Red Flag Laws

Giving the power to psychologist (some of whom are politically affiliated) and the Government to take away the ultimate form of self-defense… sounds like a good idea, when it comes to MAYBE, Potentially, HOPEFULLY, having some kind of impact on the small number of mass shootings nation wide.  Saving just One life by risking the lives (taking away their ability to defend themselves) of others, sounds like a worthy cause, right?  Besides all the logical and rational inconsistencies, lets just look at the idea of the ‘transfer of power’ concept contained in these laws.

Government + Psychologists = Unjust Laws

It wasn’t that long ago that you could be arrested for homosexual acts.  Anti Sodomy laws were in full bloom nation wide and enforced by the government.  There were psychologist that viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder and thus, empowering the validity of the Anti Sodomy laws.

The Government (Supreme Court) ruled that the bill of rights don’t apply to slaves (Dred Scott v. Sandford 1856).  An Alabama law, in 1883, was upheld by the Supreme Court that sent an African American, who married a white female, to hard labor.  The court ruled the law was constitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.  Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896; where the Government (Supreme Court) ruled that ‘separate but equal’ laws – which supported and empowered racial segregation; was constitutional in how they interpretative the Fourteenth Amendment.  Plessy v. Ferguson was validated as case law in Cumming v. Richmond, 1899.  Let us not forget of the original type of Red Flag laws imposed on the Native Americans that lead to their gun confiscations and murders.

The Government then begin dividing people into groups; Ozawa v. United States, 1922, where a Japanese immigrant attempted to claim he should be classified as white because only white and African American were being naturalized due to a 1906 immigration policy. The court rejected his classification as white, and thus, was ruled as being in a separate class.  United States v. Thind, 1923, an Indian American attempted the same thing and the court also ruled they are in a different class.  Thus, effectively creating the different racial classifications.

The President of the United States signed an executive order that severely restricted the rights of Japanese Americans during Word War 2 and ordered 110,000 to to relocated to internment camps.  Hirabayashi v. United States, 1943, challenged this order but the court ruled against him in support of the government action.

Majority of these modern government imposed laws and court decisions were supported by predominate psychologists such as Raymond B. Cattell, who supported the importance of racial segregation.  There was also, Carleton Putnam, Wilmot Robertson, Revilo P. Oliver, and Roger Pearson who wrote extensive psychological literature in support of the racism and bigoted subjects that was used to justify these unjust laws.


Using that SAME justification and validating the POWER of subjective psychologist to take away rights of certain people.

“Oh but we can save lives by taking away guns from the mentally unstable”

Sounds like a noble idea.

But… who decides who the “mentally unstable” are?  The Government?

Where does The Government get its definition of “mentally unstable” from?  Psychologists.

Effectively, psychologists, subjectively, decide who in the population is unstable and thus, lose their rights.

The power is coming from the same subjective, ever changing field of Psychology, that took away the rights of African Americans, Japanese Americans, Indian Americans, and homosexual Americans…

Sounds like a good idea?  A neuroendocrinologist, Robert Sapolsky, a professor at Stanford University stated religion is a mental illness and religious rituals are a form of exhibiting obsessive-compulsive disorders.  Sylvia Mohr wrote “The Relationship between schizophrenia and religion and its implications of care” 2004.  Take a guess that that argued.  Does this mean religious people will need to be arrested too for being a risk to the public? 

Red Flag Laws open the door WIDE OPEN for violating the rights of perfectly healthy people.  Everyone has a bad day.  Everyone gets stressed.  Everyone gets sad.  But with all the millions of guns everywhere, they sure don’t get used.

Going down this road will take us back to using Psychology to justify unjust laws that violate the inalienable rights of people.

These Red Flag Laws must be resisted and communities need to police their own.  The local community know better who is at risk than some general arbitrary applied law.  Listen you nitwits, is someone with a mental disorder wants to kill, they will just use their first or kitchen knives, just ask the citizens of London.  The Red Flag laws won’t anything other than infringing on the right to self-defense.

*UPDATE 5 November 2018

Maryland attempted to enforce its Red Flag gun confiscation law; in the attempt, the gun owner was murdered by law enforcement.

serving a new Extreme Risk Protective Order (Red Flag Law), a Maryland protective order to remove guns from a household, shot and killed the man listed on that order. Under the law, family, police, mental health professionals can all ask for the protective orders to remove weapons,” said Sgt. Jacklyn David, with Anne Arundel County Police.”  One of the mans’ nieces said another family member requested the protective order to temporarily remove his guns after an incident at the house Sunday.   The man, Gary J. Willis, refused to hand over his gun.  Apparently this man shot his gun first and then was killed by police.  Interestingly, being in such close proximity, none of the officers were hit by any bullets, but he was.  The only witnesses to this event, were, of course, the police.  The law, that is to prevent killings, did just that, kill.  Like clock-work, all the anti-2nd Amendment folks will say ignorant things like “well, he should have just handed over his weapon“.  Some even praised his murder on twitter.  Yet, some of these very same people claim the police are killers, oppressive, and abusive.

Shame on all those officers who took part in this infringement on his 2nd Amendment constitutional right and the presumption of innocent until proven guilty and did NOT afford him his right to DUE PROCESS.  Cpl. Jessica Hooper, PFC Gary Zawodn, and Sgt. Jacklyn David should be ashamed; blood is on their hands.  This man was not in the act of committing a crime when the Red Flag law was decided on.  A claim of some sort of ‘incident’ happened days prior, that’s it.

Apparently any family member can just request a revocation of civil liberties and it can be granted without the accused receiving due process.  Any anti-gun family member can become “concerned” and with any sort of “evidence” can request the order and it may be granted by an anti-gun judge.  Way to go America… We are to now order the confiscation of weapons from all people who lose their job?  Go through a divorce?  Lose a loved one?  or ANY situation that is difficult?  Do difficult situations, as perceived by someone else, justify revoking constitutional rights?  The implication and ignorant unjust assumption is that ALL gun owners are potential killers…

Sgt. Jacklyn David said he rather have a trained officer confronting someone in that situation than a civilian… BUT a lot of civilians are military trained, and have received far more training than police officers… And we all know how ‘exceptionallytrained Baltimore Police Officers are…

Maryland’s ‘Red Flag’ Law Turns Deadly: Officer Kills Man Who Refused To Turn In Gun


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: