Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— First Amendment to the United States Constitution

We’ve seen and heard arguments from those who interpret the First Amendment to suit their immediate desires but I don’t look between the lines as there’s never anything there.

The First Amendment allows for freedom of speech. I’ve always disagreed with the conditions some readily quote like shouting fire in a crowded theater. You can do it. You just have to be ready to accept the consequences, which is obviously problematic to those who want limited responsibility for those actions.

Whether it be on a street, highway, or college campus, a growing segment of our population believes they not only have the right to say what they want and because of where they’ve strategically decided to say it, but they also have the right to be heard.

I don’t see that right in any of our Constitutional amendments.

When the Tea Party held their many events across the United States, they first applied for and obtained a permit. They held their event in a static place so people had the choice to attend and hear speakers exercising their First Amendment right of speech. Police were in attendance due to the size of the gatherings, and almost all were relaxed as those in attendance were appreciative of them and their service. Permits for Tea Party events appear to have been issued with relative ease as the reputation was the areas used were normally left cleaner than when the group first arrived. Attendees did not routinely vandalize or destroy surrounding public, private property and businesses.

Speakers at Tea Party events enjoyed the right to speak and did not force anyone to hear their words.

For the last decade or so, left wing groups seldom acquire permits for their “events”, and I use that term loosely.

They exploit any opportunity to take to the streets, disrupt the free flow of traffic on our highways because it’s loosely illegal.

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants … of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State.
— Articles of Confederation, Article 4

The Founders thought our right to freedom of movement so obvious, they didn’t bother adding it to the Constitution. The informal education system was better then than today’s taxpayer-funded abomination so the obvious didn’t require dumbing down. We can be detained and even arrested for walking in the middle of the road but if it’s a “protest” and it’s “free speech”, you get some leeway?

The left considers their modern mode of free speech via disruption as the “right of the people to peaceably assemble”. They obviously have no permit to block traffic and yet get in the faces of captive motorists and demand they listen to their message. Maybe that’s “mostly peaceably”.

The same now can be said as to their activities on college campuses. They take over large areas, decide who can and cannot be admitted to facilities, and force all in the area to listen to what they have to say. Their areas are routinely left in a more disheveled condition than when originally occupied, surrounding buildings and statues are vandalized and sometimes local areas experience disruptions in commerce, if not also damage to property. Let’s not leave out violence than can lead to injury and/or death.

And when it all gets ugly and fingers are pointed, we’re all told it’s a free speech issue.

It is not.

In this case, all of these protesters can call for the divestment from Israel, issue death threats, hurl racial slurs at a black congressman, and more. Those involved believe that their abhorrent words are justified and they should be able to say them. I agree as we should know what’s in their little heads.

But what really pisses them off is that our ability to ignore nullifies their speech. In this case, we can blow their words off as the sophistry of the young, uninformed and duped. If they don’t even know what they’re protesting, there’s no reason to succumb to demands. That would be dumb.

Until there’s a Constitutional Amendment forcing The People to have to hear the words of others (which would be kind of interesting to enforce), the children will have to scream until they’re hoarse.

Then again they’d go full Clockwork Orange on their opponents if they could force us to see and hear them at their worse.

One can understand why they are in fear of the people. We don’t hold them with the esteem they expect anymore because we have documented good reasons not to believe or trust them.

1. Incompetence

There are roughly 535 congresspersons and senators on Capitol Hill representing the citizens of the United States. One would think, in a country of 332.5 million people (non including the unknown growing number of illegal aliens), it would be easy to find exceptional citizens to become our elected. But when you can easily find a fifth-grader who’d never believe putting soldiers on a small Pacific island would make it tip over or would be astonished by the revelation that plants come from dirt, yet some of today’s officeholders really are that stupid and the competency of the elected class can rightfully be called into question.

2. Blowing Off The People

Americans are justified to question the motivations of politicians who campaign as those who’ll represent the sentiments of their constituents while their votes on important pieces of legislation is, in many cases, a total opposite to the will of their people.

The latest example is a vote in the United States Senate….

Senate Democrats failed to secure enough votes Monday to move forward with legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision giving women a right to an abortion up until viability. In a 48-46 vote, the legislation failed to meet the 60-vote threshold.
— Washington Times, 3/1/22

How can slightly less than half of politicians honestly claim to be representing their constituents on a topic while a supermajority of the people clearly disagree with them?

