Gun Confiscation SWATing: Shooting down due process

A new video from the Firearms Policy Coalition highlights the dangers to Liberty and due process posed by so-called ‘Red Flag’ Laws.

Gun confiscation SWATing, Extreme risk protective orders or so-call ‘Red Flag’ Laws are all the rage of the Liberty grabber Left and RINO’s these days. It’s bad enough that these unnecessary and unconstitutional violations of everyone’s due process rights are being ‘Rahmed’ through on a state level. But both the US House and Senate have their own versions. The latter co-sponsored by Senator Marco ‘RINO’ Rubio (R-FL) with the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on March 26.
In a case of trying to solve a rare but emotionally charged problem, these will only serve to create an even bigger problem destroying several civil and human rights in the process. We’ve already established that this type of legislation is unnecessary since Involuntary Civil Commitment laws that protect due process rights are already on the books. Thus we have woefully unconstitutional gun confiscation coupled with and evisceration of due process rights. It’s enough to have any tyrant glow with pride.
The video presented here while being about a short-term victory for Liberty and individual human rights raises some critically important issues with Gun confiscation SWATing. The video is about the rejection of a bill to expand the destruction of due process protections and government overreach in the ‘People’s Republic of California’. Specifically CA AB 61 Sponsored by: Asm. Phil Ting (D-19) to expand these outrages against Liberty.

Expanding who can call for a Gun confiscation SWATing

One ‘feature’ of this bill was to open up who can call for a Gun confiscation SWATing to co-workers, or other people in a school [2:30 min mark]. Of course, this expansion is exactly why these gun confiscation orders bereft of due process are so dangerous. Once the Liberty grabber Left has their foot in the door initiating this kind of gun confiscation. It’s just a matter of their opening up of who can call for these outrages to just about anyone. Simultaneously having someone’s property confiscated while ruining their life with this permanent mark on their record.
A representative from the California Civil Liberties advocacy group speaking in opposition to this bill made the point that while these are similar to easily obtained temporary restraining orders, these become a permanent mark on someone’s criminal record even if it is lifted.
Testimony from a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California [6:52 min mark] pointed out that while they are in favour of gun control, they oppose these measures that do not protect due process rights. The testimony was that this expansion of the people who can call for this kind of gun confiscation is very problematic. That the subject [or victims if you will] of these confiscations will not have been accused of a crime and won’t even know this one-sided ‘judicial’ process is taking place until the SWAT team breaks down their door a 4:00 AM.
The representative from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California was also concerned as to how this ‘process’ would take place. Side note: it resulted in the death of an innocent man in Maryland.
She also pointed out that the ‘subject’ of the gun confiscation order might not even own a gun. This would bring on a whole new set of complications. What are the law enforcement officers supposed to do when even the most extensive search fails to turn up any firearms?
Still further on, she noted that the Law allowed someone to initiate one of these gun confiscation search orders on some they encountered 6 months before. Pointing out that the supposed urgency of the situation, allowing a 6 month window of opportunity is inconsistent with the alleged urgency of the issue.

Violating the Constitutional principle of Due Process

The host then reiterated the unconstitutional issue with these Gun confiscation SWATing orders. That not only is this about the taking of someone’s property and means of self-defence, but they also violate due process. That this isn’t just about the 2nd amendment.
He also pointed out that many of the Liberty grabber set consider anyone who owns a gun to be ‘dangerous’. Much like the idea of ‘hate speech’ the criteria for who should be subjected to a Gun confiscation SWATing is severely undefined while those who can call for this is being expanded to just about anyone.

The danger of ‘Settling a score’ with someone with a gun confiscation SWATing

There is the danger that someone could use these SWATing orders to ‘settle a score’ with someone – even if they don’t own a gun. In fact, it could be worse for the person in that situation since law enforcement would be incentivized to become more intense in searching for something that doesn’t exist. What is there to stop someone from using the threat of bringing one of these down on someone as a form of extortion?

Criminals are now being treated better than the innocent

A representative from another civil rights organisation, the Gun Owners of California brought up the point that criminals are now being treated better than the innocent. That those accused of a crime have better procedures that those who have done nothing wrong. In addition, he pointed out that it’s not the worst case scenario that someone would just lose their guns for 21 days [and have a permanent black mark on their record]. But having been deprived of the means of self-defense, they or their family members could be killed or severely injured as a result of one of these orders

Ignoring measures that work

Further on in the video when the measure has been voted down, the author invokes the protection of the children without considering measures that would actually accomplish the task such as getting rid of so-called ‘gun free’ zones, having some teachers armed and the hiring ex-military personnel to guard schools.

The Takeaway

While the Democratic majority thankfully voted down this outrage against Liberty, the issues raised are applicable to the push for these things at the Federal and state levels.
These are extremely dangerous infringements on not only the common sense human right of self-defense, but also due process and the right to privacy. They are not only extremely dangerous infringements, but unnecessary as well. We all will rue the day if we let this government overreach to solve a rare but emotional issue and deprive every one of their due process rights.

Originally published on the NOQ Report