Previous Post
Next Post

Over the last week or so, our stories on Red Flag orders have proven…controversial. The first, “What To Do If Police Show Up At Your Door With A Red Flag Confiscation Order” stirred up a lot of emotions. But the “How to Prepare For A Red Flag Confiscation Order At Your House” seriously elevated a lot of people’s blood pressure.

Plenty of readers in comment section said they would refuse to comply with officers serving a red flag order against them. Plenty more suggested that they would fight to the death to resist.

Like this one:

And let me add, THEY can’t take them if THEY are dead.


It’s time for active militia’s in all 50 states.

Or this one:

“They have the right to enter and the will do it. If you resist, they will use force. Up to and including deadly force.”

“Red flag laws” are constitutionally invalid, so anyone trying to enforce such laws doesn’t have any “right” whatsoever to enter your home. A citizen, however, is well within his rights to use whatever force he needs to in order to repel such an assault, up to and including deadly force.

Or one of my favorites:

I strongly advise surrendering after the SWAT team arrives in response to your shooting the first offenders several times each. Then you can be really noisy in court and people will actually be listening!

While I attribute a lot of this #resistance talk to keyboard warrior chest-thumping, let’s keep things in perspective. It’s not like Big Government has passed a decree banning all guns and UN storm troopers are going house-to-house confiscating everyone’s firearms and shooting their dogs (not necessarily in that order).

These “extreme risk protection orders” or “gun violence restraining orders” — whatever they may be called in your state — while grossly unconstitutional, are temporary. Every state where this is law has a specified hearing date, usually about ten to fourteen days after confiscation. At that hearing, the gun owner who’s been temporarily stripped of his or her gun rights has an opportunity to contest the initial complaint in front of a judge. If the judge adjudicates the complaint as unfounded, your rights are restored and you’ll soon get your guns back.

The article on “how to prepare” suggests storing some of your guns in other locations only you know about so you can access them immediately once you are again legal to possess them. In other words, so you can defend yourself and your family (at least the ones who didn’t file a vexatious complaint against you in the first place) in that window of time between when the judge throws out the complaint and when the local constabulary releases your property.

If police show up at your door, are you really going to fight to the death to resist instead of submitting to a(n admittedly wrong) short-term inconvenience? That doesn’t make sense. Especially if you’re a normally well-balanced individual who, when you appear in court, will show up reasonably well-dressed, well-groomed, calm, cool and collected. Seeing that, the judge will probably throw out the original order.

After all, if a judge sees you don’t have a tail, horns or fangs and you appear mentally and emotionally sound, the claims against you will look unfounded at best, and maliciously defamatory at worst.

Yes, it will cost you a thousand bucks or more to hire a decent attorney to fight the bogus accusations. Is your life worth a thousand bucks? Mine sure is. Yours is too.

Not only that, as I noted in the “how to prepare” story, signing up with a company like US Law Shield that will represent you in a red flag hearing gives you the peace of mind knowing you won’t have to spend money you probably don’t have hiring a good attorney to represent you in the formal hearing.

What’s more, after the first red flag gets beaten back, I suspect any judge worth their salt will look at subsequent filings against the same person with a heaping helping of skepticism.

Yes, if Diane Feinstein gets her way, the Democrats vote to ban all guns and the UN “peacekeeping troops” land on American shores to forcibly disarm us during the day and rape our wives and daughters at night (stories 1 2 3 4 5…), plenty of Americans like me will be delighted to poke holes in the men under those blue helmets, both up close and from a quarter-mile away.

But shooting a cop on your doorstep carrying out a red flag order? Nope. I’m not a fool. I’ll fight that one out in court in a week or two.

As they say, living well is the best revenge.

Not only that, but don’t make all gun owners look bad by going down in a blaze of glory over something that can be fixed in court in the near future. Trust me, you won’t look like a patriot hero to Joe and Jane Sixpack across America. Instead you’ll legitimize the fiction of why we have these unconstitutional laws in the first place. They’ll assume gun owners really are simply just one bad day away from going off the deep end and killing someone.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “..What’s more, after the first red flag gets beaten back, I suspect any judge worth their salt will look at subsequent filings against the same person with a heaping helping of skepticism…’

      Oh Nice! So after your life is turned upside down, maybe ruined, that SINGLE judge MIGHT not grant any further unconstitutional orders in the future. Peachy…

      Who writes this shit?

