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

Christchurch shooting coverage and why the ABC chose not to share the gunman’s ‘manifesto’
PM Jacinda Ardern asks public to not share manifesto from Christchurch shootings suspect
Do not share the New Zealand mosque shooter’s screed
New Zealand terror attack: Don’t read manifestos of mass shooters
Kellyanne Conway Blasted for Telling People to Read NZ Shooter’s Manifesto: ‘Monstrously Bad Idea’

The media was pretty much in lockstep here, so any selective information about what Tarrant wrote would have to come through them. See a problem looming? We’ve learned long ago that when the media says NOT to do something, there’s often a partisan, political agenda.

So, we did and it was almost immediately obvious why they didn’t want it out there without their biased filter.

Tarrant first played on the correctly-anticipated Democrat political response to the use of a gun, which would initiate a call for another “discussion” on the need to eliminate the 2nd Amendment, coupled with the quilt-by-association (once again) of the National Rifle Association.

And it was an easy bet who’d take the bait….

Tarrant knew a partisan media would blame his attack on President Donald Trump and he was right.

Democratic senator and CNN rush to blame Trump over New Zealand massacre
New Zealand mosques’ attack suspect praised Trump in manifesto
New Zealand Shooter’s Manifesto Praises Trump
New Zealand suspect wrote in manifesto he supported Trump ‘as a symbol of renewed white identity’
Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant supported Trump
New Zealand Mosques Shooting Suspect Called Trump a ‘Symbol of White Supremacy’
New Zealand Mosque Shooting Suspect Allegedly Called Trump ‘Symbol of Renewed White Identity’
New Zealand shooter called Donald Trump ‘a symbol of white identity’ as he murdered 49 people

The media knew most people would either not know where to find or not bother to read the manifesto, so you’d just have to take their word for it. The news disseminators committed (yet again) another example of bias-by-omission because when you read ALL of what Tarrant wrote, it’s clear he’s NOT a devotee of Donald Trump.

“Dear god no” is not exactly a ringing endorsement by someone you’d expect to be wearing a MAGA cap.

Owens responded with an “LOL” in a Tweet.

Not as savvy as advertised….

Tarrant’s endorsement of Candace Owens is a curious one, but he’s just ANOTHER sucked into the fraud she is. Owens is a very-recent conservative convert of convenience, was initially hired by Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk as a black face to cover for his organization’s blatant racism, and her social media musings are hardly original.

It’s sad that despite our well-researched chronicling of Owens’ fraud and her clear disdain for Tea Party conservatives (of whom she hoped would “peacefully die-off in their sleep” so HER millennial generation could take the power she believes she deserves), she’s been repeatedly endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, many other conservative entities and President Trump.

Very sad.

Brenton Tarrant knew our Democrats and their media well, however the left is colorblind when it comes to the desired confiscation of firearms for self-protection and look at the results, i.e. Chicago, Baltimore, New Orleans, etc.

The media also portrays him as a “right wing extremist”.

New Zealand shootings appear to be “ultra right-wing terrorism,” says analyst
Far-Right Terrorist Kills 49 in New Zealand Mosque Shooting

Tarrant doesn’t appear to care much for labels.

Hmm… only saw the “right wing” in the headlines. Bias-by-omission is something the media is really, really good at, especially when they they attempt to control who can see what with their own eyes.

In fact, this sounds more like the far-left recitations of Bernie “one puh-sunt” Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than anything President Trump or any conservative has ever said. Maybe that’s why none of the media has included this quote from Tarrant’s manifesto.

Oh, and another thing our media hasn’t told the American people: Tarrant is an environmentalist not too happy about the lack of real progress from the “movement”.

We assume our media will get around to this shortly, you know, to competently inform the public.

Tarrant knows our liberal left well and one could speculate that he has Rules for Radicals somewhere on his reading list.

Saul Alinsky wrote, “Never go outside the experience of your people.” In other words, assume your followers are uninformed, use emotion over facts because they rightly assume the Democrat base will act out without any critical thinking and/or desire for additional details. Works every time.

So, no.

Despite the initial assessment and direct finger pointing from Democrats and their media, the Christchurch shooter is NOT a “right wing extremist”, pro-NRA, Donald Trump supporter. Brenton Tarrant knows all the triggers that would play both the media and our politicians.

Mission accomplished.