By Joanna Martin, J.D.

When a person makes threats about killing others, the only constitutionally acceptable course of action is to treat that particular person in accordance with the existing criminal laws of the State. To instead subject everyone to red flag confiscations shows that the real agenda is to disarm "The People." But the U.S. Constitution doesn't permit that.

State legislatures have no constitutional authority to enact into Law whatever a majority of them may happen to believe is a good idea. To the contrary, State legislatures are mere "creatures" of the State Constitution which created them – and it is that document, together with various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, which define and limit their authority to make laws. The Tennessee legislature has only limited constitutional authority to make laws restricting arms. [1]

A Transcendent Principle of our Land has always been that The People have the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of this Right is – as James Madison recognizes in Federalist No. 46 – to protect us from government.

And because the leading cause of unnatural death in this world, particularly since the beginning of the 20th century, is murder by government – democide; we must have the ability to defend ourselves from government.

Before governments can murder great numbers of people, they must disarm them first: As lawyer and philosopher Stephen P. Halbrook shows in Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and "Enemies of the State," the NAZIS used gun control to disarm and repress their enemies and consolidate power, which rendered political opponents and Jews defenseless.

That's what gun control and red flag confiscations is really about. It has nothing to do with protecting children. People who want to protect children oppose abortion, the injection of children with experimental substances, and sex change surgery on children.

Powerful people seek to move the United States into global government – the New World Order – the North American Union – the Great Reset. But the American People oppose global government.

Yuval Noah Harari of Klaus Schwab's Great Reset says you and I are "useless," "meaningless," and "worthless." They don't need us anymore. Prince Philip of England said during 1988 that if he were reincarnated, he "would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation."

Kelleigh Nelson shows that work to rid the world of "inferior" or redundant people has been going on in America: America’s Medical Guinea Pigs, Depopulation and Eugenics, Part One; Blood Lust: Covid Vaccines, and Culling the Population, Part Two; and The Demonic Carnage of Vaccines, Part Three.

The United Nations claims that population growth interferes with "sustainable development." U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris wants to reduce the population so "the children" can have cleaner air and water.

They want us dead. So what's their "final solution?"

Tennessee Governor Bill Lee isn't the only "conservative" who is pushing for gun control and red flag confiscations.

President Trump said, respecting red flag laws, "Take the guns first, go through due process second," thus showing his total lack of understanding of the concept of "due process."

Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George, who has been on Mark Meckler's "Convention of States" Legal Advisory Board since its inception during 2014, has already co-authored a new Constitution which provides constitutional authority for gun control and red flag confiscations. [2]

Professor George is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR seeks to move the United States into global government – the North American Union. Americans don't want to be moved into the North American Union. So we must be rendered powerless to prevent it [link].

“Due process of law” is a term with a precise technical import going back to the Magna Charta; and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property cannot be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial! See Professor Raoul Berger’s masterful work, “Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment,” at Part I, Chapter 11 “Due Process of Law."

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

"…nor shall any person…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.…"

The 14th Amendment says at § 1:

"…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.…"

But U.S. Senator Marco Rubio's proposed “Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019,” provided that if a Respondent, whose arms have been taken from him in an ex parte hearing [i.e., a hearing Respondent wasn’t notified about until after the Order had been issued to seize his arms], wants his arms back, he must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that he does NOT pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or others by having arms in his possession.

Rubio’s bill put the burden of proof on the Respondent! For eons in Anglo/American jurisprudence, it has been the task of the government to PROVE GUILT. But Rubio would reverse that and require Respondents to PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE.

All versions of red flag legislation are based on taking peoples' property away from them based on a judge's speculation that they might in the future commit a crime with the gun. As in Tom Cruz's movie "Minority Report," we can be accused of and punished for gun crimes we haven't committed.

And even if Respondents in a red flag proceeding were afforded their due process right of a trial before their peers before their arms were confiscated; I am unaware of any State Constitution which permits a person to be disarmed for the reason that others speculate that the person might in the future commit a crime with the gun. Certainly, the U.S. Constitution forbids such pre-crime confiscations.

Red flag laws are "pre-crime confiscations." They violate the due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution; as well as a host of other federal and state constitutional provisions.

Advocates of red flag confiscations may claim that they only want to confiscate guns from mentally ill people. And since you are not mentally ill, red flag laws won't affect you, right?

Not so. Just as the U.S. Department of Justice denounced as "domestic terrorists" Moms who spoke out at School Board Meetings against porn in the schools, mask mandates, and the teaching of Critical Race Theory; red flag laws which purport to permit seizure only from mentally ill persons will result in application of the definition of "mentally ill" which prevailed in the Soviet Union. There, political opposition or dissent was defined as a psychiatric problem.

I began first grade during 1949. At that time, the Ten Commandments were posted in public schools. I could already read and saw every day the commandments "Thou shall not kill" – "Thou shall not steal" – "Thou shall not bear false witness." We had prayers and Bible readings. America was a safe place: people didn't lock their doors and children played outdoors unsupervised by adults.

But beginning in 1962, in Engel v. Vitale, the U.S. Supreme Court commenced its war against Christianity by banning prayers in the public schools. During 1980, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court banned the posting of the Ten Commandments in the public schools.

Even though these opinions were clearly unconstitutional [link], State Legislatures failed to do their duty to nullify these unconstitutional decisions. They should have passed laws directing their public school teachers and administrators to ignore the opinions.[3]

But State Legislatures failed to act. So God's Moral Laws were replaced by Moral Relativism – where moral judgments and values are not based on transcendent and objective principles [e.g., The Ten Commandments] but on one’s personal feelings and desires. THAT is the root problem in our Land – We forgot God. See also Ideas That Are Destroying America by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero.

Endnotes:

[1] In this paper, I focus on "due process" and red flag confiscations. In a subsequent paper, I will show how extremely limited is the constitutional authority of the Tennessee Legislature to restrict arms.

[2] Robert P. George, a law professor, apparently understands that our existing U.S. Constitution prohibits state or federal gun controls and red flag confiscations; and that a new federal Constitution is needed before we can be disarmed.

[3] Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton pointed out since the States created the federal government when they ratified the Constitution; they are the final authority on whether their "creature" has violated the constitutional compact the States made with each other. And when the federal government usurps powers not delegated, each State has the natural right to nullify of their own authority all such acts of the federal government. See Nullification: The Original Right of Self-Defense.