Speech-Protecting the Red Flags

Let me put the KILL SHOT on these “red flag laws” right up front.

Hard to read that graphic. Let’s make things just a bit more clear.


To which I say “EXACTLY.

Here is the explanation. It is, for lack of a better metaphor, how the Second Amendment and the First Amendment PEACEFULLY protect each other – by saying WWG1WGA.

Any “red flag law” that doesn’t EXPLICITLY PROTECT – better still EXCLUDE – all Constitutionally protected speech, beliefs, associations, and assembly, is not worth the paper that it’s written on.

The reason is that, absent explicit protections and exclusions, such laws may be interpreted in practice to deny citizens of their First Amendment freedoms – particularly SPEECH – by construing protected activities to be in conflict with other rights – specifically our SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

(This stuff used to be common knowledge before American crypto-Sovietism, by the way.)

This has often been referred to as a “chilling effect” – a sneaky form of infringement which is typically brought forth under the guise of laws utterly unrelated to speech, religion, or other First Amendment-protected activities. Enemies of First Amendment exercise will “hold other rights hostage” in a way that “chills” our claim to those First Amendment rights, lest we see the OTHER rights denied or potentially infringed. In almost ALL these cases, the parties backing such laws desire to infringe on BOTH freedoms, but will take either one, by constructing a FAILED law which puts them into apparent conflict.

The Constitution says NO – there IS no valid conflict, and if you are attempting to create one, even accidentally, then you are creating UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Wolf Moon, Annoying Patriot, and Son of the American Revolution


Republican lawmakers who think it necessary to have such “red flag” laws should TAKE NOTE before signing them. An ABSENCE of explicit Constitutional protections of SPEECH is, in my humble opinion, sufficient reason to veto ANY such legislation.

Our GENIUS President, Donald J. Trump, has personally given a demonstration of how this works, in a joking (well…. who knows…..) tweet. AND I QUOTE:



There you have it – the REALITY of “red flag” laws for millions of wonderful, trustworthy, but perhaps “not careful with their tongues” Americans. INCLUDING CHRIS CUOMO! Who I don’t particularly like, but whose rights to angrily argue and own a gun I will defend to the DEATH!

And what does this mean?


The responses were uniformly BRUTAL for red flag laws.

SO – let’s look at this more closely.

Is Jack Posobiec right? Are “red flag” laws unconstitutional?

In my opinion, red flag laws CAN be constitutional. But I am not even sure if ANY of the existing ones are. And THAT is scary.

Ohio is proposing a red flag law which is designed to avoid many of the pitfalls of existing red flag laws. But even the proposed Ohio law really “needs some work”, in my opinion.

First of all, red flag laws need to respect both the SECOND and FOURTH Amendments.

Here is Dick Heller, of the famous Heller case, talking to OAN about this:

The SECOND Amendment is rather obvious. The FOURTH Amendment is more concerned with warrants, seizure of property, and probable cause – all of which are made more sketchy in red flag laws, when a JUDGE has not actually reviewed the evidence with opposing counsel present. THINK FISA COURT. Gun SEIZURE without the ability to challenge it IMMEDIATELY or better still BEFOREHAND is an idea that does not sit well with this here critter.

Now WOLF MOON – who thinks SCOTUS got the “gay marriage” thing all wrong by not using the FIRST AMENDMENT to protect both gay marriage AND polygamy, is often in the habit of picking DIFFERENT Amendments to defend freedoms. This time is NO DIFFERENT.

Yes, I agree with the Second and the Fourth, but I believe that the SIXTH and the FIRST are also very important here. We’ve talked about the FIRST – what about the SIXTH?

Some people might be A-OK with the idea of just giving up their guns, not being arrested, and arguing about it all later, but NOT THIS HERE WOLF.


In fact. to be completely clear, I want an arrest, and a hearing with MY LAWYER and a JUDGE, and I want it BEFORE my guns are taken. This gives me my MAXIMUM rights under BOTH the Fourth and the Sixth Amendments.

