My Cart

Does NSSF Support Red Flag Laws?

It is evident that the current political and social
environment since the Uvalde shooting in late May, with every shooting that
occurs, is now a national headline if it fits the narrative. However, in today’s
woke, cancel culture, it is much easier to play to the sensations, even if it
means knowingly going against the wishes of your constituents. That is the case
with National Shooting Sports Foundation, NSSF, which, in a shocking statement,
has essentially stated that they are ok with “Red Flag Law.” Why is
this such a colossal issue and what is a “red flag law,” and why are
they so detrimental to our freedoms and way of life? Let me explain.

Extreme Protection Orders, also known as red flag laws, allow
family members or local police officials to petition the court to temporarily
take the firearms of anyone they deem to be a danger to themselves or others.
Several states have adopted these laws to “combat gun violence” by preventing
the tools used for a mass shooting based solely on family members’ beliefs or
the local police that you might do something. However, this is the entry door,
the Trojan horse, if you will, for local governments to be able to pick and
choose who they can deem is “allowed” to have firearms and is rife
with the possibility of abuse. For example, Michael Lawler, the original writer
of the Connecticut red flag laws, stated in a CNN article that stricter gun
regulations, prevention of people from buying more guns, as well as bans on
certain types of firearms are necessary in conjunction with red flag law to be “effective.”
Some of the scenarios these laws are supposed to protect are domestic violence,
suicide, or mass shootings. However, these laws have been abused as well.

In New Jersey, a
local doctor appealed to a judge to enact red flag laws on a patient who had
left negative reviews of his medical practice after a botched neck surgery. The
patient stated he knew where the doctor lived and would bring the police and
the media to his house and work locations. After going on the patient’s social
media accounts and seeing he had firearms on there, the doctor went to the
authorities to try and have the patient’s rights stripped because he felt
threatened. Suppose you are in dispute with an estranged spouse, a pain-in-the-ass
neighbor at the HOA, or a co-worker. In that case, they can claim they feel
threatened and have the court strip away their firearms, causing embarrassment and
animosity, costing thousands of dollars in court fees to recover the items.

This point is where the NSSF comes in. In a statement last
week, they said, “NSSF has NEVER opposed extreme risk protection orders,
or so-called “red flag” laws, so long as those laws consider
Constitutional Due Process rights.” They continue, “we have always expressed
serious concerns with ex parte orders. Unfortunately, these laws are ripe for
potential abuse, and anyone subject to these orders must have the right to
confront evidence and witnesses in front of a judge”.

According to my thorough yet elementary grasp of the
Constitution, this seems to violate multiple amendments, yet, the National
Shooting Sports Federation, a massive organization that claims to be an ardent
supporter of gun rights, has said they have never opposed them. This statement
appears to be 1984 Orwellian doublespeak, where they are actively showing they
have never opposed any of these laws despite knowing they are rife with gaps
and potential abuse. It is first and foremost a blatant violation of the second
amendment, which according to the New Mexico’s Sheriffs’ Association, Tony
Mace, stated that “shall not be infringed” was straightforward and
that “Citizens have a right to bear arms and we
cannot circumvent that right when they have not even committed a crime or even
been accused of committing one.”

This also appears to violate the
fourth amendment, a right to prevent unlawful search and seizure, requiring
warrants to be signed off on by a judge WITH a probable cause, not just
hearsay. It violates the fifth amendment because, as stated above, the process
allows any person to make an allegation and have firearms removed, which
violates due process for a law to be substantive (fair) and procedural (fair)
to the accused. This means it also violates the sixth amendment, as it prevents
you from a right to be informed of all charges (because there are no charges,
just someone’s hunch), a right to face your accusers in court, and an impartial
jury (by confiscating firearms, you are guilty regardless of evidence). In no
way is any red flag law doing either of those two measures because the accused
is not committing any crime, and they cannot defend themselves against
accusations against them.

So, NSSF, tell me, where do you
have the intestinal fortitude to say that you have never opposed these laws yet
say you oppose them when there are infringements knowing full damn well that
they are flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional? It sounded just like the NRA
when they sold the rights of law-abiding citizens from lawful unregulated
possession of bump stocks, fully automatic weapons, and other restrictions to
preserve their backsides in the political climate of the time. In this cancel
culture type world, it appears sadly that the NSSF is doing the same, appeasing
the woke mob instead of doing what we as supporters of gun rights should be
doing….not giving a damn inch. We at JM4 Tactical have decided to support only
those who refuse to comply with illegal laws that directly violate multiple
Constitutional Amendments, such as the Gun Owners of America. These wolves in sheep’s
clothing are sadly only interested in their preservation and have forgotten
that we have the people have a vote. We vote with our time, our money, and our
support.

‘Red
flag’ laws: What they are and which states have them – CNN

Red
Flag Law Abuse: Lawsuit Plaintiff Files Dubious Red Flag Action Against New
Jersey Man – The Truth About Guns

Why
‘red flag’ laws are more dangerous than you think – Washington Times

NSSF
Supports Red Flag laws with “Due Process” – YouTube

JM4
Tactical pledges $20,000 to GOA in partnership with their ‘No Compromise’
mission | GOA (gunowners.org)

Author: Ian Bolser

More
articles