• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

An Open Letter To Our Legislators, Judges And Lawmen

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,471
Likes
36,721
#1
An Open Letter To Our Legislators, Judges And Lawmen
Chuck Baldwin




I know I am speaking for tens of thousands of my fellow Montanans and tens of millions of my fellow Americans when I write what I’m about to write.


The “red flag” laws that are sweeping the country 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. Eventually, these repressive governments included political or religious persuasion as triggering “red flags,” which led to their disarmament—all in the name of public safety, of course.


You know as well as I do that when the rights of ONE American are abridged, the rights of ALL Americans are abridged. This is not yet a communist nation where the rights of the state—or even the rights of a majority of citizens—supersede the rights of the individual.


Furthermore, it is a fallacy to suggest that a mental health diagnosis, by itself, indicates that someone is automatically a threat to himself or others. Dr. Ann Bukacek, a highly-respected medical doctor in the community in which I live, recently wrote:


Mental health diagnoses given by physicians or other mental health care workers do not predict firearm violence. As a physician for over 30 years who has treated many patients with mental health diagnoses and some autistic spectrum patients, I have not had one of those patients commit an act of gun violence. I did have a patient who bludgeoned a man to death with a blunt object, and that patient carried no mental health diagnosis. Psychopaths with no conscience, especially the more intelligent ones, usually escape detection and/or a particular diagnosis.


This doctor’s examination of the issue reflects reality.


Besides, under these “red flag” laws, exactly who is it that determines that someone is “crazy”? Is it one judge, who bases his or her conclusion on the accusations of just one individual? Is it up to politicians or government bureaucrats to define who is and who is not “crazy”?


There are some people who believe that anyone who would even own a firearm is “crazy.” Others believe one’s political or religious beliefs qualify him as “crazy.” Heck! We have all read the documentation of various governments (local, State and federal) that have assigned all kinds of “crazy” (even “dangerous”) definitions against people based on their interpretation of Bible prophecy or their association with political candidates such as former Congressman Ron Paul or their opposition to politically correct ideologies, etc.


Does the judge who issues a warrant to seize a person’s firearms under a “red flag” law provide the accused with an opportunity to defend himself BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge provide an opportunity for a close examination of the accusations against the accused (including investigating the accuser) BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No. Does the judge allow the accused to face his accuser BEFORE violating his constitutional and Natural rights? No.


“Red flag” laws turn the Bill of Rights and the fundamental legal doctrine that a man is innocent until proven guilty completely upside down. “Red flag” laws are a mockery to every constitutional principle of liberty since the Magna Carta. Seizing a citizen’s firearms by force (and thereby rendering him defenseless) without a crime being committed—or even the accusation of a crime being made—is old-fashioned TYRANNY. Such an act presumes a person is guilty until proven innocent.


Then there is this: After the guns are seized, it could take years for the victim to prove his innocence (or competence) and have his guns returned—and in what condition would they be when (and IF) returned? Furthermore, will you legislators, judges and police officers who collaborate to strip an innocent person’s ability to defend himself accept any responsibility when the real bad guys take advantage of this person’s vulnerability and invade his home and bludgeon or rape or even kill his family? Of course you won’t. But mark it down: You will be held responsible in the eyes of Almighty God—and in the eyes of the citizens you have victimized.


And are you really going to try and tell us that police officers are more competent and mentally stable than the rest of us? Are you kidding? The examples of improper, unsafe, careless and even homicidal acts of cops with guns are ubiquitous.


It was an FBI agent who was armed at a nightclub in Denver and then started gyrating and dancing like a madman until his handgun fell on the floor, discharged and wounded a fellow patron. But no official even questioned this officer’s fitness to possess a firearm—even AFTER that event took place.


Then there is the case of the Dallas police officer who walked into the wrong apartment and shot and killed the man who lived inside. Where was the “red flag” regarding this officer? And what about the two police officers in St. Louis who used a revolver to play Russian roulette, and one of the two wound up shooting and killing the other one? Why wasn’t a “red flag” raised about these nincompoops? These stories could go on forever.


Where are the “red flag” laws for the policemen and sheriff’s deputies in this country? The only difference between them and the rest of us who are being victimized by these draconian “red flag” laws is that they wear badges, and we do not—and the other difference is the vast majority of private citizens who carry firearms are not nearly as stupid and incompetent as the policemen mentioned above.


So much for equal justice under the law.


It has taken many of us a lifetime of hard work and labor to be able to obtain our gun collections; we have successfully passed FBI background checks and local and State requirements and obligations for responsible gun ownership, yet our guns are going to be confiscated overnight on the word of someone (an anonymous someone, at that) who claims we “might” be unsuitable to own a gun? Again, such an act turns American history and our Bill of Rights upside down.


