionable, arrest them. ENFORCE THE LAW

We need to stop holding everyone's hand and get serious about addressing this issue. Until we, as a society, stop sweeping this under the rug, nothing will change. We need to make sure those who need mental help get it before it's too late. We need to come together and agree to say something when we see another person acting suspicious or they seem like they're in distress. How many times have we learned about acquaintances, co-workers and friends of mass shooters who thought something was off with the person but they never said anything? Far too many to count.

We need to remove the shame behind seeking mental health treatment. We need to tell people, especially young men, that it's okay to struggle and have issues but there's nothing wrong with asking for help.

[Israel Chai]

It's getting huge and widespread. Targeted this week and the coming week is anyone that takes depression meds. If you are depressed, smoke weed or hide it, do not take drugs for it or the government will take your guns. Many people mourning their lost guns this weekend. If what you are prescribed for depression or back pain by the government is weed, they will also take your guns, so buy it from a friend privately.

[Israel Chai]

https://www.news10.com/news/local-news/ny-judge-uses-red-flag-law-to-confiscate-guns-for-the-first-time/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter_WTEN

Rensselaer County judge uses ‘Red Flag’ law to confiscate guns for the first time in New York
Local

by: Peter Eliopoulos
Posted: Sep 13, 2019 / 12:21 PM EDT   / Updated: Sep 13, 2019 / 04:58 PM EDT   

TROY, N.Y. (NEWS10) — For the first time, a New York judge has utilized the state’s new ‘Red Flag’ law to confiscate a person’s personal firearms.

Robert King, 52, was arrested last week, accused illegally possessing and firing a pistol in Columbia County earlier this month, hitting a parked car in New Lebanon.

Shortly after his arraignment, police say he made a comment about harming himself. Authorities heard the comment and filed an extreme risk protection order against King. His guns were temporarily seized on September 4th, pending Friday’s hearing.

King waived the formal hearing, “based upon clear and convincing evidence against him,” according to judge Patrick McGrath. Both sides agreed to remove a pistol and seven long guns for one year.

The state can present new evidence to extend that time period. King can also request another hearing during the year to make an attempt to get the guns back sooner.

King made obscene gestures to our cameras outside of court, but his lawyer later told NEWS10 he is a good family man, a business owner and a volunteer firefighter.

King’s wife claims his comments in court which triggered the new law were taken out of context.

This is the first such case in New York State following the passage of the “Red Flag Law.”

Copyright 2019 Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Israel Chai]

In order to know enough about everyone to red flag people, the American government will have to get information on everything you do. https://www.theorganicprepper.com/harpa-social-credit-big-tech-govt-gun-control/?fbclid=IwAR0pUOtBYgMP1YDch_5KWQukbtlc5qvRfM21roRmshaj7cJmpPSEPTSOsU8

 HARPA: America’s New Social Credit Plan Partners Big Tech and Govt to Further Gun Control Efforts
17 comments
September 5, 2019
Current Events
   
Featured Posts

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
By Dagny Taggart

The Trump Administration is considering a very disturbing proposal that would use Big Tech companies including Google, Amazon, and Apple to collect data on users who exhibit characteristics of mental illness that could lead to “violent behavior”.

Supporters see the plan as a way Trump could “move the ball forward” on gun control.

Naturally, a new federal agency will be created to implement this program. The push to create this new agency – called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency or HARPA – began two years ago, reports The Washington Post:

    The concept was advanced by the Suzanne Wright Foundation and first discussed by officials on the Domestic Policy Council and senior White House staffers in June 2017. But the idea has gained momentum in the wake of the latest mass shootings that killed 31 people in one weekend in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio.

    The Suzanne Wright Foundation re-approached the administration last week and proposed that HARPA include a “Safe Home” — “Stopping Aberrant Fatal Events by Helping Overcome Mental Extremes” — project. Officials discussed the proposal at the White House last week, said two people familiar with the discussions. These people and others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations. (source)

Trump is reportedly a big fan of the HARPA proposal.

HARPA would be part of the Health and Human Services Department. Its director would be appointed by Trump, and the agency would have a separate budget, according to The Post. The agency would be modeled on another controversial federal agency – DARPA.

In Proposed Federal Agency Would Create Criteria to “Identify” Potentially Violent People, Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center raises some chilling concerns regarding the new agency:

    Coupled with “red flag” laws, this sounds like the beginning of a dystopian nightmare.

