Yes, it's true. It isn't just Democrats going after your guns, America. Republicans are doing it too, just like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) warned us earlier this year. Earlier this year, Rep. Susan Brooks (R-IN) introduced HR 5717, the Jake Laird Act of 2018, which allows for a police officer to confiscate your guns on the grounds that he believes you are "dangerous."
Of course, the bill is unconstitutional on its face, which is why it has been pretty much sitting ignored (until the time is right) in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
First, let's lay down the law here.
The Second Amendment is clear about the right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.The Fourth Amendment is clear as well regarding searches and seizures.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The Fifth Amendment is clear about property being taken without due process of law.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.Now, we have coming at us "Red Flag" laws, which are completely unconstitutional and have been advanced by both political parties, including President Donald Trump.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/968953652483379202
These laws skirt the clear supreme law of the land, the Constitution, and the law of God, which is supreme over the Constitution.
They seek to claim someone is dangerous, but yet, has committed no crime, has not faced a charge and has not been either indicted nor convicted of a crime. They then seek to steal their property.
With me so far? Good.
Here's what Rep. Brooks put forward earlier this year in her bill, which had 15 co-sponsors, 6 Democrats and 9 Republicans. Here's the list of co-sponsors just so you know who is attacking you on this issue.
- Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-22]
- Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6]
- Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-12]
- Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1]
- Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3]
- Rep. Coffman, Mike [R-CO-6]
- Rep. Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15]
- Rep. Bera, Ami [D-CA-7]
- Rep. Costello, Ryan A. [R-PA-6]
- Rep. Carson, Andre [D-IN-7]
- Rep. MacArthur, Thomas [R-NJ-3]
- Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6]
- Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-8]
- Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27]
- Rep. Kilmer, Derek [D-WA-6]
On it's face, it is at odds with the Constitution, specifically the Amendments I listed above. No crime has been committed. No indictments or charges have been made and no criminal convictions have been issued.
Here's the definitions Brooks gives for her bill:
In this Act:
All of this is very subjective by those seeking to confiscate guns. Again, remember, no indictments, no charges and no crimes committed, but she wants your guns, and so do her co-sponsors, and she is basing it on states who are unlawfully infringing on the rights that they swore to uphold as well by having in existence red flag laws.(1) The term “firearm” has the meaning given that term in section 921 of title 18, United States Code.
(2) The term “dangerous” means, with respect to an individual, that the individual—
(A) presents an imminent risk of injuring himself or herself, or another individual; or
(B) the individual—
(i) may present a risk of injuring himself or herself, or another individual; and
(ii) (I) has a mental illness that may be controlled by medication, but has demonstrated a pattern of not voluntarily and consistently taking such medication, except under supervision;
(II) is the subject of documented evidence that would give rise to a reasonable belief that the individual has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct; or
(III) poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself or herself, or another individual, by possessing a firearm.
You might say, well, my state won't do it. Oh yeah? Does your state have its hand out for federal money? Then you are at risk.
"A State that receives a grant under this section may use such grant to implement the law described in subsection (a), and to train law enforcement officers and prosecutors on the implementation of such law," read the bill. "A State seeking a grant under this section shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require, including a copy of the law described in subsection (a)."
See how they manipulate the states with money, making them corrupt?
It gets worse.
In order to be eligible for a grant under this section, a State law shall provide for a process that is substantially similar to the following:
The bill wants to allow for only a partial following of the Constitution, namely obtaining a warrant through an affidavit, but doesn't imply that criminal charges or an indictment will be made, which must be made in order to take a person's property. While searches an seizures may be conducted in an investigation, that is not what this is. This is simply looking to remove property, namely guns, from American citizens based on a purely subjective ruling by some judge.(1) WARRANT TO SEIZE A FIREARM FROM A DANGEROUS INDIVIDUAL.—
(A) ISSUANCE.—A court of competent jurisdiction may issue a warrant authorizing a law enforcement officer to seize a firearm from a person that the court determines there is probable cause to believe is dangerous and in possession of a firearm.
(B) AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED.—A law enforcement officer seeking a warrant described in subparagraph (A) shall submit to the court an affidavit, which contains the following information:
(i) Facts supporting the law enforcement officer’s probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous and in possession of a firearm, including a description of the law enforcement officer’s interaction with the individual, or with another individual who provided information relating to the individual against whom the warrant is sought, and who the law enforcement officer determines is credible and reliable.
(ii) The specific location of the firearm.
Furthermore, it allows for a police officer to confiscate a weapon without a warrant.
"A law enforcement officer may seize a firearm from an individual who the law enforcement officer determines there is probable cause to believe is dangerous without obtaining a warrant under paragraph (1) in the case of exigent circumstances."Notice, this is all subjective: "who the law enforcement officer determines there is probable cause to believe is dangerous."
That might be someone who is just loud, or impassioned because of such tyranny as this. It may be a person that calls out the very cop doing this to someone that is no threat to anyone, but the officer is afraid, and we've seen what a lot of cops are now doing even when they aren't afraid. Some of their behavior is absolutely criminal in nature anyway.
All of this runs contrary to the law.
After the state has stolen the property from individuals, they must provide a hearing so that the individual can try to recover his stolen property. The burden of proof rests with the government, but the government has just engaged in theft and a violation of the law, so what recourse does the citizen have?
None, really.
In fact, the government doesn't have to prove a crime at all. They just have to lay out a case of subjective claims that the individual is "dangerous" and shouldn't have a gun.
"At a hearing under subparagraph (A), the government shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the individual is dangerous, and that the firearm should not be returned to the individual from whom it was seized."Now, if the person is considered "dangerous" by the court, not only do they not get their gun back, but they get tossed into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That's right, they get labeled a criminal even though they have not committed a crime.
If the court determines that the individual is dangerous, the court shall—
(i) order that the law enforcement agency maintain possession of the firearm;
(ii) in the case of an individual who has a license to carry a firearm, revoke such license; and
(iii) enter an order restraining that individual from acquiring a firearm.
...(E) INCLUSION IN NICS.—In the case that a court enters an order described in subparagraph (A), the appropriate person shall make such information available to the Attorney General to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
If the court determines you are dangerous and continues to possess stolen property from you, you have to wait 180 days before you can petition them to beg for your property back. If they deny you that, after 5 years they may destroy the weapon or petition law enforcement to sell it, with the law enforcement agency retaining a little bit of money for themselves to "cover the costs of the sale."Brooks also put in $50,000,000 to carry out this act for fiscal years 2019 through 2021. Yes, $50 million!
The fact that this woman and those co-sponsoring it are anywhere in authority is absolutely frightening. Brooks has shown a complete lack of knowledge of the Constitution and the rights that our forefathers spoke about in the Declaration of Independence.
All of this is coming out of the Parkland, Florida shooting earlier this year. In that case, there were clear criminal actions that were committed by Nikolas Cruz that he was never arrested for due to the policies of the Obama administration.
I have no problem with criminals being charged, convicted and losing rights. I just wish that actual justice would be brought to bear on violent criminals, and that is the real problem in all of this. Because government uses an immoral and unethical prison system to punish people, instead of bringing justice as they ought to, they then turn around and attack our rights because they have failed to secure our liberties because of their own corruption.
Heed Rep. Massie's warning America. This coming year, both parties are coming for our guns.