The other day, a Maryland man in his 60s was shot to death by armed government workers in his own home. The man had not been charged with any crime. He was not even suspected of having maybe committed one.
So why did the Hut! Hut! Hut! squad show up at this man’s home?
A “Red Flag” order had been issued from a judge, ordering him to hand over his lawfully owned firearms.
And all that is necessary to trigger the write which leads to the Hut! Hut! Hutting! is for “someone” to claim that a person “could be a threat” to himself or others; that they are “concerned.”
Mark that.
It is not necessary that the targeted individual be charged or convicted of any violation of law. The “Red Flag” law effectively convicts – and sentences – people who’ve obeyed the law. The targeted individual is denied due process.
A writ is issued – and the Hut! Hut! Hutting! routine commences.
For some reason the man took umbrage at having his property taken at gunpoint by AGWs based on a writ issued by a judge based on no-one-knows-exactly-what.
A scuffle ensued – and the man ended up dead.
A man who was minding his own business, in his own home. A man not “wanted” for anything at all.
He was murdered by AGWs because of a feeling expressed by . . . someone . . .that he might be a “threat.” Not an actual threat. Not a fact.
Someone’s feeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
It is precisely the same tactic routinely used to justify the metastasizing police state since 9/11 – and this represents a logical escalation.
Precedents matter.
AGWs assert that they feeeeel threatened – and it is taken as equivalent to actually having been threatened.
It also represents the means by which civilian disarmament will proceed – and regardless of laws on the books that (supposedly) protect their right to keep firearms in their own home.
Red-Flagging is an end-running of those laws. It is fiat gun control – exercised by a bureaucratic apparat frustrated by its inability to get laws changed.
Now, the law can be ignored.
A disgruntled ex-wife can call down the rain of Hut! Hut! Hutting! Or a “health care professional” – now an adjunct of the government, courtesy of Obamacare. Don’t agree with the doctors advice? Decline to accept the treatment he advises? You are “recalcitrant,” “defiant” and – here it comes – a “danger to yourself and others.”
In time, it will be a neighbor who doesn’t like you – or like guns.
All it will take is for them to “say something.”
. . .
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here. 
That was quick.
>>Prosecutor Kimberly Wyatt with King County’s Regional Domestic Violence Firearms Unit – the only specialized unit in the state that helps other police agencies statewide and family members with ERPOs – believes the orders should apply to juveniles.
“We’ve had that issue come up multiple times, and we’ve been asked around the state by other law enforcement agencies that are struggling with the same issue. To date, I don’t know of any that have been filed yet against juveniles, but we have one particular case where we are making that recommendation to law enforcement right now,” Wyatt said.
In this case, they are working with a school resource officer at a school where a student under 18 is facing charges for a crime, requiring he not have access to weapons to determine if they need an Extreme Risk Protection Order<<
One thing that would really bother me about voting: Even if I voted for what I thought would be the best option to leave us all alone (Funny- but that never seems to be an option), when the one I would vote for ends up sodomizing us, aren’t I at least in part responsible for that if I voted? I mean, if our votes count when they do something we approve of, aren’t we just as responsible when they go the wrong way up the Hershey Highway?
I liken the whole thing to a recent real-life scenario in my county: In ’16 they had a vote whether to remain dry or allow alcohol sales. Ostensibly, one would think that allowing alcohol sales would be the pro-liberty choice- after all, not allowing alcohol sales is definitely a restriction upon liberty.
But of course, in the real world- ‘specially in politics- the choice is never as simple as the ‘a’ or ‘b’ to which they pare it down to. The reality is, under this system of tyranny, NEITHER option is a choice for liberty- because even if one were to vote to “go wet”, all that would mean is a lessening of one small aspect of tyranny- but an increase in others- suich as increased “law enforcement” to “protect us” (LOL) from drunk drivers; increased taxes to pay for the increased law-enforcement; court costs; jail space; litter pick-up, etc. etc. which the alky-hol sales would bring….and sure enough, now that alcohol sales are legal, that is exactly what happened!
