For those of you who may not have heard, The Jake Laird Act of 2018 is a bill:

To authorize the Attorney General to make grants to States that have in place laws that authorize the seizure of firearms from dangerous individuals, and for other purposes.

The language in this bill is so disgusting, so repugnant to the Constitution, that I feel like I need a shower just from reading it.  In this article, I will go into the details of just how unconstitutional, illegal, and unjust this bill is.

Illegal Use of Tax Money

SEC. 3. GRANTS FOR FIREARM SEIZURE LAW.

(a) Authorization.—The Attorney General is authorized to make grants to States that have in place a law which authorizes the seizure of a firearm from a dangerous individual in accordance with section 4.

Nowhere does the Constitution delegate to Congress the authority to spend money in an effort to influence state legislatures.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 allows:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Notice that Congress can collect taxes to pay for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, which is the federal government (as opposed to the United States of America, which is the union of states).  They are not allowed to collect taxes to spend on the states, nor are they authorized to use tax money to peddle influence to the legislatures of the states.

(b) Use Of Funds.—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.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENTS FOR FIREARM SEIZURE LAW.
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 proper term for what this bill proposes is not grants, but bribes.

BRIBE, noun A price, reward, gift or favor bestowed or promised with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct of a judge, witness or other person.

BRIBE, verb transitive To give or promise a reward or consideration, with a view to pervert the judgment, or corrupt the conduct.

Bribery is the correct term since this legislation pays the states for enacting laws that are unconstitutional, thereby perverting the judgment of its legislators, law enforcement, and judges within the states that accept these bribes.  Furthermore, it is an attempt to get the legislators to ignore the will of their citizens in order to get this particular bribe.  So every time you hear the federal government say “grant”, most likely what it should be called is “bribe”.

Since bribery is an impeachable offense under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, any civil officer of the United State “shall be impeached” and upon conviction removed from office and disqualified from holding any office in the federal government under Article I, Section 3, Clause 7,  how can House members vote for such a bill?  Because should any federal official act on it, it is required by the Constitution that the same House members impeach that official for following a law they created.

State Law Requirements

Validity of the Warrant

Sec 4(1)(B)(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.

The state law requirements do include the need for a warrant, supported by an affidavit, but look at the requirements listed for that affidavit: The first thing to notice is that there must be probable cause that the person is dangerous and in possession of a firearm, but not that they have or are about to commit a crime.  Which means if there is probable cause the person is dangerous, why is law enforcement not detaining the person?  Because no crime has been committed.  And if no crime has been committed, and no danger that the person is an imminent threat shown, then why is this person’s private property being seized?  The law admits it’s the person who is dangerous, but then uses that to confiscate private property that some people don’t like, or more accurately, don’t trust everyday Americans to posses.

What if the property wasn’t a firearm?  What if Congress passes a law bribing the states to confiscate the vehicles of people whom someone has claimed may get intoxicated and be in possession of a car?  I’m not talking about impounding a vehicle of someone caught actually breaking a law, I’m talking about seizing (and as we’ll see disposing of) their property because someone claims ‘they may do something dangerous’.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Is your property secure if the government can seize it on the word of someone they claim is credible?  Where is the proof?  Where is the ‘due process’ that is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment?

No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Due process does not mean just any process, it must be just.

DUE, adjective Owed; that ought to be paid or done to another. That is due from me to another which contract, justice or propriety requires me to pay, and which he may justly claim as his right.

Nowhere in the state legislation language that requires the bribe to be paid, is the right of the accused to be tried and found guilty of a crime before their property is taken.  Instead, there must only be “probable cause”, based on someone else’s belief, that the individual is dangerous.  What if my idea of shooting squirrels off my back porch is considered dangerous by my neighbor, even though I am firing in a safe direction and endangering no one but the squirrels?  What if my neighbor has in irrational fear of firearms and thinks that just because I have them in my house means I may decide to use a gun on them someday?  Would they believe I am dangerous, even though most rational people would not?

And what about the accused’s guaranteed right to face their accuser?  If someone other than a law enforcement officer (LEO) makes the accusation, the accused has no opportunity to confront their accuser and defend themselves against what may be a false claim.  Here, the only standard for deciding if a third party’s evidence is sufficient for probable cause is the judgment of the LEO.  When did we give up our rights to due process and decide that the judgment of a single individual is all that’s needed to punish us as if we were convicted of a crime?  And when did putting on a uniform make the judgment of an otherwise fallible human being perfect?