A survey conducted by You.gov with the pro-life group Americans United for Life found that 66 percent of U.S. adults who identify as pro-choice opposed third-trimester abortions, and 68 percent oppose abortions the day before a baby is born. As expected, the opposition was stronger among all adults surveyed: 79 percent rejected late-term abortion, and 80 percent opposed day-before-birth abortion.
— Associated Press, 2/12/19

Seeing how a good number of congressmen and senators are documented, functioning morons, the excuse can’t easily be made that they’re more informed than their voters. It could be that politicians are primarily introducing and voting on legislation favored by those squeaky wheel-types who contribute generously to their campaigns as we all know money is their primary driving motivation.

Seriously, whom would you trust with an economy? Politicians, some of whom have minimal work experience (if any) in the private sector, or a successful businessman who’s actually met a payroll? Well, this question can be answered with a clear contrast of results that Americans will have to endure until at least January 2025.

3. Crooks…

It’s often mused how the elected on Capitol Hill earn around $177k annually but within a few short years emerge as millionaires: a feat more Americans would love to be able to achieve… legally. There are many reasons but among the top is the legal practice of insider training.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) on Monday requested that the Senate Select Committee on Ethics probe Blumenthal’s sale of Robinhood shares worth up to $2.5 million. Blumenthal, one of the wealthiest members of the Senate, failed to disclose the trades within the 45 days required under federal law, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
— Washington Free Beacon, 2/28/22

 A politician who knows legislation he or she may introduce in two days, can buy or sell affected stock tomorrow which can result in a monetary personal windfall. The practice, which is illegal for private citizens, was publicly exposed in 2011, and was basically blown off by politicians to this day.

In a Tuesday complaint, The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) called for the inspector general to immediately investigate Biden Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for potentially violating federal conflict of interest and transparency laws by improperly reporting up to $250,000 in stock transactions.
— Fox News, 2/15/22

And we won’t even get into the escapades of politicians who routinely break federal campaign finance rules only to be cleared by partisan judges, or selling out the nation in favor of well-funded lobbyists, foreign and domestic. Not like it’s a close-to-the-vest secret.

“The best thing money can buy is American officials, because they are the cheapest of the cheapest-costing officials in the world.”
— Kuwati-born Canadian businessman Alan Bender, quoting Qatari officials

Probably “cheapest” because many of our elected are too stupid to know what their positions of influence are really worth (see #1).

4. … and Liars

It’s ironic that so many on the Democrat left, to this day, call Donald Trump every iteration of a liar while he’s also the only elected politician (in recent memory) who actually kept every one of his presidential campaign promises.

Meanwhile certain politicians told lies that had profound monetary ramifications for millions of Americans.

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’
President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law. But the promise was impossible to keep. So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong. A Pew Research/USA Today poll conducted Dec. 3-8 found the percentage of people viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points over the course of the year, from 30 percent to 45 percent.
— Politifact, 12/12/13

The lie, that also resulted in significant increases in health care premiums and deductibles for Americans, was admired in the partisan media as politically clever and effective.

But remember those Republicans who pleaded for Americans to give them the House so they could “repeal and replace” that piece of troublesome legislation (while knowing they wouldn’t have the veto-proof majority to do so). A few years later those same Republicans pleaded with Americans to give them the Senate so they could “repeal and replace” the legislation (while knowing they wouldn’t have the veto-proof majority to do so), and later pleaded with Americans to give them the presidency so they could “repeal and replace” the legislation. Once they got all they asked for, they sent a lame “alternative” to the president that neither repealed or really replaced Obamacare.

That’s why very, very few believe anything politicians tell them and that won’t change anytime soon.

5. They Remind Us They’re Special

More like they arrogantly rub it in our faces.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, politicians acted as though they really cared about the health and welfare of the American people. Governors and mayors shutdown their economies, ordering businesses to close and throwing millions into a temporary state of unemployment. But while Americans were reminded “We’re all in this together”, politicians made sure they and their employees’ personal taxpayer-funded paychecks would continue to be dispersed uninterrupted to this day.

And despite the politically-fluctuating “science” of masks and the need to wear them inside-and-outdoors, politicians and their friends and family members were repeatedly caught breaking the rules they mercilessly mandated on those they claim to serve. Despite the initial outrage, they came up with lame apologies, justification, and rode out the controversy. None of them have lost jobs despite the blatant hypocrisy because they’re special and want us to know it.