So how does one vote to be left alone, whilst living under tyranny? Vote to stay dry, and your voting for one form of tyranny. Vote to go wet, and you’re just voting for another form of increased tyranny. How could one vote for either in good conscience? Personally, I liked it better when ‘we’ were dry, as you virtually never saw the fuuz here in this county- but of course, how could I possibly vote for the tyrants to keep prohibiting alcohol sales?
Nor could I vote for what I knew (and warned others) would instantly increase tyranny?
Now I see the fuzz every single time I go to town- even if I’m only there for two minutes.
Voting for ‘a’ or ‘b’ when ‘c’ or ‘x’ or ‘z’ might be the only real choice, is, again, just a choice between Hitler and Stalin. There are no winners- except among the tyrants.
Eric,
Apparently we both screwed the pooch on this one. You and I agreed on “It also represents the means by which civilian disarmament will proceed – ”
It seems as if the Democratic batch of “representatives” has a different idea.
Eric Salwell, “The government has nukes. Too many of them.“ was his response to a meager citizen.
Salwell, according to Reason is >>willing to make sure the war against any possible American citizen resistance over gun confiscation doesn’t fall into the endless quagmire of so many other guerrilla wars of the past century, reminds the citizen that while the government as represented by him wants your guns, it has something far stronger it would be perfectly happy to use if you complain.<<
http://reason.com/blog/2018/11/16/rep-eric-swalwell-thinks-gun-confiscati
A hint on BearingArms.com suggests a relative might have reported him for “politically incorrect” beliefs.
That’s almost a given, Anon. It was my first thought.
I’m very careful as to what I say around relatives who are of the mass mentality (pretty much all of ’em)- Although my interactions with most are very rare.
Even when it comes to my own mother, who lived the first 76 years of her life in NYC, and who thinks that only pigs should have guns (!!)- Now, living on my land in a mobile home 350′ from my own, she once said “You shouldn’t have those guns” [’cause as has become the norm, the media portrays anyone who wons guns as somehow suspicious, dangerous, and nefarious).
Sadly, I’ve become very careful of what I say, even in front of my own mother….because this modern religion of statism is thicker than blood and a lifetime of experience and good character……
Since I have almost no interaction with professionals or government workers, etc. and all of the neighbors are more heavily armed than I, I assume that the only real threat of someone sicking Uncle on me, is posed by relatives.
Perish the thought you should utter a hasty word in anger… “I’ll shoot so-and-so if he sets foot on my property!”- I could just see the telephones in action…. “He did say he’d shoot so-and-so, and he does have guns…. Just to be safe, you know…”……
This is the world we now live in. All worship the Beast, above any god, and with more fidelity and allegiance than to family. Strangers- armed thugs, are given the benefit of the doubt, while your brother or uncle or son who has led an exemplary life for decades is scrutinized and suspected, because of the scenarios shown on TV every day.THAT becomes the norm; reality and person experience/observation is discounted.
“If you see something (or even imagine something; or think you might see something or might imagine something; or imagine seeing something) say something; anything”.
Sometimes I envy sea turtles!
“And all that is necessary to trigger the write which leads to the Hut! Hut! Hutting! is for “someone” to claim that a person “could be a threat” to himself or others; that they are “concerned.”
As I’ve said before and I will say it again: this country is WAAAAAAY overdue for a revolution.
But, unfortunately, revolutions are only waged by those who realize that they are being oppressed and who their enemy is; not by those who see their enemy and oppressor as their benefactor, protector and savior.
And even then, most revolutions only result in one oppressor being replaced by another.
That’s actually a good point. However, history has proven time and time again that no matter how “good” (covert) an oppressive system is, a tipping point will be reached eventually.