Trust me – THIS OPTION is the most Constitutional of all. I will have WAIVED NO RIGHTS in picking this option.

SO – let me summarize. In my opinion, a potentially Constitutional red flag law must:

  • not take away my stringently guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights without due cause
  • respect the due processes of the 4th Amendment in a HUGE and optimal way
  • explicitly guarantee my FULL 1st Amendment rights, NEVER using protected speech, beliefs, or activities in any fashion to take away my 2nd Amendment rights
  • better still, EXPLICITLY EXCLUDE all 1st Amendment protected things, including speech, writings, religion, beliefs, assembly, associations, and memberships
  • allow arrest without seizure and a prompt hearing with legal representation, for MAXIMUM 4th and 6th Amendment rights
  • include strong deterrents for abuse in BOTH criminal AND civil law

Are you starting to see how much difference current red flag laws have from this ideal, with the ideal probably passing review by SCOTUS, and current laws actually being somewhat doubtful?

I’m kinda thinking Jack Posobiec is right.

NOW – let’s look at an example. This will demonstrate both the Constitutional requirements AND how SAFE a properly constructed “red flag” law could actually be – if enforced HONESTLY by HONEST law enforcement, including an HONEST FBI (cough, cough, COUGH, COUGH).

I have a person who believes in a CRAZY RELIGION. The crazy religion says that in order to go to heaven, one has to defend the religion violently against all non-believers, cutting off their heads. This person goes online and AGREES WITH ALL THIS, repeats it, and argues vociferously and ANGRILY for it, because he is a MUSLIM.

But in real life, he’s a nice guy, and has never even struck anybody.

Sorry – according to WOLF’S version of a CONSTITUTIONAL red flag law, this guy cannot even be “red-flagged”, and if anybody tries it, Peaceful Angry Muslim has grounds to SUE.

Like it or not, what YOU consider “crazy beliefs” are PROTECTED by the First Amendment.

Even VIOLENT BELIEFS are protected by the First Amendment.

EVEN HATE SPEECH and ANGRY SPEECH are protected by the First Amendment.

Even HATE GROUP ASSOCIATIONS and MEMBERSHIPS are protected by the First Amendment.


Violent actions are NOT protected.

So Violent-Talking Angry Muslim who never hurts anybody gets his gun.

Are we done yet? Can we still SAFELY have “red flag” laws with all these Constitutional protections and restraints?

Sadly, the answer is NO.

No, because the HOLDER/MUELLER/LYNCH/COMEY FBI – still politicized as hell, is DESPERATELY pushing for those unconstitutional, Nazi-style laws of the LEFT…..


Here is the article. I URGE YOU TO READ IT – especially between the lines. You will see how this is 99% propaganda of the moment. Digging up old posts to push for NAZI gun laws.


They took this kid’s PARENTS’ GUNS to spice up the numbers, took his posts to paint him as a danger, and DESPERATELY tried to create a SECOND PUNCH after DUBIOUS DAYTON.

Only – well – it’s kind of a FAIL.

This is exactly the political stuff that the now-ruined CLINTON-OBAMA FBI pulled on President Trump. So do you know what I think now?

I think there is excellent reason to believe that the HOLDER FBI has been pulling ALL of these sketchy gun-ban propaganda mass shootings. The only difference here is that they’re running low on “MK specials” who can be manipulated into pulling off their shit. So they’re resorting to backing up their DAYTON SATAN mass shooter with a KID who – wonder of wonders – lives in the same state.


This is why red flag laws are communist bullshit. They are not only of sketchy probable FBI / Deep State origin and definite FBI propaganda backing – they are simply TOO ABUSABLE.

Sorry – even if I saw a red flag law that EXCEEDED my recommendations here, I tend to believe that it would STILL BE ABUSED by political elements in the FBI.

Convince me that I’m wrong.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Excellent Wolf. I agree 100%. We must make use of all of our founding documents in concert to ensure our freedoms. Can’t cherry pick like the left does. It’s all intertwined purposely to provide a means to prevent abuse by those inclined to do so. Good work!


