Chuck Baldwin: My Open Letter To Senators Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Et. Al

Now this is one hell of a letter which spells out specifically how unconstitutional this bill is and if it passes, the 2nd amendment is done. This bill is basically "civil forfeiture" of your property without any due process and it has a good chance of passing. This is a "must read" if you want to understand the issue and realize what it means if it passes.

This is dangerous territory and the RINO's are leading the charge on this one. Gun confiscation without any due process based on just about any accusation without the ability to face your accuser which will probably be an anonymous tip.

Definitely worth the time to read.

chuckbaldwinlive.com...

If this gun confiscation bill passes the U.S. Senate, it will most certainly pass the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, and President Donald Trump absolutely WILL sign it into law.

If S.7 becomes law, NO gun owner (and that means YOU) will be protected from the seizure of their firearms. It will not matter that they have not committed a crime; it will not matter that they have not been charged with a crime; and it will not matter that they have never even threatened to commit a crime. And they won’t even realize that it’s happening until the SWAT team bangs on their door at 5am to seize their guns.

The letter below is an in-depth, passionate appeal to everyone involved to STOP S.7 from becoming law. The letter speaks for itself.

“Red flag” gun confiscation laws violate every principle of liberty upon which our country was founded. There is no due process associated with “red flag” laws. A judge’s order to seize the firearms from an American citizen who has not been accused of a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime—or who never even threatened to commit a crime—based on the accusation of a single individual is anything but due process.

Our accuser could be a disgruntled employee, a bitter ex-spouse or relative, a vengeful neighbor, an anti-gun liberal or even an anti-gun policeman. By definition, “red flag” laws use mere suspicion of what one “might” do as justification to seize a person’s firearms. Tactics such as these have been used in virtually every despotic regime of history. In the name of protecting society, the rights and liberties of individuals were denied.

I do not think Trump would sign it, period...and...they do not have enough votes to over ride a veto.

How would it be not found as unconstitutional, by the supreme court?

a reply to: infolurker

Well, it looks like I'll be writing to my congressmen. I urge everyone else to as well. And, I guess tweet the president?

This will cause a lot more fun deaths than it prevents.

originally posted by: 727Sky
I do not think Trump would sign it, period...and...they do not have enough votes to over ride a veto.

Makes me wish I had buried my guns instead of losing them all in a boating accident.

If it passes, file red flag complaints against every politician and law enforcement officer. Clog the system.

a reply to: a325nt

If it's time to bury them, it's time to use them.

www.congress.gov...
A BILL
To 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.
(2) such extreme risk protection order legislation is an important tool in the efforts of States and Indian tribes to ensure that firearms and ammunition are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others.
SEC. 3. EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.—Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“PART NN—EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER GRANT PROGRAM
“SEC. 3041. DEFINITIONS.
“In this title—
“(1) the terms ‘ammunition’ and ‘firearm’ have the meanings given those terms in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code
“(2) the term ‘extreme risk protection order’ means a written order, issued by a State or tribal court or signed by a magistrate that, for a period not to exceed 12 months—
“(A) prohibits the individual named in the order from having under the custody or control of the individual, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms; and
“(B) requires a firearm be removed;
“(3) the term ‘family or household member’ means, with respect to an individual, any—
“(A) individual related by blood, marriage, or adoption to the respondent;
“(B) dating partner (as defined in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code) of the respondent;
“(C) individual who has a child in common with the respondent, regardless of whether the individual has—
“(i) been married to the respondent; or
“(ii) lived together with the respondent at any time;
“(D) an individual who resides or has resided with the respondent during the past year;
“(E) a spouse or intimate partner (as defined in section 2266 of title 18, United States Code) of the respondent;
“(F) individual who has a biological or legal parent-child relationship with the respondent, including a stepparent-stepchild and grandparent-grandchild relationship; and
“(G) any individual who is acting or has acted as the legal guardian of the respondent;
“(4) the term ‘Indian tribe’ has the meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304);
“(5) the term ‘petitioner’ means the law enforcement officer, or family or household member of an individual, who submits a petition for an extreme risk protection order under section 3042(b)(1);
“(6) the term ‘qualifying State or tribal law’ means a law of a State or Indian tribe that the Attorney General has determined to be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in section 3042;
“(7) the term ‘respondent’ means an individual who is named in a petition for an extreme risk protection order under section 3042(b)(1);
“(9) the term ‘temporary ex parte extreme risk protection order’ means a written order, issued by a State court or signed by a magistrate prohibiting a named individual from possessing, purchasing, receiving, or transporting a firearm after the date on which the order is issued until the date on which the hearing for the extreme risk protection order is held.

And it goes on. Read the bill before toy comment.

“(1) PETITION FOR EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—A law enforcement officer, or family or household member of an individual, may submit a petition to a State or tribal court, on a form designed by the courts administrator of the State or similar office, that—
“(i) describes the facts and circumstances necessitating that an extreme risk protection order be issued against the respondent because the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by—
“(I) having a firearm or ammunition in his or her custody or control; or
“(II) purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition;
“(ii) is accompanied by a sworn affidavit, signed by the petitioner, stating the specific facts that give rise to reasonable fear of significant dangerous acts by the respondent;
“(iii) identifies the quantities, types, and locations of all firearms and ammunition the petitioner believes to be in the current ownership, possession, custody, or control of the respondent; and
“(iv) identifies whether there is a known extreme risk protection order already in effect against the respondent.
“(B) GOOD FAITH NOTICE.—A petitioner who submits a petition under subparagraph (A) shall be required to make a good faith effort to provide notice to other family or household members of the respondent, or to any other known third party, who may be at risk of violence because of the submission of such petition.

“(iii) DETERMINATION.—If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue an extreme risk protection order for a period the court determines is appropriate, which may not exceed 12 months.
“(B) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—In determining whether to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court—
“(I) may consider relevant evidence, such as—
“(aa) a recent threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others;
“(bb) a threat or act of violence by the respondent against himself or herself or others in the past 12 months;
“(cc) evidence of a serious mental illness;
“(dd) a previously issued extreme risk protection order or a violation of a previously issued extreme risk protection order;
“(ee) whether the respondent has been convicted of a crime of domestic violence or other violence;
“(ff) whether the respondent has used or threatened to use weapons against himself or herself or others;
“(gg) the unlawful use of a firearm by the respondent;
“(hh) the recurring use or threat of use of physical force against another person or stalking another person;
“(ii) corroborated evidence of the abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the respondent;
“(jj) relevant information from family or household members concerning the respondent; and
“(kk) witness testimony taken while the witness is under oath relating to the matter before the court; and
“(II) shall consider whether a mental health evaluation or chemical dependency evaluation is appropriate.

Edit: It goes on. Read the bill.