But unfortunately, people tend to get (too) comfortable afterwards and, like you said, that “void” will simply be filled by yet another oppressor/system of oppression. And then the cycle repeats itself. The only way to end that cycle is to literally end society itself; that is, each person would have to live in total isolation from one another which of course, goes against human nature.
Oooo! As sweet as living in total isolation sounds, it actually would be necessary in order to have freedom. In fact, it wouldn’t even guarantee freedom, as those who desire to gain advantage over others would seek others out over whom to rule and abuse.
I think what is necessary, is for there to simply be enough people who care about freedom- maintaining their own and that of their neighbor- and for the balance of power to be maintained by not having any constraints hindering us from possessing any weapon and from using it with impunity to defend our property against anyone.
This would return us to essentially patriarchal times- which was basically the only time the world was free (except for those who voluntarily chose to live in city-states- which of course, is there brand of “freedom”)- but that is precisely why they impose such things as “gun control” and compulsory edumacation on us- to keep people from ever desiring, much less achieving that level of freedom again.
The system that the state has erected, essentially guarantees that there will be more people who will carry out it’s tyranny than who can resist it; and that those who might strive for freedom, will be neutralized to inaction via threat of violence; economic hand-slaps, pacifist philosophies, etc.
The scary thing is, that down through history to this day, tyranny has only gotten worse as far as it’s scope, level of intrusion, jurisdiction, violence, means of surveillance and control(technology), etc.- and thus, even if the whole system were collapse under it’s own weight and dysfunction, the pattern and technology and philosophies (instilled over many generations now) are still there to be used by what ever groups may form at any place and time, who unlike us, are not limited by a love of justice and peace, and a distaste for initiating violence.
There is seemingly no way out, humanly speaking. I’m sure glad that I am a Christian though, because I now realize the significance of the prophesies which show that God will destroy this system of worldwide tyranny which has come into existence before out very eyes.
….We protect our property, money and valuables with people with guns
….We protect our politicians, public figures and celebrities with people with guns
….We protect our high-value public and private institutions with guns
….We protect our children with “gun-free-zone” signs
….What’s wrong with this picture?
Gotta love the expressions on the yapping heads in the video.
Not that I turned up the sound to listen to them, just FF skimmed the visual. Not sure who takes them self more seriously, our pols or ahem, our media.
Nunzio,
“How ANYONE could not see that government is the very embodiment of diabolical evil, is beyond me!”
I’ll see that and raise you this:
Parkland and the Marine shooters both were evaluated. Right?
I’d go so far as to say the evaluators were pretty gotdamned sure both shooters were going to go on a rampage.
That is the only reason they were allowed to remain free.
When X says, “Government is, and always will be, INCOMPETENT.” I’ve got to call bullshit.
I’ve been saying for decades that (for example) the Department of Education produces EXACTLY what it was intended to produce – People who cannot make change for a dollar.
As you have mentioned before Nunzio, the opposite of what an agency claims to do is what it really does.
So after it was determined these folks were extremely dangerous, what choice did the Authoritahs have?
In reality, the cheapest thing in the world is human life. At least to the tax farmers.
Notice how the Gestinja at Parkland stayed outside. Since human livestock is fungible, with the Marine shooting, Ron Helus bought the farm as well as the “civilians.”
Nunzio people just don’t want to admit that A is A.
It’s very curious, Tuanorea,
Virtually ALL of these mass shootings of recent times have been perpetrated by people who have some prior connection to the government in some way, whether it be former involvement with the FBI, CIA, military, defense industry, etc.
It seems so perfect at a time when the powers that be are pushing for even more restriction or outright elimination of our 2nd amendment rights…..
And there are always inconsistencies in the stories- e.g. there is more than enough evidence to conclude in the matter of the Las Vegas shooting, that there was more than one shooter.