But that also translated to the politically-connected celebrity class who enjoyed special status when it came to the blow off of mask mandates at their award ceremonies, red carpets, and parties. These are the same people who went batshit crazy about the impertinent unvaccinated while enjoying lavish maskless soirées where the masked help needed to keep their germs to themselves.

What seems to have angered the elite most is the fact that they were called out on their hypocrisy. Note how there’s not been ONE piece of legislation addressing politicians who break the rules they impose on their citizens.

Because they’re special and they want us all to know it.

6. Peaceful Protest is Now ‘Insurrection’

There was a time when the left patted themselves on the back while encouraging taking it to “the man”. Protests were considered patriotic free speech.

That officially changed in 2009 when Republicans, Democrats and independents took to Washington, D.C. in opposition to Obamacare because they were Taxed Enough Already. The Democrats counted on the media to label protesters as conservatives and the Tea Party became a right wing thorn in their side. The problem was that these weren’t normal protesters the left was used to: they were always peaceful, never destroyed local areas and businesses, and the rally area was normally left cleaner than when they arrived. In fact, the only time when Tea Party rallies were interrupted by any semblance of violence was when liberal “counterprotesters” showed up on the scene.

Most conservatives have condemned the right-wing mob that assaulted the U.S. Capitol. But 10 years ago, Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists. In other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it.
— Washington Post, 1/14/21

After a previous summer where liberals justified looting and burning cities, resulting in injuries, deaths, and billions in public and private property damage, the Capitol Hill riot was called the “greatest threat to our democracy” since 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, who could protest (and why) changed on January 6, 2021. Now, any kind of peaceful dissent is called “insurrection”; a violent attempt to overthrow the government. Let’s not forget parts of the pesky run-on sentence that interferes with politicians having the ability to really come down hard on their petulant dissenters.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Imagine what the power-tripping elected could do to protesters if it weren’t for the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We could be treated like Canadians!

7. Politician Self-Preservation

It’s no wonder why the disdain for the political class is so high and why (as of this posting) 31 Democrats have decided it’s not worth trying to run for reelection in November 2022. But it’s not only for the reasons you may think.

Between now and the midterms, politicians have to raise millions of campaign dollars to try and hold their seats. If they lose, it’s harder to go back to a well-connected donor and get hooked up for a really good paying job they’re probably unqualified to perform. But if they drop out early, there’s lots of time to approach those who were helped in the past and cash in without any new reelection solicitations. And if anyone in the media pays attention after the midterm election, we’ll see that most Democrats who’ve jumped the Biden ship will land softly because their taxpayer-funded, lifelong pension benefit of $139,200 just won’t be enough.

8. The Enemy

The political class has declared anyone who opposes them as enemies of democracy.

That includes Americans from parents to veterans. While millions of people illegally cross our southern border for a variety of reasons including possible terror motivations, Democrat politicians have unleashed federal agencies on the petulant who question school boards, vaccine and mask mandates, and veterans who’ve honorably served our nation and are aghast that their sacrifices to defend the Constitution and those who are supposed to uphold it have been for naught.

Too many, who are quick to send our sons and daughters into conflict, did everything they could to avoid serving themselves. While many point to Donald Trump’s deferments from service, they conveniently decline to mention the current Commander-in-Chief who obtained more than twice Trump’s. And we also have those who either embellished or made up service just to get election props.

9. Trust (or the lack thereof)

It’s really quite simple.

We can’t trust the word of most politicians and they know it.
We can’t trust the legacy media and they know it.
We can’t trust Big Tech and they know it.
We can’t trust federal intelligence, law enforcement, health agencies and they know it.

It all comes to a near-total breakdown of trust in many so areas and if that’s “anti-government”, it’s no one’s fault but the politicians, media, Big Tech types who’ve been caught lying and adding insult it injury, they callously inflict pain on those they’re supposed to be serving and shield themselves from the inconvenient ramifications.

When the people decide to speak out, they’re called insurrectionist, a threat to democracy, while making themselves victims who quickly cower in pitiful displays of cowardice. It sucks to experience what their “defund the police” policies inflicted on millions of innocent Americans.

The next two elections can’t come fast enough

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has warned American Olympic athletes not to do or say anything that may enrage their “ruthless” Communist China hosts.

While obviously, a good suggestion, protesting thus “incurring the anger” of a government she leads is punishable, albeit not to the same level of the ChiComms… yet.