    You have give the people pushing HARPA credit for their ability to seize on tragedies in order to garner political support for their proposal. The HARPA plan apparently hadn’t really gained much traction since it was initially proposed in 2017. By focusing on gun violence, the supporters of HARPA may have found the political lever they needed to push their plan forward and get the agency created.

    The SAFE HOME plan sounds innocent enough, but it would create the foundation for further expansion of the U.S. surveillance state and accelerate the erosion of privacy rights. (source)

Trump reportedly responded “very positively” to the proposal. “Every time this has been brought up inside the White House – even up to the presidential level – it’s been very well-received,” a person familiar with the discussions told The Post.
This project will cost taxpayers an outrageous sum.

Oh, and this four-year project will cost taxpayers an estimated $40 million to $60 million.

I’d like to pause for a moment to remind everyone that the national debt is over $22 TRILLION and is rapidly climbing. Check out the US National Debt Clock (the figures are real-time) to see how much we pay in taxes, how much the government is spending (they are spending far more than they are stealing from us), and unfunded liabilities (kiss your retirement goodbye if you are years away from trying to collect).

All we need is more government spending, right? Collapse is already inevitable, and unnecessary programs that place more financial burden on taxpayers is going to hasten it.
The way data will be collected for the project is very troubling.

The Post spoke to some people who have knowledge of the project. One of them is Geoffrey Ling, who is the lead scientific adviser on HARPA. Ling is also a founding director of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office. He explained that the project will use “volunteer data” to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act”.

    “Everybody would be a volunteer,” Ling said in an interview. “We’re not inventing new science here. We’re analyzing it so we can develop new approaches.

    “This is going to have to be done using scientific rigor,” he said. (source)

Everybody would be a volunteer? What does Ling mean, exactly? The Post article does not clarify, but it does emphasize that the project would not collect an individual’s information without their permission. By “permission” do they mean that because users generally agree to allow companies like Google and Apple to share their private information when they accept terms and conditions, HARPA would have access to your private data whether you want them to or not? Is this some kind of “permission by proxy” scam?

Here’s a bit more about what the proposal states:

    The idea is for the agency to develop a “sensor suite” using advanced artificial intelligence to try to identify changes in mental status that could make an individual more prone to violent behavior. The research would ultimately be opened to the public.

    HARPA would develop “breakthrough technologies with high specificity and sensitivity for early diagnosis of neuropsychiatric violence,” says a copy of the proposal. “A multi-modality solution, along with real-time data analytics, is needed to achieve such an accurate diagnosis.”

    The document goes on to list a number of widely used technologies it suggests could be employed to help collect data, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.

    “Advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning are rapidly improving and must be applied to the data,” states the document.

    Those familiar with the project stressed it would not collect sensitive health data about individuals without their permission. The government is simply trying to identify risk factors when it comes to mental health that could indicate violent behavior, they said.

    “Privacy must be safeguarded. Profiling must be avoided. Data protection capabilities will be the cornerstone of this effort.” (source)

The government and Big Tech continue to invade our privacy and compromise our personal data.

I’m sorry, but does anyone believe the government is going to “safeguard” anyone’s private data? The US government has suffered 443 data breaches since 2014 involving 168,962,628 records, with 2018 being the worst year so far, according to a recent study by Comparitech.

Back in June, it was revealed that – oops! – the NSA improperly collected Americans’ call and text logs in November 2017 and in February and October 2018 – just months after the agency claimed it was going to delete the 620 million-plus call detail records it already had stockpiled.

We can’t do anything without being surveilled and ranked now. The government, private companies, and stores are watching us and collecting all manner of data on our preferences, behaviors, and activities.

While the report uses a lot of weird Orwellian-type Doublespeak straight out of 1984, it is obvious what the goal is: collect an abundance of personal data in order to watch for behavior the government deems concerning (how will this be measured? what criteria will be used?) in order to infringe on individual liberty.

Two experts shared their thoughts on the proposal with Gizmodo:

    It’s an approach that strikes George David Annas, deputy director of the Forensic Psychiatry Fellowship Program at SUNY Upstate Medical University, as ridiculous.

    “The proposed data collection goes beyond absurdity when they mention the desire to collect FitBit data,” Annas told Gizmodo. “I am unaware of any study linking walking too much and committing mass murder. As for the other technologies, what are these people expecting? ‘Alexa, tell me the best way to kill a lot of people really quickly’? Really?”

    Less unusual is the effort to scapegoat people with mental health issues by suggesting their illness is a leading factor in these atrocities—even though that conclusion isn’t supported by data.