When one considers the government’s actions of the past- how they used individuals as patsies -e.g. James Earl Ray and Lee Harvey Oswald (They always have three names! 😀 ), I see no difference in their modus operandi in these mass shootings- i.e. using some confused psycho to participate in something which the government has likely engineered and fully staged- and having the patsy right at hand (funny how they always catch them so fast!) to take the fall for the whole thing, which ultimately the patsy could never have engineered nor set in motion on his own.
Contrast that, with “real” mass murderers, who did their deeds on their own- like David Berkowitz (‘Son Of Sam’) or Joel Rifkin- and one can see the glaring differences (Not to mention how much longer it took to identify and capture THEM!)- Individuals acting on their own, and all tended to be rather unique- vs. these modern mass shooters, whose stories all seem to follow a similar pattern, and whose cases all seem to involve stories in which are glaring inconsistencies and non-sequiturs…
Hmmmm…..
Mental illness is a coping mechanism or perception that other people don’t approve of.
Psychiatry is an arm of the state.
Those are the two lines I picked up in my reading that conveys the message. Everything else is detail.
So can we just petition the court that those AGWs are a danger to themselves and others or does this law not apply to all men equally?
To ask that question is to answer it. They are superior to us, therefore the laws will not apply to them.
Back when enough Americans still had the light of liberty burning in their hearts, we’d often hear of how gun registration was a step toward gun confiscation. True enough.
Incidents like this illustrate that yet another evil of gun registration: Just think: The victim of this travesty was likely a “law abiding” citizen who never harmed anyone; and yet, he is targeted and killed likely because he obeyed the law and purchased his firearms legally and registered them (Thus the Nazis knew that he was armed, and knew exactly what he had, so to ensure THEIR saaaaaafety, they went charging in like a bull in a china shop), -meanwhile, some thug in the ‘hood’ who leads a life a crime- actually harming people, will escape such treatment, simply because his arms are purchased on the black market, and because they are not registered; therefore, he escapes the scrutiny of the system.
So the actual criminals who “do not obey the law” [The law which they are always telling us are harmless to the innocent, and which we are ‘good citizens’ for complying with] actually fare much better than those who ‘obey the laws’ and who harm no one.
THAT is the absurdity of of ‘gun control’. It penalizes the good- both restricting their inalienable rights, and by subjecting them to abuse like this- while benefiting the criminals by not only disarming their victims- but by actually helping them to avoid governmental control and abuse, which the innocent are subject to when such laws are established.
Nunzio, I always enjoy your eloquent, yet concise analyses. Good having you here. 🙂
Thanks so much for the kind words, Mark- but me, eloquent? LOL! Someone like Eric can express in one sentence what it takes me an entire tome to express!
Thank you, Mr. Peters.
Since this incident I’ve noticed a little bit of bizarre & hypocritical rationalization, and a whole lot of silence from those who typically worry and warn of gun confiscation — particularly from the “from my cold dead hands”/”Molon Labe” crowd.
So, thank you for writing about this.
“They” are all too busy loading more magazines and hardening their houses – LOL
I doubt it. I think they’re cowering in their basements hoping that the cops don’t show up at their door because they know in their hearts that they’ll turn in their guns upon request as they piss their pants and ask “is there anything else I can do for you, officer?”.
Right now they’re utterly silent on this issue because they’re hoping no one notices that they’ve spent years making online boasts about what they’ll do if the government comes for their guns. Loudmouth cravens writing checks online that their asses can’t cash … for years on end (the internet is forever).
One man stood up for his rights and was murdered by the State for it, and there’s a few b.s. rationalizations (e.g. “he should have known/been prepared”, “he should have left Maryland”, etc) and crickets from the Molon Labe patch wearers. They stay quiet as the media memory-holes the story; but soy-boy Acosta is a big concern.
And die-hard Trump supporters conveniently can’t remember the “Take the guns first; go through due process second” bit of brilliance. MAGA!
Once upon a time such individual futile resistance where it would make government employees wonder if they would make it home each day provided many people did it. Government would soon want for employees. Now it seems even if there was resistance by each and every person the government and its employees would will simply pick people off one by one. Hitting each one with overwhelming numbers and equipment.