Have copied those graphics and will use on a 2A forum that I frequent.


It’s awesome .. 🤨👍❤️🇺🇸❤️‼️
Love our Constitution and Bill of Rights .. 🇺🇸‼️


I think that graphic originated on Sesame Street.
It’s from back in the 70s…before Sesame Street went full commie.


Correction…from School House Rock, in the 70s.


Here’s an example of School House Rock’s depiction of ‘a Bill’…
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag&w=480&h=360%5D
I couldn’t find the one about 2nd Am and 1st Am…but the way they are drawn in that graphic, is from School House Rock.

Gail Combs

You forgot one RIGHT built into OUR Constitution that RED FLAG LAWS VIOLATE!
NO BILLS OF ATTAINDER!!comment image
Definition: Bill of Attainder.
” A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” comment image

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
“Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).



^^^ Spot on.
Are we done yet? Can we still SAFELY have “red flag” laws with all these Constitutional protections and restraints?
Sadly, the answer is NO.
^^^ Reality. Although I am not sad about it.
This is why red flag laws are communist bullshit. They are not only of sketchy probable FBI / Deep State origin and definite FBI propaganda backing – they are simply TOO ABUSABLE.
^^^ 100%
Sorry – even if I saw a red flag law that EXCEEDED my recommendations here, I tend to believe that it would STILL BE ABUSED by political elements in the FBI.
^^^ 100% have zero faith a Red Flag law will be written that protects all other Rights. 100% if by some miracle a Red Flag Law was written which did protect all other Rights, 100% bad players (disgruntled folks, attorney’s, Judges, police would abuse the hell out it.
Bottom line. 100% against Red Flag Laws.


… 🤨👍‼️


Somewhere deeeeppp in the Q “cell” I’m thinking I’m seeing concrete evidence of “the Master Troller” … just saying … 😉

A Fortiori

The process for taking away a citizen’s rights is set forth in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
The purpose of Red Flag laws is to establish a process that does not conform to the Sixth Amendment but that still allows the taking of a citizen’s rights.
It is blindingly obvious that any such process cannot be constitutional.

A Fortiori

This is why we all know the story of Elliot Ness and Al Capone. We cheer Ness because we have been shown definitively that Capone was guilty of numerous crimes, and that Ness is a good man. The Commies want us to cheer for the G-man who walks all over a citizen’s rights, and creatively uses laws not intended to address the citizen’s actual crimes to get their man. They want this because they hope to be in a position to identify who among us is Al Capone and they want us to assume that their Ness is a good guy.
Repeating the story of the heroic Elliot Ness makes it more difficult to confront Andy McCabe and James Comey and the other crooked cops involved in the Russia farce.


Excellent point.
Rule of law goes both ways.


100% spot on Wolf!
My concern about red flag “Laws” is:
The accused MUST be represented AND able to confront the ACCUSER.
No FISA type Bullshit…. No anonymous accusation by someone “Familiar with the matter”.
6th Amendment to the US CONSTITUTION:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
I would also propose STIFF fines for FALSE Accusations. (Payable TO the Accused)
Also….. FREE COMPETENT defense “Representation” if requested.
(Not everyone can afford a “Lawyer”)


Wolfie – “Convince me that I’m wrong”
You’re not wrong.
And I’m scared as heck by Soros funded District Attorneys.


We got one one of those AG’s now in CO 😣 Phil (Bud) Weiser. Not only will he champion our new red flag law but he gets to use taxpayer money to try and force implementing “safe injection sites” for the heroin addicts in Denver, even though it was recently rejected through public sentiment and didn’t make it through our congress even though Denver city council voted 12-1 in favor of it. Such BS!
Good article for those interested,

Plain Jane

Beautifully laid out Nd bare Wolfie. TY.