    “Creating a watchlist of citizens who most likely will never act violently based on their mental health is a very dangerous proposal with major ethical considerations,” Emma Fridel, a doctoral candidate at Northeastern University specializing in mass murder, told Gizmodo in an email. “Doing so to predict the unpredictable is utterly absurd.” (source)

HARPA is another sign that social credit systems and gun confiscation are coming.

This sounds a lot like a component of a social credit system, doesn’t it? Eta Onrish described how this works and the role Big Tech plays in the article Forget 1984, We’re Facing a Brave New World:

    The ‘biggest’ problem is that these freedoms that you enjoy will be infringed without due process. The social credit system is a very nebulous and fuzzy system that lacks any sort of transparency. Also, if you happen to speak out against the government or are somehow considered a threat, you could easily find yourself without a job or money and unable to travel – and not only could this be done without any proof that you’ve done anything illegal – this could happen completely behind the scenes. Because there is no legal proceeding, you have no recourse other than to fall back in line and hope they give you your life back.

There are additional concerns to consider, Maharrey says:

    One has to ask the question: what will the government do once it identifies these “risk factors?” It won’t simply publish a paper. It will use the information as a basis for action. It seems almost certain the federal government would use the risk factors developed by HARPA as criteria to justify gun confiscation under proposed “red flag” laws.

    As Michael Boldin has said, from the income tax to the “PATRIOT” Act, proposals for new federal programs and powers always start small. Then they eventually end up used against everyone. John Dickinson, the “Penman of the American Revolution,” warned us to “Oppose a disease at its beginning.” (source)

.Gun confiscation really is coming, and it doesn’t seem to be a partisan issue anymore.

Red flag gun laws, the NRA being labeled a terrorist organization, the Trump Administration’s support of HARPA’s agenda, and presidential candidates openly admitting they will confiscate guns if elected are all signs that we are truly heading down a terrifying dystopian path.
What do you think?

Do you think HARPA’s agenda will do anything to stop mass shootings? How do you feel about Big Tech working with the government on this project? Do you think mass gun confiscation is coming one way or another? Please share your thoughts in the comments.

About the Author

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.

[Israel Chai]

Red Flag Gun Laws Turn Due Process on Its Head
Americans should resist the trend of assumed guilt and demand elected officials end this assault on our constitutional rights.
Monday, February 11, 2019
Image credit: U.S. Air Force Photo/Tech. Sgt. Thomas Dow
Raheem Williams
Raheem Williams
Politics Justice Gun Control Second Amendment Red Flag Laws Suicide Paternalism

Red flag laws have spurred quite a bit of controversy. This legislative movement seeks to create a process to remove firearms from the homes of people who are rumored to be dangerous to themselves or others. The proponents of such laws cite this as a possible way to help combat mass shootings and suicides. However, the truth is far more damning.

The 5th & 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution mandate that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Although this should be clear to anyone with a basic comprehension of English, it’s often ignored by judges and politicians. Depriving people of a constitutional right before a trial and without charges tramples on the notion of innocent until proven guilty and severely erodes the core values of justice.

Proponents of red flag laws argue due process is respected by allowing the deprived to appeal to the courts to reinstate their rights. However, this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, state agents finding cause for a warrant and subsequently seizing private property while denying access to a constitutional right seem to be a perfect setup for a kangaroo court system. There is a serious risk that citizens found guilty of nothing and charged with no crime will be paying expensive fees to petition the courts to restore what should be their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Such concerns aren’t just wild superstitions. Our nation’s history of the corrupt process of civil asset forfeiture gives ample reason to believe the aforementioned outcome is more likely than not.

We have authority figures claiming they need the means to deny you of your constitutional rights in order to protect you from yourself.

If the open assault on our rights and criminal justice system wasn’t reason enough to reject red flag laws, one should note the paternalistic tone of the advocates. Proponents are selling these bills as a way to reduce suicides. But let’s take a step back and think about the core of this argument. We have authority figures claiming they need the means to deny you of your constitutional rights in order to protect you from yourself. This disturbingly authoritarian doublespeak implies that some of our elected officials believe that people can’t be trusted with their rights. This clear attempt to coax ordinary citizens into surrendering their rights should be rejected as the degradation of free society that it is.