Precisely, Brent!
Domestic government forces have grown so big, powerful and sophisticated, that they essentially constitute a domestic army of irresistible force- and one with no accountability or constraint of law; the very definition and ennoblement of tyranny.
What really has me flummoxed is that the 2nd Amendment Supporters I’m aware of seem to just looooove the cops and military. They’ll make some comment about ClintonObama won’t take their guns but will simply ignore the fact that the whenever ordered the cops and military will obey like trained seals and execute [pun intended] any order they’re given. They continue to mindlessly pledge allegiance and sing the national fight song louder and longer…I guess you’re right, Eric, about those clapping for Stalin…
OTOH, the Leftists denigrate the cops and then expect them to confiscate guns for them.
It’s a crazy world.
Would car prices fall if Chinese cars were allowed to be imported into the US?
Would airline ticket prices fall if foreign airlines could fly domestic routes?
Would shipping costs fall if foreign cargo ships could ship freight between domestic ports?
Would prices fall if foreigners were allowed to work in the USA?
Would medical costs fall if foreign doctors could work in the US?
Would prices fall if there were fewer regulations and the free market was allowed to decide which companies were good or bad?
Hi Libertarian,
Last call, amigo. This site isn’t a vehicle for advertising your site. Do it again, and you’ll be banned.
I have a serious question. This man may very well have been mentally unstable. Likely he was. If people who know him fear he is going to kill people, doesn’t there need to be a way to address that before the bullets start flying? Police can’t watch the man 24/7 to see if he does something.
How are we to deal with it?
Todd,
Who is this “we” you speak of?
Don’t you mean to ask, “How am I going to deal with it?”
How do you deal with your safety?
Take the CA shooting that just happened. Is there no better way to deal with crazy people?
We is society.
Perhaps a patron could have shot the bastard?
Oh, I forgot: legal concealed carry in CA is virtually impossible.
Todd,
“Take the CA shooting that just happened. Is there no better way to deal with crazy people?”
Bigger GUN FREE ZONE signs would be a good start.
So the ONLY acceptable way to deal with a maniac is to wait until he is shooting at you and then you or someone around you can shoot back at them? I agree that relying on the state to be rational and to help out is problematic.
I’ve said for a while, we should cancel the police and use the budget to provide everyone with a hand gun and training.
Yeah, maybe that’s the BEST way to run a society — just leave ppl alone until they actually commit a crime (threats being considered a crime), and if they actually do end up harming victims, then the victims just have to defend themselves.
Harry,
Ain’t no thing as a “society.”
Only individuals.
You think you can meld with other people and become more than just yourself?
Wow, good point, Tuanorea!
Once ‘we’ accept the notion of ‘society’, we thus accept the very foundation of a collectivist mindset; -using the group mentality to be something other than just ourselves, and thus the requisite of forcing some to be less than themselves by the coercion exerted upon them by the group.
That’s why this comment section and youse guys are the best! Where else on the entire interwebz can one get these insights?!
Hi Crazy Harry,
I think the only thing any of us should be running is our own lives. Trouble begins when any of us start to speak or even think in terms of plurals or collectives – as in “we” or “society.” Implicit in such talk or thought is the notion that the person thinking or speaking is thinking or speaking on behalf of the rest of us. Which of course he can’t because it is literally impossible.
That is the practical as well as moral problem with collectives. In the first place, someone has to run them. In the second, whoever ends up doing so cannot know much less express the desires of everyone in the collective. He necessarily abuses some of the people in the collective even if that is not his intent. Assuming, that is, the collective – “we,” “society,” whatever you want to call it – doesn’t permit the individual to opt out of whatever the collective leader decides is the best way to “run” things.
Todd,
I guess your society is going to nuke those gun owners who fail to surrender their arms.
Todd,
I, too, have a serious question.
Are you a psychiatrist?