Legitimacy of the Hearing

(4) HEARING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 21 days after a return is filed under paragraph (3), the court shall hold a hearing to determine whether the individual is dangerous. If the court determines that the individual is dangerous, the court shall—

Why “In General”?  Why isn’t a definite time frame given for the court to hold a hearing on the matter?  What if the court or the prosecutor delays the hearing for more than 21 days?  Since this is not a criminal matter, the accused is not afforded the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, though it does meet the definition of a suit:

SUIT, noun A petition; a seeking for something by petition or application.

In law, an action or process for the recovery of a right or claim; legal application to a court for justice; prosecution of right before any tribunal;

The LEO is seeking to confiscate the property before a tribunal.  And since it is rare to find a firearm worth less the $20, the 7th Amendment requires that the right to a jury trial be preserved.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved

Furthermore, while the law determines what the court shall do if the accused is determined to be dangerous, there is no required language on what to do if they are NOT determined to be dangerous.  There is no requirement to return the seized property if the accusation made by the LEO is not proven.  In fact, there is no penalty requirement for either the LEO or the third-party making a false claim against the accused.

State Sanctioned Theft

Sec (4)(A)(i) order that the law enforcement agency maintain possession of the firearm

The court is ordering that the property of a person who has not been convicted of or in fact not even charged with a crime, be stolen by the law enforcement agency (LEA).

STEAL, verb transitive preterit tense stole; To take and carry away feloniously, as the personal goods of another. To constitute stealing or theft, the taking must be felonious, that is, with an intent to take what belongs to another, and without his consent.

While the stated intent is to prevent a potential crime, intentionally taking someone’s property without their consent means they are stealing it.  In the situation described in this law, the property involved is not evidence in, nor the ill-gotten gains of, a crime.  What is described here is state sanctioned theft.  The government is supposed to protect your property, but here we see them stealing it.

Sec (4)(A)(ii) in the case of an individual who has a license to carry a firearm, revoke such license;

In addition, the accused is having their state issued license revoked with no due process of law.  Together, Secs (4)(A)(i) and (ii) are a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines, since the accused is being punished and his property taken without due process, legitimate trial, or even the accusation of a crime.  It is only that someone “believes they are dangerous and in possession of a firearm”.  In effect, they are being fined by the confiscation of property worth some amount of money because someone “believes” they are dangerous.  Does that not seem excessive to you?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Notice

Sec (4)(B) NOTICE.—The court shall provide notice of such hearing to the government, and to the individual from whom the firearm was seized.

Will the accused be given sufficient time to put together a defense?  What about their Sixth Amendment right to compel witnesses in their favor and to have counsel?

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Where are the protections for the accused?  If you are arrested and the officer does not recite your Miranda rights perfectly, the charges against you are dropped.  Here, your rights are abused in many different ways, including the lack of protection for your right to private property, a full and impartial hearing, and the due process of law.

Burden of Proof

Sec (4)(C) BURDEN OF PROOF.—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.

What is the “burden of proof” that convinces the government that someone is dangerous?  What evidence is “clear and convincing”, and to whom?  Does speeding make you dangerous?  How about mouthing off on Facebook?  Does that make you dangerous?  In the minds of some, simply owning a firearm makes you dangerous. What if the judge doesn’t think civilians should posses firearms?  Does the state only need to convince him or her you are dangerous?  Could owning “too many” firearms or “too much” ammunition be considered dangerous?  If someone threatens your family and you prepare to defend yourself, aren’t you dangerous to the person threatening you?  Where is the threat of imminent harm to another?  While I’m sure there are some who will point out the angry husband who has threatened to kill his wife if she leaves him, but what about the same husband who makes a complaint against his wife so she won’t be able to defend herself?  What about the wife in a custody battle who wants some leverage against her ex-husband?  There is so much room for abuse in this language you could land a 747 on it with room to spare.

In addition, there is no right of appeal under this framework.  That means if a single judge decides you would be dangerous if you possessed a gun, your property is taken and eventually destroyed.

Begging for your Property

(5) PETITION FOR RETURN OF FIREARM.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date on which a court entered an order described in clauses (i) through (iii) of paragraph (4)(A), an individual against whom such an order was entered may petition the court for the reversal of such order.

(B) GRANTING OF PETITION.—The court shall grant a petition filed under subparagraph (A) if the petitioner proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual is not dangerous.

Now that your property has been stolen by the government, you have to wait six months to ask, “Pretty please, can I have my property back?”  I wonder what evidence a judge may allow in his or her courtroom?  Would the fact that the person has done nothing dangerous to another human being be sufficient?  Meanwhile, since the government is still in possession of your property, they are in control of whether or not you get it back.

You may have also noticed there is no guarantee that the LEA takes care of the property they have stolen.  What you receive back, should you be granted such a position by the judge, may not even be a functional firearm, and there is no recourse required by this bribe for the permanent loss you have suffered at the hands of your government.