      Of course that will involve a year or more of your time, dealing with lawyers, missed work, huge amounts of money wasted, (hiring lawyers does that), and a stained reputation. Oh, and try to have your property returned. Other than that no problem.

      • Not only that. I don’t see any judge giving guns back because of the risk. Once this happens you will never get them back. This is tyranny

        • “Once this happens you will never get them back.”

          Agree. This be true in leftist dominated areas at least. Even if you luck out and get a fair judge, the police will demand endless appeals. And during the appeals process, they will “misplace” the guns and finally say, “oops, sorry, we messed up. Go to [some office] and fill out a form 27B/6 [which the office will not have heard of, assuming you can manage to find it].”

          That’s not to say it’s smart to refuse to comply with a red flag order. But people who live in leftist-dominated areas need to be realistic. Once your are hit with one, it’s probable game over for ever being legally eligible to own firearms, much less actually getting your property back.

      • Some people had to fight in court up to 5 years before they got their rights restored and guns back. Half a decade isn’t short term, not to mention many would go broke for fighting in court for that long. Even if you do win, the cops can still ignore the judge’s orders and refuse to return your guns anyway. This has happened several times. What would you do then? Cops won’t arrest themselves or each other, all the judge can do is issue more court orders the cops can also ignore.

        Even if you do comply with red flag orders does not guarantee the cops won’t freak out and kill you anyway, or find something to charge you with.

        • Also receiving a red flag order will increase your chances of being issued another, as it creates a bad history of you that will predispose other judges to error on the side of caution.

      • I am hoping Red Flag will fail in SC i have been assured by some friends of mine in the house and senate that it will fail in SC including the one that has been pushing it doesn’t expect it to pass. If it passes and the patriots ,Militia, 3 %, and other gun owners form an alliance it will be a lot harder for them to deal with. My advice never kill anyone you do not absolutely have to so don’t be on the X once this starts going down and have your stuff well stored in a way infrared won’t pick it up . Give them a gun that means nothing to you . Tell them they’re welcome to search ask them if they would like a cup of coffee or a glass of water. Treat them with respect and live to fight another day . After all much of that goes down we will need every man we can muster if it should become necessary to show them the 2nd Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with deer hunting . One more note remember where you put your guns and make sure when you pick them up you are not being watched.

        • ” One more note remember where you put your guns and make sure when you pick them up you are not being watched.”

          Never have a cell phone or any other electronic device with WiFi or Bluetooth connectivity with you while moving your guns and/or ammo to and from hiding. Tracking can be done after the fact if you fail to follow this rule. If at all possible, do not use your own vehicle. License plate cameras can be checked and your movement tracked that way too. Tell ABSOLUTELY NO ONE where you put your property.

        • Oh, I forgot to add, don’t use rental vehicles either. Most all have GPS trackers installed. Borrow a friend’s or coworker’s truck and tell them you are moving furniture or some such excuse. Don’t inform anyone what you are actually doing.

    • It’s a lot like the people who suggest tucking tail and moving to a different state with better (for now) gun laws.

      “The Crown is tyrannical and oppressive, let us move further West, that we may evade this tyranny but a short while longer.”

      • We really should fortify the remaining free states against leftist incursions. Make sure Californians that move in quickly feel unwelcome or unsafe and move right back. Make sure illegal immigrants are rounded up and deported in a very unpleasant fashion.

        • Wow, as a Californian planning to move this really worries me. It is not like i am moving because i have to ( job, family etc) i am moving because i want to. I am sacrificing a good job and family nearby but i want to leave this state because i no longer believe its priciples and do not trust the people in government. As a conservative and a believer in gun rights and the second amendment, to be lumped in with illegal immigrants is disenheartening.

        • The biggest problem with people leaving their home states is that they tend to bring their nonsense politics with them… even when they don’t think they are “one of those people” Unfortunately Nevada has suffered from this a lot. and it is really becoming a north vs south issue here. Vegas whether in climate , political etc, is completely different from carson city and most of the north. but since the population in vegas has exploded.. the north gets drowned out with these dimwits…
          the sad part in all of this is… Im a so cal transplant myself… and I hope I haven’t dragged any of California’s stench with me. but part of me knows I have.