Yeah, he was probably a Republican in a Democrat neighborhood: “totally crazy”
This is just like CPS: get an accusation against a family and then kidnap the kids and stick them in foster home for hire where they will probably be molested.
Hi Anonymous,
This stuff concerns me deeply, particularly because I write and express contrarian views publicly. We are already at the point that mere deviation from orthodoxy constitutes “hateful” expression – verging on “hate crime” (as in the UK).
So, a person who dislikes my work files complaints; claims I am . . . “hateful” . . .and it is a short hop from that to “dangerous.”
Middle-aged white guy; divorced and so probably bitter/hates women. Lives alone out in the woods. Writes “hateful” things.
And has guns…
Nevermind that the middle-aged guy has never been charged with anything more serious than a traffic offense and caused no problems for anyone, ever.
He “might” be a threat.
Hut! Hut! Hut!
You’re not paranoid if they really are out to get you!
Thats a legitimate statement Eric.
Todd,
The way I would deal with it is by shooting somebody who starts the sort of thing you are describing. If somebody starts attempting to kill innocent people, and I am anywhere near, I will draw my firearm and do my best to stop him, and probably succeed. I carry two routinely, because you never know where it might happen, especially in a “gun free” zone. Roughly 98% of mass shootings since 1950 have occurred in “gun free” zones, according to research by Dr. John Lott, criminologist. https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/
However, this issue obscures a much more important point. That is that the carrying of firearms by ordinary citizens has kept Americans much safer from murder than they likely would have been otherwise. Professor R.J. Rummel estimates that approximately 200 million people worldwide were murdered by their governments in the twentieth century. These genocides were committed in many different countries. The U.S. has about 5% of the world’s population. Thus, if we were to have kept pace with the worldwide average, we could have expected about 10 million Americans to have been murdered by our government in the twentieth century. Our government dare not attempt a mass genocide, because Americans are armed. It is not because we are too “progressive” for such a thing to occur here. Germany was probably the most progressive country in Europe. They even had socialized medicine beginning in the late 19th century under Otto von Bismarck.
That is the real reason we have the second amendment. The founders talked about the need for the people to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. It has proven to be true. Just look at a partial list of examples: Armenia in 1915, the Soviet Union, Germany, Cambodia during Pol Pot’s reign of terror, China under Mao, Guatemala from the 1960s to the 1980s, Uganda in the 1970s. See http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/lethal.htm. Each of these genocides was preceded by confiscation of arms from the victim group, often with registration first.
Private murders with firearms amounted to something on the order of 800,000 in the U.S. in the twentieth century. I have not been able to find the number more precisely just now, but I have seen it. That is only 1/12 of what we could expect from government murders, if we kept pace with the worldwide average. It pales in comparison.
The bottom line is that we should not do anything in response to mass shootings or any other private murders which jeopardizes our freedom to protect ourselves, especially against government. Take steps as an individual to be able to stop madmen if they are near you. Freedom is scary and dangerous, but it is a lot less scary and dangerous than powerful governments.
Jim,
“The bottom line is that we should not do anything in response to mass shootings”
Well maybe tone down attendance at country music venues.
“If people who know him fear he is going to kill people, doesn’t there need to be a way to address that before the bullets start flying? Police can’t watch the man 24/7 to see if he does something.”
That is a slippery slope that ALWAYS leads to more gun confiscations. “Well, he MIGHT kill somebody, so…” He MIGHT also get into a diesel truck and murder 86 people like the Muslim guy in France did. He MIGHT purchase an airplane ticket and hijack the flight and crash it into an office tower. He MIGHT grab a gallon of gasoline and burn 87 people to death like the guy in the Bronx did in 1989. He MIGHT grab a steak knife and murder somebody with it.
That’s why they don’t allow steak knives — or ANY other sharp objects — in PRISON.
Due process means that you cannot be deprived of your “life, liberty and property” unless you’ve actually been convicted of something illegal in court. Without due process, the country’s basically an open-air prison and you’re an inmate.