Destruction of Private Property

Sec (5)(C)(6) DISPOSAL OF FIREARM.—In the case that an order under paragraph (4)(A)(i) is still in effect on the date that is 5 years after the date on which it was entered, the court, after giving notice to the appropriate parties, may order the law enforcement agency with custody of such firearm to dispose of the firearm in accordance with any applicable policy of the jurisdiction in which the firearm was seized.

If you cannot convince the judge in your case that you are not a dangerous person, then the LEA will simply destroy your property.  You may be talking a $500 handgun or a $30,000 skeet gun, but oh, well, sorry.  Is that just?  What if it was a family heirloom?  What if your grandfather carried that particular weapon into war?  It would be irreplaceable, and there is nothing to stop the government from ruining and eventually destroying what may be a piece of history, all because someone “believed” you were dangerous, regardless of whether you actually did anything dangerous or not.

Letting the Government Sell Your Property

(7) REQUEST TO SELL FIREARM.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—An individual whose firearms were retained by a law enforcement agency pursuant to an order under paragraph (4)(A)(i) may petition the court for the law enforcement agency to sell the firearm in accordance with any applicable policy of the jurisdiction in which the firearm was seized, and provide the proceeds of such sale to the individual. The court shall grant such order unless the serial number on the firearm is damaged.

(B) TIMING.—A petition described in subparagraph (A) may be filed any time prior to the entry of an order under paragraph (6).

(C) SALE.—A law enforcement agency ordered to sell a firearm under this section shall sell the firearm not later than 1 year after the entry of such order, and may retain not more than 8 percent of the sale cost to cover the costs of the sale.

Well, at least you can ask the court to have the LEA sell your firearm.  The one they may not have taken care of, and may not have properly stored.  And the LEA gets to sell it, not only at a price they decide, but in the manner they decide as well.  Meanwhile, they’re going to take a cut for selling the property they stole from you.

Hey, does that mean when a thief breaks into your house and steals your wife’s jewelry, but gets caught with it, can they sell it and take a cut of that, as well?

Here Comes the Money

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated $50,000,000 to carry out this Act for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2021.

Now for the payoff of the bribe.  Congress is supposed to appropriate Fifty Million Dollars to bribe the states to pass these unconstitutional laws.  There’s your tax money at work, and as I’ve shown, this is nothing short of bribery.

Conclusion

Some states have already enacted these so called “Red Flag” laws like the one described in the legislation above, but some in Congress want to encourage all of them to do so.  Whether you think the idea of pre-crime laws like these are good or not, do you really think it’s the role of the federal government to bribe states to create them?  Because if bribery doesn’t work, how long before Congress uses intimidation?  If the federal government can bribe the states to enact laws we like, what is to keep them from using our own money to bribe the states to pass laws we don’t like?  This is clearly a violation of the Tenth Amendment’s separation of powers between the federal government and the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is evidence of a lawless republic, where Congress is simply going to ignore the law to do what ever they can get away with.  This is proof that the federal government has become a criminal enterprise, no different than the protection rackets gangs use against local shop owners, because they will use their ability to tax and borrow to get what they want by any means necessary.  Since some in Congress will bribe, coerce, and steal to get their way, the real question becomes: Will we let them?

What Can We Do?

First, contact your state representative and senator, preferably in person, and inform them of the illegal nature of these Red Flag laws.  (You can read more about them here).  Let them know politely, but in no uncertain terms, that if they support the violation of the Constitution you will work to remove them from office.  That includes letting their constituents know they took a bribe from the federal government to authorize the stealing of their property.  And let them know that if any state official accepts this bribe, you will be back, demanding articles of impeachment against them.  Don’t make this an idle threat; we need to be prepared to work against anyone who would vote for such a heinous, corrupt, and criminal plan, even if we like their other positions.  If we cannot trust them to see such an obvious violation of our rights, we cannot trust them at all.

Second, schedule a meeting with your representative in the House the next time they’re in your local office.  Show them the corruption inherent in such legislation.  Back them to the hilt if they appose it, but bury them if they don’t.  We need our elected representatives to be more afraid of us than Michael Bloomberg, George Soros, or any other billionaire who wants to buy the American Republic.  We may not be able to spend $1,000,000 on their campaign, but what if 10,000 of us gave $100 each?  And what if that same 10,000 made sure to spread the word about their representatives supporting the bribing of the states?

The only way we can do this is by working toward the same goal of a Constitutional Republic where the rule of law matters and the representatives of the people actually represent all the people and not just the ones with money.  It’s taken over 100 years for the system to get this corrupt, but we won’t get it back until we start holding our elected representatives accountable to We The People.