In the United States, it all depends on who is doing the protesting.

Nancy Pelosi had no problem with protests against an opposition president, with even one protester talking about blowing up the White House. Nancy Pelosi and Democrats had no problem with Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters who illegally blocked traffic on public streets and highways, verbally and physically assaulted motorists, vandalized public and private property, verbally and physically assaulted law enforcement, burned police stations, and injured and killed Americans on the street. Most of them were not detained and incarcerated, and many have had their release assisted by nonprofits and even elected politicians. Nancy Pelosi has no problem while taxpayer-funded intelligence agencies violate the law and monitor the activities of Americans without cause or warrant every day.

Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with those who were caught up in the January 6 mayhem and have been jailed since in Third World (Washington, D.C.) conditions, despite not being formally charged with a crime. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with parents being surveilled and arrested for protesting local school boards run by liberal Democrats. Conversely, Nancy Pelosi has no problem with state prosecutors persecuting a former President of the United States, whose free speech was repeatedly violated by Big Tech platforms.

Nancy Pelosi can spare us the righteous indignation of warning against Americans exercising free speech in a nation that doesn’t recognize it.

Thanks to people like her, it’s only a little better here.

BTW — If an Olympic athlete does cross the line, there’s no President Trump who’ll personally secure their prompt release. He or she will be at the mercy of Joe Biden who doesn’t leave Americans behind, right?

Over the years, we’ve seen many displays of what could be considered obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent language, suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature, and threats of illegal or immoral acts. Whether those displays originate online or at public protests, the left is the most egregious of offenders, they’re proud of it and consider such First Amendment-protected free speech.

When a bully gets a taste of his or her own medicine, that bully usually backs down. That is unless we’re talking about an aggressive Democrat majority in Virginia who now deams offensive speech issued towards them something that should be treated as an act of  criminality.

Included in House Bill No. 1627, offered January 16, 2020 by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne (D-Richmond)….

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
— § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty

Public officials, candidates, government employees can and have called taxpaying constituents everything from stupid, uninformed, racists, haters, fascists, religious bigots, homophobes and worse, but the thought of someone calling them something mean could soon become a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

Virginia Democrats appear to believe the citizenry must show them due reverence and respect they believe they (as “public servants”) are due, and we may soon have our First Amendment right of free speech criminalized when it comes time for any kind of Constitutionally protected dissent. And let’s be real, while we all have our crazies, liberals are far and away more rude, obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, publicly display indecent language, making suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature (i.e. “fuck yourself”) than anything you’ll see or hear at a conservative and/or Republican gathering.

And as is the ongoing pattern, overreaching Democrats will high five themselves when H.B. 1627 passes but seeing how politics IS cyclical, there will be a Republican majority in Virginia again and these same Democrats will be whining how their inability to hurl an insult is a violation of their freedom of speech.

Well, until Democrats demand future Republicans repeal that law, fuck you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— United States Constitution, Amendment I

The “right of the people peaceably to assemble” is obviously interpreted today as the right to protest, but when that phrase is also referred-to in conjunction with the “right of association”, all fingers appear to point back to the 1st Amendment.

“It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech…. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.” It would appear from the Court’s opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment.
— Find Law, Right of Association

So, it’s kind of settled that Americans have the right to be around people we like for a myriad of reasons, but nowhere in the straightforward language of the 1st Amendment does it say anything about protections from being around people we don’t. We’re subject to being around people we don’t like every time we leave the house. Granted, we can obtain restraining orders to keep people who’ve committed legally-proven degrees of unlawful activities against another person, but after that we kinda’ have to suck it up and have people around us we may not have chosen to be with.

While it’s easy to steer clear of people we may not want to associate with in public places, there are also places where a certain amount of tolerance is required. In a movie theater, a bar, a sporting event, the workplace, and Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner….

 
When it comes to the workplace, as long as people act in a professional manner and the tasks are completed to the satisfaction of the employer, all should be all well and good.

However, anyone who’s worked in Hollywood, Washington D.C., Silicon Valley, New York City, almost every education establishment, or anywhere liberals collect in large enclaves, there’s an unwritten rule that’s not so unwritten anymore: if you’re not a Democrat, you had best keep your ideology secret, or else. That “or else” can range from public harassment to termination, despite your not doing anything fireable.

