Senator Rubio’s NYT Op-Ed Advocates For Unconstitutional Red Flag Laws
Remember the anchor-baby wannabe president Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)? He is in the news again with an op-ed penned at The New York Times where he fully supports “Red Flag laws” and gun confiscation and indicates he has introduced “bipartisan” legislation to enact federal “Red Flag laws.”
After a string of mass shootings this summer, Americans are demanding a response to curtail the violence. If we are looking to deliver a solution that reduces bloodshed and respects the rights of responsible gun owners, the only realistic action must be bipartisan.
This is why the recent focus on red-flag proposals from our Senate colleagues and the president is welcome. The most effective step Congress can take right now to prevent tragedies like those in Parkland, Fla.; Newtown, Conn.; and Dayton, Ohio, is to enact red-flag laws, which give law enforcement the ability to restrict gun access for unstable, potentially violent people, without infringing on other Americans’ rights.
That’s why, on the first day of this Congress, I reintroduced bipartisan legislation with Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine; Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Angus King, independent of Maine.
So, Rubio and his band of giddy gun grabbers are ready to give law enforcement the ability, read authority, to “restrict gun access for unstable, potentially violent people, without infringing on other Americans’ rights”. What about those Americans whom Rubio is stripping away rights, including due process as recognized, guaranteed and protected by the Fifth Amendment? And, what is the definition of “unstable, potentially violent”? After all, someone can be “unstable” but pose no risk to themselves or others. And, as is the nature of man, are not all prone to be “potentially violent” under the right circumstances?
Who are these Americans, other than deranged, unstable, potentially violent anti-constitutionalists, that are demanding a response to curtail “violence”, in many cases, the violence these anti-constitutionalists themselves sow? And, how does the “government” define a “responsible gun owner”? Would it be an individual who keeps unloaded firearms locked away in a safe? Would it be an individual who keeps a loaded firearm locked away in a safe? Would it be an individual who keeps a loaded firearm in their home for self-defense purposes or carried on their person and in areas only known to the individual?
A firearm is a tool, an inanimate object, that can be used for good or ill. That use depends on the user. And, since the Supreme Court determined that law enforcement officials have zero obligation to provide for the safety of the individuals in the community, how is it law enforcement can be used by the government to provide for the safety of individuals in the community by being illegally, unconstitutionally authorized to take someone else’s property without due process?
This does not respect the rights of gun owners. What this does is give any anti-constitutional quack the opportunity to falsely report someone to have firearms confiscated by law enforcement.
We can see the consensus around red-flag legislation developing in real time. I commend Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, who have publicly voiced support for enacting a law that would provide financial incentives to states to adopt red-flag laws. Our bill does exactly that.
It’s no secret that you need a bipartisan coalition to pass legislation in the Senate, and we’ve already done the legwork. We can build off our proposal in order to put a law in place that can actually stop the next attack.
More proof that Republicans are not friends of the people or the Constitution. So, where is the irrefutable evidence that any other gun restrictive laws will “actually stop the next attack”? Isn’t that what the American people were told about the enactment of national background checks? Isn’t that what the American people were told about the “assault weapons” ban of the 1990s? “Assault weapon” – what a misnomer. A brass candlestick is an “assault weapon”.
As everything goes with Congress, this law proposed by Rubio and his giddy group of gun-grabbers would give States a “financial incentive” to adopt these laws. What better way to get States on board than to appeal to their money-grabbing greed? Forget about protecting the rights of the people; the States can get more money so these charlatans will get to work passing and supporting these unconstitutional measures. As Georgia State legislator and former USMC member Dave Belton told a friend of mine at one time, “we have to give up a little bit of freedom for safety. Semper Fi”.
Rubio explained how these “Red Flag laws” would work.
Red-flag laws empower law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. In Florida, when a concerned family member contacts the police about a person determined to be a threat to himself or others, the police can petition a judge to have his guns taken away for two weeks. After an additional hearing, the risk protection order can be extended for up to a year.
The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. In order for a state to be eligible for funding under our proposal, it would be required to enact strong due process protections and include a felony penalty for false reporting.
Strong due process protections? Due process occurs before any action is taken. Rubio stated the police petitions the judge to have an individual’s guns confiscated for two weeks, then an additional hearing is held to determine if an extension is warranted. Where is this “due process” Rubio taunts? According to Rubio, a felony penalty is required to be in place for false reporting. Aren’t there already laws on the books for making false reports to the police, perjury, and obstruction? Of course, there are. But, how many politicians have been prosecuted for perjury since they engage in it all the time? And, how do the police know these are false reports when action is taken before “due process”?
In all the mix, it is assumed law enforcement officials are honorable; however, the American public should know this is not the case with all officials. And, as has been known for quite some time, the “blue blanket” of protection has been afforded to unsavory, dishonorable officials.
