Have you ever seen the movie Minority Report? In the Tom Cruise thriller, several people called “precogs” can see into the future and determine who is going to commit murder. However, before the murder takes place, the police go and arrest the individual and lock them away for life. The individual didn’t actually commit the crime and isn’t given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. In the end, Tom Cruise’s character exposes several flaws in the system, primarily the decision of a person to be able to choose their own path, not what others predict that person is going to do.
The movie, while entertaining, would never really happen in a country like the United States right? We value due process and we don’t take away people’s rights without that person committing a crime right? We make sure they have the ability to defend themselves in a court of law before those rights are removed right? That’s how it used to be – until recently.
Several years ago we started seeing the term “red flag law” and “extreme risk protection order” pop up. These laws were being pushed in an effort to “stop crime before it happens.” Sound familiar? The purveyors of such laws tell citizens that in order to stop “mad” or “crazy” people from harming themselves or others, these “red flag” laws are necessary.
So how exactly do these “red flag” laws work? There isn’t one answer for this as states implement them differently. Generally speaking, the police are notified by someone (usually an immediate family member) that a person is a threat to themselves or others. The police gather evidence from the family member(s) and take it to a judge. The judge then determines if there is sufficient evidence of a threat. If he believes there is, he then issues an order for the police to confiscate the individual’s guns.
And that’s exactly what these “red flag” laws are – gun confiscation orders!
While some states have limited these gun confiscation orders to “immediate family” members, other states are already expanding their orders to include neighbors, principals, teachers, and others who are now the new American “precogs”. And just like in the movie, the American “precogs” predict your future crime and the police “stop” you from ever doing it.
And the list of these American “precogs” is likely to continue. Facebook followers, Twitter followers, online associates and more will probably be added in the future. And it won’t take but one mass shooting to expand it even further. One shooting, where a perceived threat was made to someone not on the current “precog” list, and the government tells you they must expand it.
Take the Parkland killer for instance. He let his fellow video gamers know that he wanted to harm people. Florida, who just passed their gun confiscation law, could simply say that they need to include people who associate with you in online forums to prevent another Parkland-style massacre. Then the Florida “precog” list grows.
We may get to a point where someone saying something is enough “evidence” to presume you are going to commit some horrific act. Many people have yelled at someone in the heat of the moment that they would “kill” them. Perhaps they sent a text message with similar “threats.” They have no intention of carrying out those threats but now the family members, or neighbors, or doctors, these new American “precogs,” get to determine your guilt for you.
At what point do they just throw out evidence and start looking at entire classes of people and deem them all “dangerous?” What about Veterans with PTSD? What about people of a certain political ideology? The reality is, once the government has the power and the ability to implement these orders, justification will be made to expand gun confiscation orders farther and farther.
Michael Bloomberg and his gun control groups, Everytown and Moms Demand Action, are pushing these laws hard across the country right now in Republican and Democrat-controlled states. They have made it one of their top legislative priorities.
Nine states in total have implemented some form of these gun confiscation orders. They are Oregon, Washington, California, Florida, Indiana, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Vermont. And several other states are looking at implementing them as well, including Texas.
Remember, no crime has been committed and the person who loses their rights did NOT get to defend themselves before those rights were removed. The gun control crowd has the audacity to call this “due process.”
It’s not due process if you aren’t part of the process.
Going to court AFTER your guns have been removed, to petition to get them back, is also not due process.
Gun owners must stand up and fight back against any form of these “red flag” laws. We don’t live in Minority Report, and we can’t allow our country to be turned into a place that removes rights and imprisons people for crimes they haven’t committed.
There can be no compromise on this issue.
Draw a line in the sand and tell your state legislators “No gun confiscation orders here!”
Be sure to check out my podcast on this same issue for more details by clicking the link here or on the image below! And be sure to Subscribe to our channel by clicking here!
It’s incredibly alarming how fast we’re losing our liberties. I just read about how a man in California was just charged with 12 felonies while trying to comply with new firearms registration laws. Yet, no criminals who are in possession of illegal guns are being charged with felonies. Rebellion is looking more and more reasonable everyday (that last part of my comment is probably something that would get me in trouble with “red flag laws.”)
Be careful, Chad, as the report from California may be fake. I also heard that story yesterday. When I Googled the man’s name, however, all I found were a bunch of websites I never heard of repeating the same story over and over again, verbatim. Given current media bias against firearms, I would have expected to find mainstream media (i.e. actual TV, radio, and print media sources) gloating over the arrest, especially in California. Even if they were silent, I would have expected to find FOX and other conservative media decrying the arrest. They were all silent. Makes me wonder if it’s even true.
The gun community is making a mistake in how we criticize these laws, and the Parkland shooter is an example. This kid had been involved in disturbances where the police were called. He had made numerous real threats. He shouldn’t have possessed guns, but he also shouldn’t have been free in society. He needed to be committed at least temporarily, and based on that commitment, he would have lost his Second Amendment rights because he wasn’t mentally stable.
Part of the argument against gun control needs to be that we can’t have a good society if the people are not responsible enough to own guns. Whether we have guns or not, a society full of people who aren’t responsible enough to own guns will be a bad society. A society full of people who aren’t responsible enough to own guns will be a society where people guns, knives, sticks, stones, or whatever is available. I don’t want those kinds of people free in society.
The standards for confining someone on a mental health commitment must be clear. We can’t allow people to be confined just because someone else is uncomfortable. There must be actions or words that trigger the confinement, and the evidence must be more than just one person making an accusation. However, when someone has clearly violated the peace in a way that indicates more violence to come, that person needs to be confined and lose access to weapons.
Remind me,how many people have died due to another making lies about them to the government/authorities?
I was told by a history teacher years ago,that in the USA ,Salem Witch Trials could never happen again ,as we study our history and wouldn’t allow that to happen again based just on others opinions or beliefs.
Bill, what if a few of YOUR neighbors called the cops on you? Simply reported that you have firearms — perhaps used the magical words “assault rifle” — and the cops show up to confiscate YOUR weapons, and throw you in jail while they are at it? What if (as several states now allow) “intent” can be inferred from actions, and your action of owning a firearm is deemed to be “intent” to use it to harm someone?
I know that sounds like a slippery slope, but it is where the gun grabbers want to take us. It is all well and good to take firearms (or other weapons) away from people who have demonstrated that they are violent, but when the cops start acting on reports that someone “might” do something, or someone makes someone else nervous, we get the kind of society that our founding fathers were trying to avoid.
As a hypothetical Constitutional Law Subject, how would you rewrite Red Flag Law to pass Constitutional Muster? — Due Process and Legal representation included.