I sometimes wonder if the founders were not using some ironic humor when framing the Bill of Rights..
For a Bill of Rights quick read, Q treeper reference ..
: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

Brave and Free

Agree 100% with you Wolf! Anyone who’s thinking these red flag laws are good is actually putting up the white flag in my opinion. It’s all deception on the left’s part to angle in and label everyone they don’t like nuts and not qualified to own a gun. PDJT made that point in his tweet.


Unfortunately, our Bill of Rights has already been watered down by the horribly named Patriot Act, especially the 4th and 6th amendments.


I agree. However, there IS a silver lining to the insane “Patriot Act.” We, (Trump) can use certain provisions of it to drain the swamp. Such as using the military to arrest US citizens without warrant (or any court proceedings for that matter,) and hold without bond, in any secure location, even overseas. Completely out of reach of any corrupt activist court. It could be used to round up the leadership of the deep state. (Hey, I can dream) In other words, “hoist on their own petard” if you will. Use their own twisted rules against them. And it’s allll legal. That’s why I would hold a huge prime time event with visual aids laying out everything, from how the deep state discovered, funded, trained & installed obama in the WH, all the way up through Spygate and up to today. Shock the nation to it’s core. At the same time, be rounding up as many deep state leaders as possible. I believe this level of action is necessary in order to win.
When I do speaking events, I tell my audiences that I have a fast rule with history. Tell the truth. Tell it all. And Tell it straight. Let the chips fall where they may.

Gail Combs

Our US History has been TRASHED and it was done to TRICK Americans into accepting a return to serfdom.
Ignoring Elites, Historians Are Missing a Major Factor in Politics and History: Steve Fraser, Gary Gerstel (2005)

… Over the last quarter-century, historians have by and large ceased writing about the role of ruling elites in the country’s evolution. Or if they have taken up the subject, they have done so to argue against its salience for grasping the essentials of American political history. Yet there is something peculiar about this recent intellectual aversion, even if we accept as true the beliefs that democracy, social mobility, and economic dynamism have long inhibited the congealing of a ruling stratum. This aversion has coincided, after all, with one of the largest and fastest-growing disparities in the division of income and wealth in American history….Neglecting the powerful had not been characteristic of historical work before World War II. ” http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/11068.html

No teacher, but every textbook, left behind.
An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, “[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like.” Alistair B. Fraser, a professor of meteorology who runs web sites exposing bad science in textbooks, concluded bleakly, “Apparently, most teachers believe everything they teach.” To which I add, why not? Cornell professor Donald Hayes, quoted in the Grandfather Education Report, reported on results of sampling 788 textbooks used between 1860 and 1992: “Honors high school texts are no more difficult than an eighth grade reader was before World War II.”……

That is not the worst of it. Schools bore bright kids silly and then drug them when they fidget or act up. Children as young as first grade are labeled ADHD and routinely put on drugs by the school’s tame doctor. No parent needed. Parents have even been threatened by the schools with ‘Child Abuse’ charges and having the child removed by social services if they try to take their child of the medication.

Grade Inflation for Education Majors and Low Standards for Teachers: When Everyone Makes the Grade
Students who take education classes at universities receive significantly higher grades than students who take classes in every other academic discipline. The higher grades cannot be explained by observable differences in student quality between education majors and other students, nor can they be explained by the fact that education classes are typically smaller than classes in other academic departments. The remaining reason-able explanation is that the higher grades in education classes are the result of low grading standards. These low grading standards likely will negatively affect the accumulation of skills for prospective teachers during university training. More generally, they contribute to a larger culture of low standards for educators. …