Besides, how many times have the cops themselves screwed up these mental health evaluations — which are totally subjective?? The guy who just shot 12 people in California was cleared by the cops just this past year. The kid who shot up the school in Florida was the subject of TWO FBI complaints and numerous investigations by the Broward County Sheriff. They did nothing. So, the government screws up, and the answer will ALWAYS be to take MY gun.
Beyond that, how many of these mass murderers have been associated with, or trained by, the military, the cops, and the government??? The Marine in California this week. The Ft. Hood shooter. The black guy who shot the five cops in Dallas. The Navy Yard shooter. All veterans. The Orlando gay nightclub shooter was an ARMED security guard for the government working for the contractor G4S with a security clearance… he was interrogated by the FBI before the shooting and STILL allowed to keep his security clearance and his guns.
Government is, and always will be, INCOMPETENT. Yet they will always have the force of arms to protect THEMSELVES. The idea that the government has the right to disarm ME for my own saaaafety is positively frightening…
And not only what X says, but:
How does the goobermint prove one’s ‘guilt’ in a matter which hasn’t occurred?
Since they can’t, because it hasn’t occurred, but only “might occur”, they must invent some protocols for one to be “guilty” of- such as just possessing a gun or a can of gasoline, etc. (Just like the mere possession of a large amount of cash now makes you automatically a ‘drug dealer’ etc.]- or must use some other metric to ‘prove’ that you are ‘dangerous’- such as some behavior which may be perfectly harmless, but which their protocol defines as ‘out of the norm’- or language which they consider to be ‘associated with hate’- like the use of certain ‘slurs’ or stereotypes which they would consider “racist” and therefore use as evidence that you ‘hate and intend violence towards’ the people to whom the language applies, even if you’ve never actually made any threats nor advocated any violence.
How scary is THAT?!
And how does one establish their innocence when faced with such charges? ‘Merely’ proving that you didn’t do anything would not be good enough, since the charge is that you MIGHT do something. How is it possible to prove that you will not?
It is impossible- just as it is impossible for them to prove that you might. So any establishment of such laws amounts to nothing more than a Rube Goldberg judiciary process in which the state just does what ever it wants, condemning whomever it decides to- unless of course they just kill you- which is probably what they’d prefer, so that they don’t have the embarrassment of having to legally prove a case against you- and can use the fight that ensues when you try to defend yourself and your property from the unjust government intrusion, as “proof” that you were dangerous.
“Look how dangerous he was! He had the nerve to shoot at those brave heroes who invaded his home (for his own good, of course!)…See? We told you! He was a dangerous nut! But you don’t have to worry anymore, because now he is dead, and his home can now be confiscated [since it was used in the commission of a ‘crime’) and we’ll use it to house Sheeqwandra and her 11 underprivileged dependents; or maybe use it to house some recovering addicts or pedophiles while they undergo treatment (which you paid for)”.
How ANYONE could not see that government is the very embodiment of diabolical evil, is beyond me!
This sort of thing is why I don’t worry too much about long term care.
That’s hilarious!
I especially like how your doctor can “prescribe” a red flag raid.
And as Eric says, “It also represents the means by which civilian disarmament will proceed”.
But who (or is it whom?) would be doing the disarming?
Perhaps the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS).
Long term care at its finest!
I like who else can “prescribe” a red flag raid:
Who can file an Extreme Risk Protective Order?
The person requesting an ERPO is the petitioner. A petition may be filed by a:
spouse;
cohabitant;
relative by blood, marriage, or adoption;
person with child(ren) in common;
current dating or intimate partner;
current or former legal guardian;
law enforcement officer; or
medical professional who has examined the respondent
Who is an Extreme Risk Protective Order filed against?
A person who poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having firearms. The person who is alleged to be a danger is called the respondent.