Vince Vaughn faces liberal outrage after he was seen with Trump during national championship game

In some cases, that conservative and/or Republican can’t have anything that verifies his or her preference, even if not verbally stated. Social media posts can do-in a prospective Republican employee from gaining employment.

If you were to replace the words “Republican” or “conservative” in the paragraph above with “liberal”, “progressive”, “Democrat”, “black”, “woman”, “gay”, “handicapped”, “Muslim” etc., you’d be talking about serious social media backlash and the very real prospect of prosecution for civil rights violations.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.
— Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

But for some reason, liberal Democrats feel empowered to discriminate against anyone they discover is a Republican, are free to verbally harass and even do anything and everything to get that Republican terminated. If they have any say in the hiring process, they have no problem not even considering a qualified conservative just because of who they support and vote for.

I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.
— Barack Obama, Elko, Nevada, 9/18/08

There are serious monetary ramifications for workplace discrimination. Aside from the tense atmosphere, blacklists are created and enforced with impunity. That can result in the obvious negative financial issues for someone who was one day gainfully employed and a valued employee to someone who now can’t find a similar job in their immediate industry despite experience and professionalism. Those ramifications include possible loss of car, home, marriage, and more; losses not considered when gleefully ridding the workplace of someone that doesn’t think the way tolerant liberals demand.

And let’s not forget the opposite when it comes to political discrimination: political nepotism and official favors for the obviously unqualified but well connected.

In many parts of the world, the children of powerful political figures go into business and profit handsomely, not necessarily because they are good at it, but because people want to curry favor with their influential parents. This is a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. But for relatives of some prominent political families, we may already be talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
— Peter Schweizer

Political discrimination is NOT considered a civil rights violation because mostly liberal Democrats do it. It should be considered a criminal act way beyond protected political speech, especially when it’s used as a club far removed from the ballot box. The harm caused is more than hurt feelings but real world damage that can last days, weeks, even years while any recovery can be relatively disproportionate.

As it’s something he’s obviously experienced, hopefully this is something President Trump can address down the road.

UPDATE

If you think the environment in the federal workplace is bad enough, here’s something to contemplate should Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election….

Let’s break it down, just based on the very United States Constitution our politicians swore to uphold when they assumed their various offices.

The 1st Amendment is violated in that the entire process can start from a badly worded opinion on a social media post taken out of context or an argument with a family member that disagrees with your political views which can then escalate to legal actions based on speech.

Given current events and the tendencies of some to weaponize law enforcement purely for partisan yucks, it’s more than easy for anyone to sic the police on you, setting in motion a series of events that can get ugly and quick. It doesn’t even have to be some anonymous pro-Democrat family member or punk that can get you in trouble.

You take your kid in to the pediatrician and the pediatrician says, “Oh, there’s a history of mental illness in your family, and guns in your house! Hang on a minute while I call the authorities.” They call authorities, they come over, the red flag law’s in place, guess what? In this case, take your gun because you have a mentally ill child in your house. This is what they’re gonna do. Do not doubt me. This is the objective of red flag laws.
— Rush Limbaugh, 8/6/19

The possible scenarios are abundant and are only limited by the imagination and/or ill will of the provocateur.

The 2nd Amendment is violated by confiscating lawfully owned guns from law abiding citizens without due process.

Think about it: you have your rightfully purchased and registered firearm taken from you even if you didn’t do anything wrong.

Democrat dream scenario, we know….

“Red flag laws” now being proposed to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons will actually legitimize and institutionalize “swatting.” Such laws will enable anyone, anywhere, essentially to call down a police raid on another person, no matter how spurious the “evidence” of mental instability, for the purpose of seizing the “unstable” person’s firearms.
— American Thinker, 8/9/19

Lest you require a refresher, “swatting” is a so-called prank.

Swatting is an internet prank/crime where someone finds your address either through your IP or because your name and location is known. Then they call 911 anonymously and report a fake emergency. Example, someone can call and say that someone at that address is being held at a gun point or someone is going to commit suicide and a SWAT team would be dispatched to the address.

It’s becoming a trend, it is only a matter of time before somebody gets killed.
— Urban Dictionary

Very few have died as a result of being swatted, that is until the political mechanism got involved. Funny how that happens… again.

Doubts about the legality and Constitutionality of this should also be a no-brainer.

The 4th Amendment is violated through unlawful search and seizure, not only of the respondents home, but also of any place the government thinks the respondent may store firearms including the homes of neighbors and family members, violating their rights as well, all off of one court order.