blockquote> No teacher, but every textbook, left behind
More generally, the quality of the twelve most popular science textbooks for middle-schoolers is so low, Hubisz concluded, that none had an acceptable level of accuracy….
An exasperated William Bennetta explained why so many teachers accept inferior textbooks from these publishers, “[T]he major schoolbook companies… have long recognized that the teacher corps in America includes some desperate dumbbells, and the companies have learned to produce books that the dumbbells will like….
We have learned this, if nothing else, from the selective prosecution of Mr. Gossai: con a few people, and it’s a felony; con millions, and it’s educating the youth of America.”
G. Edward Griffin had some good info:
Days of Infamy and The War on Terrorism
Can find here:
The formula, as shown in those articles is:
The first stage is to aggravate, literally to goad them until they had no choice but to strike back (sound familiar?)
The second prong of the strategy is to insulate. Keep the victims (that’s us) from getting the information needed to protect themselves.
The third and final stage is to Facilitate the attack: make it easy by offering no opposition.
This was from a commentI wrote in regards to Muslim terrorists streaming over our southern border and written in 2011.


Don’t call me names but …
1. These red flag laws are not accusing anybody of a crime. Therefore, due process applies only to the extent of “authorized by law”. You have foundational constitutional protections but nothing further. What this means is that you would have to file a writ of prohibition based on constitutional grounds in order to vindicate the rights you recited above. (part of the reason for requiring an oath of office and a bond to be posted is to prevent constitutional work-arounds; hasn’t worked very well for the people)
2. FISC is often wrongly described as unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional ONLY if the govt tries to use info gathered in that manner is used to prosecute a citizen in the judicial system. Legal residents are commly imbued with constitutional protections but they can be “illegally” surveilled because they have no right to be in the US.
FISC should remain in place because this power can be used regardless of whether it is authorized or not. Much better to require it to be recorded judicially than to have it happen with no record that it took place.


I should have also said that it would be virtually impossible to successfully prosecute someone if a FISC warrant was used to gather evidence. Such use would violate the Fourth Amendment since FISC warrants are “fishing expeditions” and criminal search warrants must describe the crime for which evidence is sought AND that evidence must be specifically identified.

Gail Combs

“1. These red flag laws are not accusing anybody of a crime….”
Excuse me THAT does not matter.
1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH IS ILLEGAL per the Constitution.
2. SEIZURE of a person’s property that is WITHIN HIS HOMEWITHOUT A CRIME is ILLEGAL per the Constitution.
HecK there is even a LAW against Red Flags; Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law
“2. FISC is often wrongly described as unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional ONLY if the govt tries to use info gathered in that manner is used to prosecute a citizen in the judicial system.”
Well in the case of President Trump and his associates it has certainly been used in an unConstitutional manner. Heck even the FISA Court said ?85%? of the use WAS ILLEGAL!

Concerned Virginian

I say: It’s NOT a coincidence that these gun grab “laws” that strip out the 2nd, 4th, 6th, PLUS the 5th and 14th Amendments — ALL of these — are called RED FLAG laws: the COMMUNIST flag — Soviet Union — Communist China — Vietnam.


Two thumbs up, Wolfie !

Rodney Short

Howl at the moon Wolf, spread the truth…


Great Post, Wolf! Expressed and explained clearly and succinctly – I am in awe of your ability to spell it all out with great knowledge and understanding of the concepts – agree wholeheartedly with what you have presented to us for thought and consideration – there it is in white and black for all to see – what are we willing to give up for ‘peace and safety’? Answer: NOTHING!!!
We are Americans, and we won’t back down!!! WWG1WGA!!!


From history, we know what happens when the people are disarmed – it CANNOT happen in AMERICA – can you imagine how our veterans would feel if all they fought to preserve is lost?

Gail Combs

“Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun” – Mao Zedong
☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️
1911 Turkey Gun control — from 1915 to 1917 – 1.5 million Arminans killed
1935 China gun control — from 1948 to 1952 – 20 million killed
1938 Germany Gun control — from 1935 to 1945 – 20,946,000 murdered.
1956 Cambodia gun control — from 1975 to 1977 – 1 to 2 million educated people murdered.
1964 Guatamala Gun Control — from 1964 to 1981 – 100,000 Mayan Indians killed.
1970 Uganda gun control in — from 1971 to 1979 – 300,000 Christians killed, a total of 2 to 3 million murdered.
☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️ ☠️
An individual no matter how hard he tries can not come close to the amount of death a government can visit on its own people. Guns give people a fighting chance against government madness.
Why do the elite want to disarm the public? Because they wish to do something which they cannot do if citizens are armed. A government determined to remove a citizens right to own guns is planning to do things it citizens will violently object to.
Dr Rummel says that democracy is the solution. However thanks to rigged elections, democracy is just another tool used to control people.