Kris Kobach is the former Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional law at UMKC School of Law. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of these “red flag” laws:


1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an ex parte provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.​
2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk to the safety of himself or others. The law [proposed in Kansas] deceptively says that it has to be the testimony of a “family member.” But “family member” is defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.​
3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause” standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex partehearing. Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence” that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.​
4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.​

The implementation of “red flag” laws (at any level) is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. And I am here to warn you that there are millions of Americans who will never submit to such oppression. None of us wants to see acts of violence committed against law enforcement personnel in America, but when law enforcers begin carrying out these draconian “red flag” laws, they will begin lighting the matches of resistance in the hearts of freedom-loving people in this country like hasn’t been seen in over 150 years.


We have already heard about Gary Willis, the Maryland man who was killed by police officers in his own home as they attempted to carry out a “red flag” order to seize his guns. This man had committed no crime; he had not been accused of committing a crime; he was given no hearing and no due process. Mr. Willis did not attempt to harm the officers; he merely resisted their efforts to disarm him, and he was killed on the spot—in his own home—by police officers who had taken an oath to protect the liberties of this poor innocent man.


I assure you, Mr. Willis will not be the last American to resist the attempted confiscation of his firearms.


Do you legislators, judges, county sheriffs, chiefs of police, sheriff’s deputies and city policemen not realize that “red flag” laws are tantamount to a declaration of war against the American people? Are you so far removed from “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” that you cannot see this? Do you not realize that in spite of all of Great Britain’s abuses of power, our colonist forebears did not openly rebel against the Crown until King George sent troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the colonists’ firearms? You do understand that, right? And you do understand, do you not, that the blood of the colonists flows in the veins of we Americans?


At what point do the American people come to believe that you truly do NOT wish to honor your oath to the Constitution or behave in a manner that truly honors America’s Second Amendment and the heritage of liberty that we all share as Americans? At what point do we Americans lose all respect for our civil magistrates and peace officers? For many Americans, that point will come when policemen bang on their doors at 5am and attempt to seize their guns.


Do you not realize that every single instance of an innocent person being subjected to a “red flag” gun confiscation order will only magnify and strengthen the resentment and animosity in the hearts of the community against these laws—and against the ones who are creating and implementing them? Do you not understand that this is a powder keg that could explode into all-out rebellion at any time? Do you want that? I don’t want that! I don’t want that for my wife and me, my children and grandchildren, my friends or my community.


Why would you legislators, judges and policemen even think about doing such a thing?


In the name of all that we hold dear, in the name of the brave men at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge, in the name of every American who has given his life in defense of the principles contained in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights—including many of our brave police officers and sheriff’s deputies—and in the name of the Natural Laws of our Creator, please STOP this madness before you literally tear our communities and our country apart.


As a legislator, you must not pass any semblance of a “red flag” law; as a judge, you must not issue a gun confiscation warrant on the basis of a “red flag” law; as a sheriff or chief of police, you must not order your officers to confiscate a citizen’s guns on the basis of a “red flag” warrant; and if you are a sheriff’s deputy or city policeman, you must not obey an order to confiscate your fellow citizens’ guns on the basis of a “red flag” law.


I beg you to realize what you are doing. I beg you to refuse to participate in this madness. I beg you to join your fellow churchmen, clubmen, neighbors, friends and townsmen and help us turn back this dastardly attempt to transform our constitutional republic into another repressive regime that, in the end, would require The People to tear it down.


“Red flag” laws are on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of our Constitution, the wrong side of liberty and on the wrong side of the laws of God.


Again, I beg you to think about what you are doing, about the pain you are causing, about the lives you are ruining and about the potential harm you are inflicting on our country. Please think this through.


© Chuck Baldwin


*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:


Chuck Baldwin Live Donate Form


I also have many books and DVDs available for purchase online. Go here:


Chuck Baldwin Live Store


To subscribe to my weekly columns, click here:


Subscribe to Chuck's Column








BORN: May 3, 1952, to Mr. & Mrs. Edwin J. Baldwin in La Porte, Indiana. Chuck’s father, Ed Baldwin, was a welder by trade and a converted alcoholic. His life story has been played over the international radio program “Unshackled.” He was a lay preacher in the jails and prisons of northern Indiana for over 35 years.​
FAMILY: Chuck is married to the former Miss Connie Kay Cole. Chuck and Connie were married on June 2, 1973, after meeting in college. They have three children and nine grandchildren. All three children and their families are active, dedicated Christians.​
CALL TO MINISTRY: As a young man, Chuck had decided to pursue a career in law enforcement. His plan was to join the U.S. Marine Corps and afterward begin working as a Deputy Sheriff in La Porte County, Indiana. The Sheriff at that time was family friend, Cliff Arnold. (Arnold later became an Indiana State Representative.) Mr. Arnold had told Chuck that following his tour in the Marines, a position at the Sheriff’s office was waiting for him. All that changed in the summer of 1970 when Chuck answered the divine call to Gospel ministry. As a result, instead of joining the Marines, Chuck enrolled in Bible College.​
EDUCATION: After graduating from La Porte High School in 1971, Chuck attended Midwestern Baptist College in Pontiac, Michigan, for two years. He then married and moved to Lynchburg, Virginia. He enrolled in the Thomas Road Bible Institute (now known as the Liberty Bible Institute at Liberty University) and graduated with his Bible Diploma. He then earned his Bachelor of Theology and Master of Theology degrees from Christian Bible College in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Chuck received his first honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Christian Bible College. He received his second honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from Trinity Baptist College in Jacksonville, Florida. On this occasion Dr. Baldwin brought the Commencement Address to a crowd of over 5,000 attendees, including faculty, staff, graduates, students, families, friends and visitors. Dr. Baldwin also served as a Regional Vice President of Trinity Baptist College for many years.​