How Rubio can draft this op-ed with a straight face saying these laws do not infringe upon the God-given individual unalienable right to keep and bear arms recognized, protected and guaranteed by the Second Amendment is beyond comprehension.
As “evidence” of his support for “Red Flag laws” and his introduction of this legislation, Rubio cites a “study” by the “nonpartisan” Violence Prevention Research Program at … wait for it … the University of California at Davis. Is there any part of the University of California or California, in general, that is “nonpartisan”? Don’t think so, but I digress.
The article, carried by The Washington Post, indicated:
State laws that allow the removal of guns from people who present a threat to themselves or others may play a role in preventing mass shootings, according to a new study, a finding that could buttress support for “red flag” legislation being debated in Congress.
The study by a team at the nonpartisan Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California at Davis identified more than 20 cases in which California’s red-flag law was used in an effort to prevent a mass shooting.
None of the threatened shootings in those cases took place, according to the study, which will be published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Researchers could not definitively state that California’s red-flag law was responsible, noting that it was impossible to know whether threats would have been carried out.
But the cases “suggest that this urgent, individualized intervention can play a role in efforts to prevent mass shootings, in health care settings and elsewhere,” the researchers said. [Emphasis Mine.]
Despite none of the threatened shootings taking place and no definitive proof California’s “Red Flag laws” were responsible for preventing any shooting because it was impossible to know whether threats would have been acted upon, Rubio used this as “proof” these tyrannical laws work. This is as bad as the junk science of “man-made” climate change/global warming.
Here’s what Rubio wrote:
Red and blue states alike across the country are enacting red-flag laws, and a recent study showed these laws may be playing a role in preventing mass shootings. As of last month, state judges had signed off on over 2,400 risk protection orders in Florida since March 2018, undoubtedly pre-empting violence.
“Maybe playing a role”. “Undoubtedly pre-empting violence.” There are doubts about that as the study clearly indicated which only consisted of looking at some number more than 20 cases in California. That’s a slim amount of cases upon which to base nation-wide legislation. Moreover, this legislation is blatantly unconstitutional, immoral, illegal and unethical.
Rubio continued his bloviation:
Far too often, we learn after a tragedy that the perpetrator displayed concerning and often repeated signs of deeply troubling behavior, including clear statements indicating their intent to cause harm to others. In the case of the Parkland shooting suspect, the police received at least 45 calls about him, and a woman close to him even communicated to the F.B.I. that she feared he would become a school shooter, listing specific examples of disturbing conduct — including holding a gun to the head of family members.
Despite these troubling indicators, the suspect was not prevented from owning or obtaining firearms because he had never been charged with a crime. Red-flag laws provide communities with a tool to prevent future tragedies.
There is such a thing as taking out a warrant against someone for terroristic threats and actions, particularly when someone holds a gun to one’s head. In the case of the Parkland shooter, the family failed to initiate legal action by means of a warrant for his actions. And, the policies of the Hussein Soetoro administration allowed this individual to skirt laws already in place because of being in high school, which being in high school is no reason to allow someone to skirt the law. So, exactly how are those failures addressed? They’re not. If the family members had performed their obligations, the outcome might have been different. The same with the school. However, that will never be known. But, the government solution is to punish citizens through “Minority Report” types of legislation where due process is thrown out the window.
While Rubio indicated he had spoken with families and communities affected by “senseless acts of violence” and “Red Flag laws” are consistently mentioned, he has forgotten one important piece of information and fact – The Constitution for the united States of America. Just as the Constitution protects the minority from the majority, it protects the majority from the minority. The number of firearms owners in America may be a minority; but, that does not mean the majority get to determine policy or law. That would be a democracy, which the united States is not. We are a republic where the rights of individuals are to be protected by government against over-reach by other government and individuals regardless of whether those rights are popular or not.
Everyone continually speaks about “curtailing violence” and “reducing bloodshed”, but not one individual ever addresses the black on black violence rate, the violence of murdering innocent babies in the womb, illegal alien invader violent criminals released upon the streets of cities across the united States, the sanctuary cities where criminals find safe haven to continue their reign of violence, the assaults committed by deranged “never Trumpers” against those who support Trump, the rampant sex trafficking and horrific abuse of children in the custody of Child Protective Services, rampant pedophilia rings, and human trafficking across all demographics. Are these not examples of violence? Of course; but, when it comes to anything to do with firearms, something should be done.
Rubio is right about one thing – it is time to act. It’s time to nip these giddy group of gun grabbers in the backside, whether a politician or deranged lay anti-constitutionalist. And, at the rate both parties are going, citizens will have all their rights legislated away, illegally, unconstitutionally, immorally and unethically if citizens continue to buy the hyperbole that electing any party other than Democrat will save those rights. Don’t take my word on that. Research news sites for yourself to see that both parties, including the president, are gunning (pun intended) to eradicate your rights.
Article posted with permission from Sons Of Liberty Media