How true, Gail – the problem is – those who have been taught history in the ‘public fool system’ – know nothing about the truth…Thanks for your great info!!!

Gail Combs

You are very welcome.
Since our schools system WILL not teach reality it is up to us to spread the information.


You have that right, Gail – homeschooling is the only way – imho – when one has lived through it – one can debunk the lies in the text books, too – makes me angry American children have been duped!!!


Early in my time at OT, I remember discussing Tom Petty’s untimely death


And what was your conclusion, real?


heh, I believe that was the consensus 😉


Reblogged this on RedLegLeader Blog and commented:
#1A #2A #4A #6A
… Any questions???


7 Reasons You Need to Stand Against Red Flag Guns Laws
August 14, 2019


Example: # 6
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. In practice, they can work quite differently.
In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.
“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said.
“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
Though comprehensive information is thin, and laws differ from state to state, anecdotal evidence suggests Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was slapped with an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.
Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel, civil libertarians point out.




Hello duchess01, FYI, I used to be Maxx Power over at “Treeperville.” Got kicked off there for some still unknown reason. SMH


Hi, Maxx – How are you? Better now…I guess – whatever did you do? No matter – you are here – and I am grateful!!!


Sorry it’s been soooo long. I could not get to my comments for some reason, until now. Don’t know why I got booted from CTH, I’m back there now though as Antiqueiron.


Glad you are ok, Maxx – sorry you had troubles – many of us here have had odd experiences as well – never going to understand it all – but, recognize blog owners have the right to set the rules – all it takes is one CLICK, and you are gone – sad it is the way it is – united we stand; divided we fall – so why if we are on the same side – we are fighting? It hurts my heart, Maxx – it really does – Don’t bee a stranger – Mkay? Hugs!!! –


Yes, absolutely, Wolf…Red Flag Laws are bad news!
There is no way that Red Flag Laws wouldn’t be abused.
Because they are designed to be abused!
These laws are designed to do an end run around the 2nd Amendment.
It is inevitable that these Red Flag Laws will end up before the Supreme Court.
It’s only a matter of time.
So…is it a coincidence that the Dems are threatening the Supreme Court now?
I don’t think so.


Hey Wolf, take a look at this post – goes along VERY well with what you said. Looks at the Bill of Rights as a set of interlocking pieces. I think he did a great job of putting together what you were trying to say.

I recognize that the Constitution is well on its way to being just a piece of paper. I further recognize that power exists and will be exercised top down (that’s why I’m a reactionary monarchist).
But I’m going to leave that aside for a moment to admire how the Bill of Rights is structured.
The Bill of Rights (for non-Americans, the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution) enshrines fundamental rights of individual Americans. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights; it recognizes those rights as granted by God. Since those rights are not granted by Government, they cannot legitimately be repealed by government. They are structured in a very interesting way. Beginning with the 1st Amendment and continuing to the 9th Amendment, each subsequent Article recognizes expanding concentric circles of individual Liberty against Tyranny. Note: individual Liberty, not “human rights”, group rights, distributive “justice” or anything else. The 10th Amendment recognizes that the States and People retain all rights not given to the federal government by the Constitution.


Excellent quote, esp. this:
‘The Bill of Rights does not grant rights; it recognizes those rights as granted by God. Since those rights are not granted by Government, they cannot legitimately be repealed by government.’


