Here’s another example of Washington, D.C., treating states (and in this case Indian tribes) like colonies. And before you go blaming the Democrats, who tried this the last time, this is from Republican Marco Rubio.
S.7 – 116th Congress (2019-2020): Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019 is not just another attempt by Washington to get states to tow the line, but a blatant bribe to mollify those who are trying to take away not only your self-defense rights, but your property rights as well. And don’t let the title confuse you; this is just another “Red Flag” law. Whether it’s the primary intent or not, it’s just another excuse for your rights to be taken away with the false promise of keeping you “safe”.
A BILLTo provide family members of an individual who they fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or law enforcement, with new tools to prevent gun violence.
I know I’ve said this before, but as long as those who represent us continue to ignore the Constitution whenever it suits them, we have to keep pounding this point home. There is absolutely no power delegated to the federal government to provide for the protection of individuals within a state. Yes, Congress can call forth the militia to suppress insurrection and repel invasion (Article I, Section 8, Clause 15), but that does not give them the authority to provide protection for individuals who fear a family member; that is a state responsibility. And let’s not forget that governments are specifically forbidden from infringing on a persons right to bear arms (Amendment 2) and from taking their property without due process of law (Amendment 5). (Due process means giving all parties the rights they are due.) Lastly, and probably more importantly, there is no power delegated to the federal government to provide incentives to states in order to get them to enact laws the federal government wants. This is called bribery (the giving or taking of rewards to corrupt practices), which is grounds for impeachment under Article II, Section 4. So, even if you think this type of law is a good thing, it is illegal for the federal government to pass such laws or to offer incentives to states to create them. This most basic corruption of the separation of powers between the states and the central government is, in my opinion, a large part of the cause of our out of control federal government and the impotence of our state governments.
What Else is Wrong with This Bill?
I discussed the previous attempt to bribe states to pass these types of laws in my article H. R. 5717 – Jake Laird Act of 2018. In order to get this bribe, states must pass legislation that violates a number of the rights and liberties of their citizens. It requires states to create an additional level of restraining order called an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which can be issued with or without the participation of the accused. While the law enforcement officer or family member does have to provide a sworn affidavit with the specific facts that give rise to the fear that the accused is a danger, there are few protections of the rights of the accused once a request is made. (I use the term accused rather than “respondent” as in the legislation because the person is being accused of being a danger to themselves or others, not merely responding to a court order.)
Under the proposed Sec. 3042(b)(1)(A)(iii), the person asking for the order must identify the types and quantities of all firearms and ammunition they believe the accused possesses. What if that list is inaccurate? What happens when the accused is instructed by the court to surrender property that they do not actually own, either because the list provided to the court was in error or because it was on loan from someone else? Since any confiscation of property requires a warrant which includes the places to be searched and the property to be seized, what happens if the list is either incomplete, inaccurate, or includes items not in the accused’s possession?
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.
And since the court can issue a ex parte (one party) order before any hearing is conducted, your property can be taken before you’ve even had your day in court.
New Tools
While this bill purports to provide family members with new tools to prevent gun violence, it misses a couple of salient points. First, since orders of protection already exist, the only new tool this legislation would offer is the opportunity to have someone’s property taken away from them. It takes very little imagination to think of ways this new tool could be abused in any number of domestic situations. Second, while taking someone’s firearms and ammunition may make it a little more difficult for the accused to commit gun violence, it does nothing about other forms of violence which may be used. Will Mr. Rubio propose kitchen knives and fists be included in the next round of this legislation, because they are used as frequently if not more than firearms, in domestic violence cases. Lastly, if someone has decided to commit potentially lethal violence against another person, does Mr. Rubio really think an order to surrender their firearms will stop them?
Real Purpose of this Legislation?
I would not claim to be able to know exactly why Mr. Rubio thinks this type of bill is the right and proper use of the legislation power delegated to Congress. However, it appears to me, based on what is included in the legislation, to be little more than an attempt to please those who dislike our right to keep and bear arms and wish to use the power of government to take away those rights. If Congress can take away your property rights because some group doesn’t like them, what is to stop them from taking your other rights away as well?
