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.
Author: Ian Bolser