Americans should also pay very close attention to states that have implemented these laws. In places like Maryland and Florida, success isn't measured in lives saved. Intuitively, it’s impossible to determine how many lives were saved or if lives were ever truly at risk; thus the only practical measure of success for such a law is the number of guns seized and people denied their rights. Americans should resist the trend of assumed guilt and demand elected officials end this assault on our constitutional rights.

https://fee.org/articles/red-flag-gun-laws-turn-due-process-on-its-head/?fbclid=IwAR0hDwc6lLpmSZAjlhGT1iMhRWNzZ3eDyvPxoxsAOXU1bYfdzRCMRcWgLzI

[Israel Chai]

https://www.rallyforourrights.com/new-jerseys-red-flag-erpo-law-has-been-used-more-than-once-a-day-since-it-became-law/

New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO Law Has Been Used More Than Once A Day Since It Became Law

Posted on September 15, 2019 by Lesley Hollywood

New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO Law Has Been Used More Than Once A Day Since It Became Law

I’ve been an outspoken critic of these “Red Flag” Extreme Risk Protection Order ERPO laws that have been spreading across the nation like a cancer.  That’s not because I want to see guns in the hands of dangerous individuals.  I don’t.  But it’s because these new laws are so poorly and broadly written they are ripe for abuse and will put those who need protection the most at risk of being disarmed. Not to mention they are blatantly unconstitutional.

New Jersey’s “Red Flag” ERPO law went into effect Sept 1, 2019 – just two weeks ago.  According to data provided by the judiciary, it had been used 14 times by Friday, Sept 13.  Of those, twelve of the orders were temporary, and two were final orders granted by a judge after the gun owner had had a chance to plead their case in court.  It is unclear how many of those twelve temporary orders were awaiting a permanent hearing and how many had been dismissed due to false accusations.  That information has been requested.

Similar to Colorado, New Jersey’s law has been sold to the public by stating it allows family members or law enforcement to petition the courts to have the firearms removed from someone who is proven to be a danger to themselves or others.  And just like Colorado’s law, this is completely untrue. Honestly, after reading through New Jersey’s actual legislation, it might even be a more serious lie as no family members are listed as the people who can petition the courts.

Here’s what New Jersey has defined as a “Family Member”:

    “Family or household member” means a spouse, domestic partner, partner in a civil union couple, or former spouse, former domestic partner, or former partner in a civil union couple, or any other person who is a present household member or was at any time a household member; a person with whom the respondent has a child in common, or with whom the respondent anticipates having a child in common if one of the parties is pregnant; or a current or former dating partner.

Colorado’s law allows all those same people to petition for an ERPO, but includes a multitude of family members including step-parents and step-children, and even in-laws.

Reading through New Jersey’s legislation, it’s obvious these new ERPO bills are being written by the same lobbyist.  Here are the similarities to what was passed in Colorado and will go into effect January 1, 2020:

• It’s free to file the petition. Nothing in the court system is free to file, and even a $10 filing fee would deter those using it as an act of revenge.
• The petitioner/accuser does not have to be present at either the temporary hearing or the permanent hearing, and the judge will base a decision off an affidavit of information.
• The party being accused is not informed of the proceedings and has no opportunity to defend themselves until after the firearms are confiscated.
• The temporary order is coupled with a search warrant. This means the very first time the party being accused is aware this is happening the police will be at their door, warrant in hand, ready to raid their home and take their guns – possibly even their life if there is resistance.
• Accusations of threats do not have to be firearms related. Someone can say they want to punch someone, and that is evidence enough to grant the order.
• There is no punishment for false accusers.
• There is no mental health component. Once the firearms are taken, forcibly if necessary, the person is left in crisis – something I find downright cruel to those who are truly in need of help.  The only time mental health is mentioned in both New Jersey’s and Colorado’s legislation is when discussing lifting the order and returning an individuals guns. In this section it’s stated mental health treatment could be one of the deciding factors.

Unlike Colorado’s law which requires an automatic expiration hearing after 364 days, New Jersey’s law is indefinite.

The new laws differ greatly from Red Flag laws that have been in effect for many years.  For example Indiana has had a Red Flag laws since 2005, and it requires a corroboration of evidence to even start the petition.  Connecticut has had one since 1999, and it requires a mental health professional to be part of the petitioning process.  That said, even those laws have been proven to be ineffective as Sandy Hook happened while Connecticut’s law was in place, and Indiana’s law may be having the opposite effect on suicide.

Who do you think is actually writing these Red Flag bills?  Let us know in the comments.

[Israel Chai]

NEW JERSEY: New “Red Flag” Gun Law Used to Take Guns Every Single Day

https://www.secondamendmentdaily.com/2019/09/new-jersey-new-red-flag-gun-law-used-to-take-guns-every-single-day/?fbclid=IwAR1q1FRr9OU9Vn2P8KUuQbUV9VNk151052M4J3d7T1XhSXf4pWiPlU_ZFQA

Newark, NJ — New Jersey only implemented their new Red Flag gun confiscation law on September 1st, but it’s already getting a workout.