It doesn’t take a consumer of lawyer or cop television shows to know that a warrant from a judge (or “probable cause”) is required to have any law enforcement official search your home or property. Depending on the state in which red or blue state you live, this could be quite problematic.

Red-flag laws typically allow petitions to a judge to temporarily remove a gun from someone believed to be dangerous. A temporary confiscation order is usually followed by a hearing at which the judge weighs barring the person from having a gun for a longer period.

In Florida, Rhode Island and Vermont, only law enforcement officials can petition for gun-removal orders, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Roughly a dozen states have adopted laws that empower household members to seek the petitions, while a few states also allow mental-health workers to do so.
— Washington Post, 8/8/19

Your right to self defense could be in the hands of a pissed off family member or hypersensitive social worker. Great….

An activist judge (not too fond of our 2nd Amendment) may be all too ready to take someone’s word, your door can be bashed in at any time of day or night and your home searched just because a person said something about you that raised (pardon the pun) a red flag and a judge gleefully bought it.

The 5th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is being deprived of liberty and property without due process of law.

You can be detained, arrested and jailed without any initial charges being filed against you. You could be accused of being unreasonable or potentially crazy.

Federal law has long prohibited the mentally ill from owning firearms. But that restriction does not come into play unless a person had been committed to a psychiatric facility, or a judge has ruled that the person is mentally ill. The state red flag laws have a lower threshold, generally requiring only that a judge find that a person presents a significant threat to himself or others.
— New York Times, 8/8/19

Have you noticed government only tends to make things easier when it comes to their ability to take action against citizens?

In this case, all based on the word of someone whose information may not have been verified for accuracy or under oath. This could all be set in motion via a rumor that’s acted upon from a judge on down to your local police.

The 6th Amendment is violated in that the respondent is not afforded the right to face their accuser or the right to due process before a warrant is issued and executed.

Depending on where you live, whomever ratted you out may have the benefit of having their identity protected while your world is turned upside down. Kinda’ sounds like a college campus tribunal.

The petitioner’s residential address, residential telephone number and workplace name, address and telephone number, contained within the records of the court related to a petition shall be confidential and withheld from public inspection, except by order of the court; provided, however, that the petitioner’s residential address and workplace address shall appear on the court order and shall be accessible to the respondent and the respondent’s attorney unless the petitioner specifically requests, and the court orders, that this information be withheld from the order. Such confidential portions of the court records shall not be deemed to be public records under the provisions of clause twenty-sixth of section 7 of chapter 4.
— Massachusetts, Chapter 123 of the Acts of 2018

Seriously, how fair is that? Then again, when it comes to politicians who’re under that “Do something!” pressure, fair is an acceptable casualty.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 is violated through denying citizens liberty and or property without due process of law and denying equal protection of the law.

After your home is raided and property seized, you may be hauled into a jail cell and the next morning you find yourself in front of a judge.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to you free of charge.
— Legal Dictionary

But guess what: when it comes to an accusation based on a Red Flag complaint, you have no right to legal representation if you can’t afford it. Say goodbye to Miranda rights, it turns out, you never had.

It would allow law enforcement to take away your guns and force you to attend a court hearing where you must prove you’re not dangerous to get them back. If you want legal counsel to help you defend yourself in this guilty-until-proven-innocent proceeding you’ll have to pay for it yourself. If you can afford it.

This would be a civil proceeding. Public defenders only work criminal cases.
— Minot Daily Press, 2/5/19

Ya gotta love loopholes that will be exploited by elites who are either connected or have money. Everyone else is screwed.

So, unless you’ve binge-watched every episode of Perry Mason, you’ll be representing yourself unless you can personally afford a lawyer and as we all know, they ain’t cheap, the pro bono ones can be problematic and not readily available on short notice.

Like most gun confiscation legislation, the main targets are those who have yet to break the law. Those who break the law, especially aided by firearms, are not mentioned in this current national discussion.

One would think those on the Republican side of the aisle; those who claim (especially during campaign season) to support and defend our 2nd Amendment, would have every reason to oppose Red Flag laws for the very easy enumerated reasons stated above.

If they DO support Red Flag laws, they should be reminded of their Constitutional oaths while we look for an alternative candidate who’ll take that oath a little more seriously.

h/t For more on Red Flag Laws, visit Patriots vs. Tyrants