Quote:The Department of Justice announced on Saturday that it has launched the “National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center” in an attempt to combat gun violence.

This center will provide comprehensive training and support to law enforcement officials, prosecutors, judges, behavioral health professionals, and other stakeholders in implementing laws designed to prevent individuals who “pose a threat” from accessing firearms. These laws, commonly referred to as "red flag laws," enable authorities to remove firearms from the hands of people deemed dangerous and suspected to be a threat to others or themselves.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

Funding for the center is derived from a Department of Justice grant approved as part of a gun control bill signed into law by President Biden in 2022. Vice President Kamala Harris is slated to unveil the center during her address at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on Saturday. The school was tragically the site of a shooting in 2018 that claimed the lives of 14 students and three staff members.

President Biden's administration has prioritized red flag laws as a crucial component of its gun control efforts. Last February, Biden announced that the DOJ would be giving over $231 million to states for red-flag programs.

Critics have long argued that red flag laws pose significant Constitutional concerns and are likely to violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens.

“There is no sufficient evidence showing that [red flag laws] have any effect on crime prevention, and though legislators claim these laws benefit the mentally ill and the general public, the same politicians won’t admit that this class of legislation is invariably problematic,” claims Firearms Policy Coalition, a prominent Second-Amendment group that often engages in legal battles against gun control measures.

Typically, red flag laws are carried out when friends, family members, or colleagues report to law enforcement that they believe an individual they know owns firearms could be a threat. Law enforcement officials and the local court then determine whether or not this individual’s firearms should be confiscated. This is usually done without the individual being able to present a defense.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen has prompted many gun-control activists to suggest that red flag laws are unconstitutional. In its decision, the Supreme Court set a new standard that firearm regulation must coincide with the “historic tradition of firearm regulation” in the country.

Link

DOJ: 'National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center' Will Help Enforce Red Flag Laws

Quote:"Red Flag Laws" are another arrow in the quiver of anti-Second Amendment activists and politicians, and while they are of questionable constitutionality, that hasn't stopped various states and localities from passing these laws. On Saturday, the Justice Department announced the formation of a "National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center" to help train local officials to enforce these laws.

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

The Vice President has weighed in, presumably, on this same effort:

President Biden and VP Harris have not "invested" one red cent; they are instead spending taxpayers' money, not their own, as the VP implies in this statement.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has also weighed in:

And, once again: There is no such thing as "gun violence," any more than there is "knife violence" or "fist violence," so the very premise here is based on a fallacy.

Be that as it may, red flag laws are questionable on a constitutional basis, as they seek to deprive people of their property with minimal or no due process, and almost certainly violate of the Second Amendment. But there's another problem with initiatives like this.

In January, the Department of Justice ballyhooed another federal effort to sidestep the Second Amendment, this one having to do with "enhanced" background checks. Here's the key point:

Since implementing BSCA’s enhanced background checks in October 2022, the FBI NICS Section has conducted enhanced background checks on more than 200,000 transactions. Those checks have kept more than 1,900 firearms out of the hands of dangerous and prohibited persons, and over a quarter of those denials — 527 as of the first week of January — were based solely on information received through the additional BSCA-enabled outreach. Without the enhanced outreach required by BSCA, these 527 U21 transactions would likely have proceeded because the disqualifying information was otherwise unavailable to NICS.

While keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys seems like a good idea on the surface, let's take a closer look at what the DOJ is really saying here.

Out of 200,000 background checks, the DOJ claims that the enhanced checks kept 1,900 firearms "out of the hands of dangerous and prohibited persons." Further, they claim that 527 had happened in the month before releasing this report. Consider that it is a federal felony for a prohibited person to attempt to purchase a firearm, and consider further that it is also a crime to falsify information on Form 4473 that is part of the mandated process for purchase. Since there is no evidence that any of these 1,900 people were prosecuted, then we can only draw two conclusions: 1) The laws aren't being enforced, or 2) the people, or at least a portion of them, were wrongly denied their natural rights under the Second Amendment.

That will doubtless be the case with this new Department of Justice effort. Like so many activist projects by the federal government, most especially under Merrick Garland's Justice Department, this is, as the Bard said, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

HOT TAKES: Social Media Slices and Dices Biden's New Anti-Gun Red Flag Center

Here it is.

This is way more than policing background checks. The national QB office for having the jackbooted thugs kick a door down to grab guns.

US Marshals are going to be busy.

Red Flag Laws questionnaire

1. Did you vote for a Republican in the last election cycle?
2. Do you plan to vote Republican in the next election cycle?

If you answered yes to one or both, you've been flagged.

I may catch some flack for this... but begin with the premise that I am very much pro 2nd amendment and the right for individuals to bear arms, especially if necessary against an oppressive government.

There are lots of potential problems here so the following is only vaguely vetted... But I'd be willing to talk about it, assuming the goal is to err on the side of the 2nd amendment and not to err on the side of the government.

I would probably be in support of, in the event of a report by someone (with facts and without an obvious agenda) of a concern... an UNARMED, in-person outreach to that person to check on their welfare... to offer them support or counseling should they need it, and yes... a mild 'notification' that they have been flagged. If that encounter raises enough concerns, THEN you can talk about doing more.... and just like a traffic stop, refusal to allow a search or cooperate in an investigation does not constitute probable cause.... as in the state would be barred to prosecute someone for anything other than the illegal SALE OR USE, but not possession of a gun associated with this...

WHile I would need a whole lot of assurance that such a thing could not be abused, in part because I don't accept that even as horrible as these things are, that they are remotely a significant issue... This is the ONLY area where I would be willing to compromise... because it is also potentially for the benefit of the accused.

I mean, if a state can mandate that law enforcement won't cooperate with INS, then a state could mandate that an 'intervention' team could not cooperate with law enforcement.

The intervention teams are likely to be US Marshals when the rubber meets the road.

And if you need assurance that it can't be abused, just assume it's going to be abused.

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The intervention teams are likely to be US Marshals when the rubber meets the road.

And if you need assurance that it can't be abused, just assume it's going to be abused.

It's designed to be abused.

(03-25-2024 06:38 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-25-2024 01:58 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The intervention teams are likely to be US Marshals when the rubber meets the road.

And if you need assurance that it can't be abused, just assume it's going to be abused.

It's designed to be abused.

Exactly. California has been doing this as a trial run for a while.

It's why I used to tell some people it may not be a great idea to get a medical marijuana card despite otherwise being able to. It's on a list somewhere and if that list matches up with another list, they're going to come knock on your door eventually. And the 9th Circus already held that mere application and possession of a medical card is enough to eliminate 2A rights even if you've never used the card (that case is a real peach).

This office will be looking for anyone named in DV cases or protective orders. Same with people with pending felony cases. Wait until they get their hands on medical info. Prescribed an antidepressant? Knock knock. This will bleed into having governmental AI scanning social media posts for anything that can be deemed "red flag worthy". Wait for it.

This isn't just ripe for abuse it's purpose driven.