Initial reports indicate that judges have signed off on a Red Flag gun confiscation order at least once every day since then.

As of Thursday, September 13th, judges had signed off on fourteen uses of the ERPO orders.

Of those fourteen orders, twelve were determined to be temporary, and two of which were permanent.

The two who lost their guns and gun rights permanently were given a chance to defend themselves in front of the judge.

But when you consider the short time frame this is all happening in, one has to wonder how much time and attention their cases are receiving before a permanent injunction was passed.

Always happy to have more power over law-abiding citizens, the anti-gun crowd is thrilled with the frequent usage of Red Flags.

Check out their delusional Attorney General’s comments at a public training event about how to implement their new Emergency Risk Protection Orders:

“We are not violating Second Amendment rights,” said Attorney General Gurbir Grewal at the event on Thursday, September 12th. “We are just enabling reasonable measures to promote public safety and to make sure we are keeping firearms out of the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them.”

Sure!

Except Red Flag gun confiscation laws ARE violating the Second Amendment in that they’re taking somebody’s guns away without any charges, trial, or conviction.

Red Flag laws also take away a citizens’ right to face their accuser.  It takes away their right to defend their family from a violent attacker.

New Jersey is already facing nearly a dozen new gun-control laws passed by their leftist governor, Phil Murphy.

He has implemented Red Flags, banned magazines larger than 10 rounds, banned ‘ghost guns’ and more.

Just last week, he announced an executive order which stated that any gun manufacturer who does business with law enforcement in New Jersey must meet strict new requirements.

Additionally, any banking institution that works with the state of New Jersey must have policies that would enforce gun safety rules.

We know we’re preaching to the choir here, but if you’re in one of these loudly anti-gun states, it’s time to stand up and make these sellouts answer for their anti-American policies!

[Israel Chai]

Your ex wife can demand you be red flagged for free, and the cops will come and take your guns and kill you at any sign of resistance. Perfect revenge. One way we can try to stop this is everyone must red flag all the politicians in states where they enforce these illegal laws, and all their supporters who have guns, and maybe it'll cause them to reconsider.

[Israel Chai]

Someone who isn't a retarded commie or suckered by them discussing red flag laws

[Israel Chai]

Red flag abuse all day every day.





https://www.nbcrightnow.com/news/sheriff-hatcher-s-lawyer-benton-county-officials-pressured-wife-into/article_dddcdea0-ebb7-11e9-ae76-af4ab404b3ce.html?fbclid=IwAR2lRSp1XPnaaNMjeAgGVsshf9yhdq9E40CdyA2YuAxV0iVxEPQnA-lKy2Q

VIEW ABOVE SLIDESHOW FOR COMPLETE STATEMENT DOCUMENTS)

BENTON COUNTY, WA - Sheriff Jerry Hatcher's lawyer released a detail-packed statement Thursday afternoon, alleging Benton County elected officials involved themselves in Hatcher's divorce and pressured his wife to report a false 2-year-old allegation against him.

The statement also contains a copy of an alleged email sent by Monica Hatcher to Benton County Prosecutor Andy Miller and Washington State Patrol Sergeant Daniel Richmond.

In the copy of the email allegedly written by Monica Hatcher, she states that she isn't sure she can remember all that she said to detectives in regards to the 2-year-old allegation, and that she "cannot in good faith swear to [her] recollection of the events that occurred two years ago are accurate."

Monica's alleged email goes into detail about recurring vivid dreams caused by a significant brain injury she received in a car accident. These dreams, the email states, "at times have included Jerry in a very negative way, only to wake up and find him laying next to [her] or already gone to work."

Monica's alleged email states that she "had been a victim of Domestic Violence in a previous marriage and that this was not the case with Jerry and [her]."

Monica's alleged email later reads that "[she doesn't] know if Jerry's inappropriate involvement with woman is a trigger for [her], but [she has] seriously taken a closer look at just that this past week."

Nearing the end of Monica's alleged email, it states: "I feel I am being used, or pushed into making this report into to support someone's personal vendetta against Jerry. Please know that I will not be part of that.... Jerry and I are getting a divorce over him having an affair, and I have every reason to be angry with him."

[Israel Chai]

Now anyone can decide to red flag your guns away. Will help to murder right wingers, or just terrorize them.