        • I completely understand your disgust. Texas is also a good example of this. A fertile area condusive to growing companies that move there and bring their liberal minded staff with them. Of ALL the states it still blows my mind how often I get notifications of anti gun bills being passed every month in Texas. That being said not all Californians are left leaning socialists/communists. I was born and raised on a Navy base near the Mojave desert in California and I can safely say that our town was nearly 100% conservative/republican. Due to this upbringing I was completely aware that the direction California is going was not a future I wanted any part of. I got out as soon as I could afford to do so and have never looked back. I am an active member of the Patriot grassroots party fighting actively against terranical laws and clearly socialist agendas. Yes, California paints a bleak future for anybody that respects and loves our Constitution, but not all Californians are bad people. It’s a slippery slope. We need to be able to recognize friend from foe and we can’t afford to ostracize an entire group of people when there are true patriots among them.

        • Anti gun liberals should be required to post a GUN FREE ZONE sign on their front door.

    • So is it legal to have an organization raise money to defend people (including assisting their surviving families) of people who physically resist these unconstitutional red flag orders?

      If so (or even if not), I’m ready to donate.

    • If nothing in life is worth dying for, then when did this begin? Just In the face of this enemy? Or the last?

    • “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” …
      Benjamin Franklin

      • “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” …
        Benjamin Franklin”

        Go to the source on that one…Franklin’s comment was not related to government tyranny.

          • “But accurate, nonetheless.”

            Out of context somewhat dissipates the impact. There are other quotes more tightly binding then and now, like, “A republic, if you can keep it”. But I admit that statement requires people to know the difference between a republic and a democracy…which is becoming less and less relevant today.

    • And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .
      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

      • ” Donttreadonme commented on A Red Flag Order Is Not Worth Dying For.

        in response to D Y:

        So glad the Founding Fathers took this approach.


        Actually, the founders did take “this approach”, right up until they didn’t. The founders used “the system” that was available in an attempt to have their grievances mitigated (see DOI, re: “long train of abuses and usurpations”). L&C and the Revere ride were not about a few persons being relieved of firearms in a dispute with the authorities, but about force of arms being used to disarm the militias. A condition we are not experiencing by any stretch of fantasy.

        If Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Bundy did not ignite “the rising”, EPROs are not going to do the trick, either. What did I do about those episodes? I learned of the raid and burning at Waco shortly after I retired from military service. Went home and removed the American flag from the pole in the front yard, and never put one up again. Not much, but a definitive turning of the back on the system I defended by signing a blank check to the government that could be cashed for value up to, and including, my life in service to the nation.

        • The amount the founders put up with was tiny compared to what Americans put up with today. They were radical, fundamentalists and violent. Some of them were very well off, but they wanted more than money or social status. They were tired of being told what to do with their property and their life. They constantly tried to get the people to rally to start a revolution against the government, however, the timing wasn’t right for most people. Eventually taxing their rights, denying their property, government economic regulations and disarmament was enough (with the help of some patriotic propaganda) to bring out the guns and start shooting government agents regardless of the consequences.

          Today there isn’t rich social climbers who want the people to be free. There’s international aristocrats who belong to a club that is actively working on oppressing the entire world; they will not stop until they enslave all the inferiors. This time around the “elites” won’t rally the little people to fight off the oppressors and bring liberty to all men and women. They will create a massive government that spies and tracks everything you do — you will have to maintain a good social credit score to travel, to buy and sell, to own property, to have children, etc.

          The only thing that can save the good people is guns and knowledge. Acquire as much as you can and know when to use it. You will be given no choice for their mentality is comply or die.

          • “The amount the founders put up with was tiny compared to what Americans put up with today.”

            You got that right. (which has been my point all along)

    • Amen.

      So tired of these “It’s the Law!” articles.

      In other words, obey even tyrannical laws.

      The Bill of Rights is meaningless also.

    • Take their course for treating gun shot wounds. If you are ever on a two way range you or a relative could enter up wounded. As a plus, they have some additional coverage that is automatically added at no charge.

  1. Your rights are not worth dying for or fighting for. Pretty much the crux of the American spirit…

    • Deadly force is the last resort. You can fight for your rights a hundred other ways.