Red Flag Laws in the Age of Political Psychiatry
Christopher Roach – August 14th, 2019

Even after the mass incarcerations of the Stalin era, the Soviet Union’s psychiatric establishment suppressed political dissidents under the rubric of treating custom-made disorders such as “delusions of reform” and “sluggish schizophrenia.” The Soviet experience is an event out of memory for those under 40, which is unfortunate, as its dark course was animated by the same ideology embraced by America’s far-Left today.
A study of the Soviet practice explained that religious dissenters, nationalists, and other critics of the regime—when not sent to labor camps—were often locked away for years and drugged up in psychiatric hospitals, forgotten by the world, their beliefs maligned as the rantings of madmen. These are the same groups being targeted as nonpersons by the frenzied political left in our own country.
Trump and other Republicans’ embrace of red-flag laws is especially shocking in light of our own very recent history: the attempt to declare President Trump incompetent under the 25th Amendment.
In support of this effort, prominent psychologists opined contrary to their ethical rules about the president’s mental health. The FBI deemed him unworthy of the normal deference and respect due to a president, treating him instead as a target in his first days in office. Prominent law professors explained how his removal would be entirely lawful and reasonable. In a shocking departure from the norm, a rogue Department of Justice official, Rod Rosenstein, offered to wear a wire to entrap the president. If the president, with the power and platform he possesses, could be so harried by weaponized psychiatry, a run-of-the-mill gun owner stands little chance.
Even in the absence of intentional abuse, biases of various kinds can infect a psychological assessment. After all, for many in the mental health establishment, the mere fact of wanting to own guns may be seen as a type of red flag. Should we entrust a treasured American liberty to this group of political leftists practicing an uncertain and malleable science employing pro forma judicial processes? The question answers itself.


Thank you Michael. I had been musing about this as well.
I completely agree that the soviet practice of using “mental problems” to lock up dissenters is one that should instruct us today of how chilling the effects of politicized “medical” care can be.


The same ppl who said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor…


[…] to our QTreeper realsauce who posted a great Tom Petty video, Won’t Back Down, here: LINK: https://wqth.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/speech-protecting-the-red-flags/comment-page-1/#comment-230851 Suddenly I remembered one of my FAVORITE videos of all times – the one where Tom Petty […]


I am opposed, as a matter of principle and as a matter of God-given unalienable Rights, to ANY so-called ‘Red Flag’ law.
There is a legal term for something that is ‘corrupt’ in its essence, and that’s what this is.
I also found this relevant post over on Neon Revolt’s GAB page:
STATECRAFT / discerned
Posted in Great Awakening
Nefarious things in play right now… very dangerous times. Think about this.
Disregard every single aspect of Red Flag gun laws except for this single fact. These bills, if enacted into law, will set a LEGAL PRECEDENT for a THIRD PARTY to be empowered by proxy to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY strip an American of his or her Second Amendment rights. Why is that important? The relevant aspect is THIRD PARTY. That’s the slippery slope and here’s why. How long will it be before a THIRD PARTY can be empowered to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY strip and American of ANY OR ALL OF THE REMAINING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS? Moreover, are there any limitations on who or what can be considered a valid referral source, ie., THIRD PARTY? Where are the limitations on then?
Further, there is virtually no due process between a THIRD PARTY making the report and authorities taking action. At least one man has already been killed by police on a Red Flag no-knock, early morning raid.
How long will it be before Lunatic Lefties begin making false reports as a means to attack their political enemies by proxy? How are good, responsible and law-abiding Americans, who have no cause to believe they’d ever be raided because of the aforementioned, going to react when an army of goons storms through their doors at O-dark-thirty? With a hail of gunfire? Most likely. Now you have AMERICANS KILLING AMERICANS by proxy and with a law that empowered them to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY do so, as enacted by BOTH PARTIES AND SIGNED BY A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. Let that sink in.
This is precisely how DEMOCRACY ends and TYRANNY begins; and to thunderous applause from an otherwise manipulated and relatively ignorant American public. Fools.
Folks had better be paying attention. Guns is ONLY A PART OF THIS EFFORT.


[…] Speech-Protecting the Red Flags […]

[…] Speech-Protecting the Red Flags […]