While the popular news media has Americans consuming news stories about their favorite scandals, there’s a much larger issue looming and is virtually getting no mainstream media coverage at all. This story will directly affect police and law abiding gun owners in potentially very dangerous ways. There is a gun control bill about to be passed in the Senate that may have the hallmarks of political corruption.

Alarmingly, a mass murderer may be seeing his dreams beginning to come true in the United States Senate next week. Directly following this tragedy, a gun control bill vote looms in the US Senate. 

After New Zealand announced that they would ban the sale of all semi-automatic rifles, Bernie Sanders tweeted, “This is what real action to stop gun violence looks like. We must follow New Zealand’s lead, take on the NRA and ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons in the United States.”

The timing of the bill comes on the heels of the mass shooting in New Zealand where Britton Tarrant killed 50 people. The goal stated in his manifesto was to “create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political, and racial divide within the United States. This conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the attempted removal of firearms rights will eventually result in a civil war that will balkanize the U.S. along political, cultural, and most importantly racial lines.” 

Mass shootings seem to be the most effective way to force politicians to pass strict gun control. Tarrant has already achieved one goal in New Zealand, as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said Thursday that by April 11thnew laws will be in place to ban all military style semi-automatic and assault rifles. The buy back scheme will cost up to NZ $200 million ($138 million USD). 

Now in the US, our Second Amendment is under attack. 

The Senate Bill 7, named the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019 introduced by Marco Rubio is just that bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee led by Republican Senator Lindsay Graham is holding a hearing on March 26, 2019 at 10:00 am to move this bill to the floor for a vote. Senator Chuck Schumer has garnered support for the bill with 48 votes. Three Republican Senators, Rubio, Graham, and Collins, will likely add to the 48 yes votes to give a majority 51 votes needed to pass the bill. 

Why is this important to every American regardless if they are civilian or law enforcement?

This bill, if passed, will directly attack our Second Amendment rights. It is a violation of due process. This bill will also put both civilians and police in danger and against one another. 

In response to the online call for banning firearms across the nation, NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch said, “That’s also what an entirely different country that doesn’t have the right to bear arms as a cornerstone of its constitution, in addition to numerous state laws. It’s also what confiscation and banning most semi-auto looks like, too.”

While Senate Bill 7 named Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2019, it is actually a Red Flag Gun Confiscation Order. Red Flag Gun Confiscation Bills call for 2nd Amendment rights to be stripped from law-abiding Americans without due process based largely on unsubstantiated accusations from disgruntled family members, neighbors, coworkers, and/or current or ex-romantic partners, or roommates. 

Sen. Rubio’s bill goes further by incentivizing states to confiscate firearms through a $100 million 5-year federal grant program. This means that states that pass Red Flag Laws will receive federal funding and states that do not will be punished by not receiving that funding. This is quite literally a pay off by the federal government to push states to create gun confiscation laws. 

 

According to the National Association for Gun Rights,

“The proposal would provide grants to states that allow a court to issue a so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)” which involves a court entering a secret order banning someone from possessing firearms or ammunition, and confiscating the firearms and ammunition that an individual already owns. The order and seizure warrant may be issued ex-parte (in other words, before any notice at all to the subject of the order). This has happened in multiple states, including more than 100 warrants in Maryland (one of which resulted in the death of a gun owner), putting the lives of local residents and police officers in danger. 

Such legislation contemplates that the persons who initiate the request for this order are family and/or ex-lovers of the person whose firearms are to be seized. For many people, those two categories are going to be full of people who now dislike them and would be motivated to seek revenge to include lying to the courts. 

The legislation authorizes accompanying seizure warrants, which are issued without any notice to the subject of the order. You find out when the SWAT team comes to your door to “collect” your guns. The order may be issued using the very weak “reasonable suspicion” standard of evidence. 

The court could report these orders to the FBI, barring the individual from being able to pass a NICS check to purchase a firearm. Additionally, law enforcement would be obligated to confiscate firearms the individual legally possesses. 

Only after seizure of the firearms, and entry of the order, can the subject of the order challenge the issuance and beg for their rights and their guns back. This is not due process. 

Under most Red Flag laws, the court is expected to hold a hearing within 30 days of the entry of the initial order, after notice has been provided to the subject of the order. At the hearing, the State must show “clear and convincing evidence” that the person poses a “significant risk” to themselves or to another person.

Under this bill, state law is supposed to allow a court to also involuntarily commit a person to substance abuse treatment or mental health treatment, while confiscating their firearms.