http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/02.19/letter.html
 

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
6,576
Likes
14,159
Location
USA
#2
Very excellent summation of red flag laws and their consequences. Recommended reading!
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
15,688
Likes
28,147
Location
ORYGUN
#5

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
42,205
Likes
66,978
Location
Rocky Mountains
#6
Reminds me of the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn

If you haven't read it, I suggest you do to see where this is going.

The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956 by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn describes in detail the physical and psychological horrors inflicted on millions of political prisoners in the Soviet era.​
Soviet State Security prefers to arrest people when they are disoriented, preferably at night using massive force, but one never knows who one's captor will be, when or where it will happen. However it does, one enters a great human "sewage disposal system." There have been various waves of arrests, but those in 1929/30 and 1944-46 are usually overlooked in light of Khrushchev's revelations about "abuses of the cult" and the purges of 1937/38. Neither the 15 million peasants who disappear in 1929/30 nor the entire nations and POWs that vanish 1944-46 leave written records, but those who perish in the era of the great show trials leave plenty.​
After a brutalizing arrest comes a more brutalizing interrogation, which is not intended to determine guilt or innocence, but to prepare the captive for inevitable incarceration. The inflictors of physical and mental torture are known as "Bluecaps." Except for the splash of color that dates back to Tsarist security police, they have nothing in common. Their brutality harkens back to the Inquisition and shares the same kind of ideological focus to achieve desired results. After being disoriented and broken in solitary confinement, prisoners are happy to enter their first cell, thereafter remembered as their "First Love." Here friendships are formed, stories heard, and survival skills learned. In the spring of 1945, as the Red Army crushes the Nazi empire, prisoners hope for amnesty, but instead, POWs and émigrés pour into the Gulag system.​
Freed of Western concepts of justice and truth, Soviet law struggles to find a proper socialist footing in which motive and action are equally criminal. OSO tribunals bypass formal trials to expedite getting political prisoners into the system—or shooting them. The Criminal Code of 1926 makes "big, coordinated, well-organized" show trials possible, and Vyshinsky and Krylenko deal with "wrecking" engineers, churchmen, non-Bolshevik rivals, and finally Stalin's real and perceived enemies by purging the Communist Party. Social and political expediency alone determine guilt. Capital punishment experiences ups and downs, but is exponentially more common than under the Tsars—some 1.7 million executions by 1 Jan. 1939. After the war, Stalin leans towards more socially useful 25-year sentences. Early in the Soviet era, the prisons that are emptied of political prisons in 1917 re-fill with inmates who know the humane pre-revolutionary "prison regime" and battle to keep its privileges. Allowing themselves to be crushed dooms all later political prisoners to the horrors of the Gulag, which begins in 1923, as former monasteries in the isolated Solovetsky Islands on the White Sea become camps.​
The Gulag is in perpetual motion, as millions of inmates are whisked about in Black Marias and "Stolypin" train cars between interrogation and staging for transportation to a camp. Red cattle trains crisscross the USSR bringing unfortunates to camps—or they arrive, equally miserable, by water or on foot. The 80% given general assignment jobs inevitably perish. Common criminals prey on the naïve political prisoners. Still, zeks enjoy each other's company and stories, as a postwar generation emerges, unwilling to be swallowed in the system.​
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
6,301
Likes
11,816
#7
In any state that has these laws on the books just start anonymously reporting every politician in the state at both the state and local level. Hell might as well go after congress critters and Senators as well and their body guards if you could get their names.

If you think losing the guns are bad, wait til you see what they have in store for us when they disarm us.

Oh and what happens in a SHTF scenario? We all gonna do hand to hand or Kung fu? My knife fighting days are over.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,784
Likes
14,138
Location
Seattle
#8
BF, I believe southfork was referring to S,S & S. (Shoot, Shovel & Shut up) :gracious:
I know, but I stand by my statement about shovels.
Try one once, you'll like it.
The root chomper ones work best.

BF
 

Aurumag

Ag mirror of truth Aurum purity of mind
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,522
Likes
11,632
Location
State of Jefferson
#9
Chuck Baldwin is a true Consitutional scholar who understands the INTENT of the law because his mind has been opened to the truth.

The local sheriff has the power to enforce the rights of his constituency.