Factors demonstrating possible risk include:
alarming behavior and statements;
unlawful firearm possession;
reckless or negligent firearm use;
violence or threats of violence to self or others;
violating peace or protective orders;
drug and/or alcohol abuse; and/or
information contained in health records.
===============
The only petitioner on the list above who OUGHT to be able to recommend a “red flag” is a psychiatrist/psychologist who has examined the respondent.
Cops themselves can petition. As can vindictive girlfriends, ex-wives, a Leftist aunt, or SJW nephew.
information contained in health records
========================
Which is why you dont EVER say you are depressed in a medical questionnaire.That will be held against you.Also,gun ownership questions?Are you kidding me???? Maybe some health care workers need to exercise a little jury nullification on their own?Glad this world includes monkey wrenchers.You do not have to be a gov stoolie to work you know,its your choice on these rules/mandates still.If you get my drift.
Are you depressed or have you ever been depressed?
Joe Blow-Are you kidding?Im the happiest camper ever.Ever.
Do you own guns?
Joe Blow-No.
Thats how you handle the medical end of it.
—————————
Medical practitioner-Oops,I missed a couple questions there.Oh woe is me.My Bad.
Or….If you dont like any questions Im about to ask,remember this is not a trial and you arent under oath,nor will you be denied care here.So if something seems too invasive or too personal,you feel free to not answer.
You do NOT have to be a gov stooge people.
Hi Fred,
Both my dad and grandfather were doctors; I used to admire the profession. But it’s become another means of mulcting us – and worse. Doctors are now agents of the state and I therefore have decided to avoid them on principle. Of course, that means I am “recalcitrant” and – possibly – mentally ill – since who else would avoid going to the doctor and taking whatever meds they recommend?
People who want to stay relatively healthy – that’s who!
It’s just a racket: this drug MIGHT help you live longer, but it causes side effects so you get another drug to deal with that, and so on and on until pretty soon you’re taking a dozen pills every day and you’re not even sick – yet!
I knew of an old lady who was really sick and the MDs gave up on her and said to just stop her medicine and her die. A few days later she started recovering and lived several more years.
It will be a real hoot to hear what the NRA has to say about this.
As if we don’t already know what their weak, dish water response might be.
Alter,
“We need to stop dangerous people before they act,” says Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “So Congress should provide funding to states to adopt risk protection orders.”
The AGWs that “execute” these orders do so with absolutely no reservations. They don’t give a rip about any constitution. They will do whatever their “shift commander” or “duty sergeant” tells them to do. And they’ll do it while wearing a mammoth US flag on their costume.
And they’ll go home, drink a beer, belch a few times, and sleep like a baby. And the next day, they’ll do it all over again.
It’s a wasteful wish to want one….just one AGW…to stand up, rip off his badge/jewelry, throw down his weapons, and declare loudly that this is a line of demarcation they won’t cross.
Just one. Give me just one.
“And they’ll go home, drink a beer, belch a few times, and sleep like a baby. And the next day, they’ll do it all over again.”
It’s ten times worse than that. In the movie “Do Not Resist,” cops are trained that a SWAT raid will give them the biggest hard-on and the best fuck ever. (And this is the country that pats itself on the back for defeating Nazi Germany….?)
Truly, this is frightening as hell.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/30/do-not-resist-a-chilling-look-at-the-normalization-of-warrior-cops/?noredirect=on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zt7bl5Z_oA
If you can’t get rid of the dangerous guns, declare gun owners dangerous!
That’s exactly what this is. If cops are called because someone is crazy and is an IMMINENT danger to himself or others, they take him into custody and there’s a psych evaluation and a hearing.
This law removes the mental illness requirement, the psych evaluation, and the need for the danger to be IMMINENT. It replaces all three with gun ownership as the only requisite.
FWIW, Trump loves him some red flag laws.
Oh, and “danger” means whatever the petitioner thinks (wants) it to mean.
Captain Renault: I’m shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on in here.
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.