Under this bill, a court considering an ERPO or the ex-parte initial order can rely solely on written statements, depriving the person whose rights are being adjudicated the right to confront the witnesses against him. This bill even says that only the written statement, which is the basis for the initial ex parte order, has to be under oath! Written statements justifying the ERPO itself need not be under oath. Due process includes a number of ideas that are fundamental to justice in the USA. The right to confront witnesses against you is essential to due process.

Once an ERPO is issued, the subject of the order may request one hearing, after the fact, to have the order rescinded before it expires on its own terms. This has been limited to a single hearing, where if the subject loses they may not request a new hearing, even if new evidence becomes available or if their life circumstances no longer warrant such a prohibition. 

Under this bill, these orders can be renewed indefinitely barring the subject from purchasing a firearm (one year at a time) and having their guns returned to them (three years at a time). 

For some, this may amount to a lifetime Second Amendment ban.”

Sen Rubio first unveiled the bill in March of 2018 after the Parkland, Florida school shooting stating,

“A gun violence restraining order is one of the most effective policies we can put in place to prevent another tragedy like Parkland,” Rubio said. “We can help keep our schools and communities safe by empowering law enforcement or family members to use the judicial system to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. This idea has already proven successful in states like Florida, and it is my hope that this bill will get other states to do the same thing.”

Yet, the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where Nicolas Cruz murdered 17 people should have been prevented with the current laws that were already on the books in Florida. Cruz exhibited behavior in threatening classmates, posting pictures of himself holding guns and making violent statements online, and even being described by many as the ‘next school shooter.’  This is all behavior that had led to detectives to arrest similar young men in recent years. The greatest failure came when Cruz posted two social media posts saying he planned to be a “professional school shooter.” Two very credible sources reported the posts to the FBI. Those tips to the FBI, if acted on, might have been enough to remove Nicolas Cruz’s guns and neutralize him as a threat and save 17 innocent lives. Perhaps the worst fail of all was that of the only armed person at the school during the shooting. Coward school resource officer, Scot Peterson, did not enter the school to engage Nicolas Cruz and stop him while he was on his rampage.

All the evidence was there. All the laws were in place. All the responsible people failed to uphold them.

More gun laws do not need to be in place to stop mass shootings. More gun laws do not need to be in place to stop suicide or murder. Suicide and murder will continue to happen without guns. After all, Fulani Islamic militants are murdering Christians in Nigeria in huge numbers with machetes and burning them alive. 

The darker side to all of this is tracing back money that has been donated to politicians. Senator Marco Rubio, who is the sponsor for Bill 7 Red Flag Law Gun Confiscation was the 4th top recipient in donations from foreign lobbyists in 2016, under Hillary Clinton, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Chuck Schumer. This is concerning since Senator Rubio also sits on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Senate Committee on Intelligence. This makes lawmakers, like Senator Rubio and others, suspect to making American laws that favor donor interest. 

Foreign lobbying is a lucrative business for firms like the Podesta Group. 

Most Republicans do not favor gun control laws and typically vote ‘no’ to bills such as the one Rubio is pushing. Yet oddly Lindsay Graham, who is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee and who is bringing the bill to the hearing to be voted on, is also in favor of this gun control bill. It is interesting to recall that in the Wikileaks emails released in 2016, John Podesta’s emails revealed a major gun control plan by Hillary Clinton that once President, she would pursue gun control by executive order. This also sounds very familiar since Nancy Pelosi’s recent threat to President Trump about his National Emergency to build a wall at the southern border was that the next Democrat president could remove guns by declaring a national emergency after the next mass shooting.

It seems that using the office of the Presidency to remove guns is a common goal among Democrats. Combine those facts with the campaign contribution information that is for public knowledge on Open Secrets, which reveals that one of the contributors to Lindsay Graham’s 2018 campaign was none other than the Podesta Group, which is made up of brothers Tony and John Podesta. This seems to show a very odd political coupling. Considering the Podesta Group is a donor to Graham and his support for this Red Flag Gun Confiscation bill, most Republican voters, especially gun owners in his home state of South Carolina would find that very alarming, if they only knew. 

John Podesta was in New Zealand only days before the mass shooting, and then was in Australia the day of the shooting. This has caused quit a stir among many. While there is no way to correlate such a coincidence, voters should always pay close attention to big donors to politicians and what their motives may be. 

After all where your treasure is, there your heart will also be.

Or in this case where the treasure is, the politicians vote will also be.

READ MORE: 2A SANCTUARY STATUS PETITION GAINS MOMENTUM

LISTEN TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY RADIO SHOW PODCAST

 

DON’T MISS A BEAT…DOWNLOAD THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TODAY APP