      Going to court is preferable to killing cops who had nothing to do with the order.

      People like you have been very good for the preservation of American liberties, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. =D

      Is that fair enough or not so much?

      • I dont struggle with this as much as I used to. What is the cop who enforces these laws? Following orders? Definitely not following the oath they swore to uphold. So under what authority are they acting? WHY are they choosing to put their lives in danger for clearly unconstitutional purposes?

        I dont think many of us here see these laws as being Constitutional. So where is the disconnect? Normally standing your ground against someone intent on taking your property or harming you, is seen as courageous and a duty.

        • Interesting take on it, but in my mind it’s not “normally.” They’re not trying to harm you unless you try to harm them, and what property they ARE taking you can get back in court (assuming you’re allowed to have it and the judge isn’t corrupt).

          At the end of the day, I just can’t bring myself to shoot someone in that situation. Everyone’s got to live with themselves, and for some people, that means doing what I consider pretty much murder to stay “free.”

        • OmnivorousBeorn and therein lies the problem. We (in both our countries) have too many legal types who are quite happy to see rights removed and are quite happy to try to tell juries how to decide on a matter. Here in Australia you have judges and lawyers telling juries that if they dont find guilty on the heavier charges they MUST find guilty on the lesser charge even if the jury feels that they are innocent and that the evidence does not stack up. We also have judges and lawyers that “select” juries based on how they think they will vote on the charges. They also tend to weed out any jurors who know anything about Jury Nullification which was put in place in common law to help prevent tyrannical laws. Yep tyranny is definitely the name of the game in both the political and legal systems. Neither system is your friend

        • @Toni thanks for input! That’s very interesting, but sounds like y’all may have an issue more fundamental than red flag orders: corrupt courts. And that’s a whole different ball game, and one in which noncompliance is significantly less unethical (in my eyes) than the situation we have in America.

          Best of luck down there!

        • Toni, I don’t know your country, and what I am about to say may not apply at all. Judges here in America also instruct juries that they “must” decide this or that, the other thing over there is off limits, particularly related to jury nullification, which is the jury deciding “not guilty” because they find the law unsupported and unsupportable, even though the defendant clearly did what he is accused of. However, when the jury realizes that the judge is not a god, and does exactly that (finds the defendant not guilty), that defendant cannot be retried and there is now a precedent which future defense attorneys can quote in court, the law is seriously compromised.

      • Thanks for the common sense. Red flag laws are blatantly unconstitutional and should be resisted, but they should be resisted through the courts and the political process, not by visiting violence upon some cop who had nothing to do with issuing the order and probably is working from just one side of the story. Some of the comments in these articles really are quite deranged – as if we fast forwarded from “important political disagreement” to “Nazi Germany” without visiting any of the stops in between. It took a LOT for the founding fathers to get to revolution, and none of them embraced it with the bloodthirsty eagerness that is on display here. If you want lasting liberty and freedom, widely embraced by all, you need to win people to your side, not convince them that you are murderous and insane…

        • I dont think “bloodthirsty” helps a civil discussion. I know it doesnt apply to myself…how about “supremely frustrated”, or “disgusted”?

          What is the difference between red flag and a home invader? One got a quasi-legal rationale to take someone elses property without due process?

          That is where my frustration comes from. It takes nothing but an allegation to have your home violated, property taken, left defenseless, and then incur thousands in legal fees, not to mention time, stigma, etc., when the person who swatted you gets nothing. This happens all the time with things like DV and child abuse. All it takes is an allegation, and the one who makes is not held liable when it is determined to be unfounded.

          I find it increasingly beneficial to look at the Founding Fathers words and deeds when it comes to this stuff. If it doesnt pass that muster, then it should be resisted however possible. Watching these laws get passed (along with all the others) in states that were formerly free, does not indicate to me that the fight will likely be favorable to the Constitution in the courts. Especially since so many judges have consistently shown that they have zero interest in using the Constitution as their guide.

          I dont look at this as a single issue either, and hopefully most others do not. I haven’t been around long enough to co pare it personally to the red scare, but the people we are “fighting” do not believe in the Constitition, and this certainly seems far more mainstream than ever in my past. However we fight them, it must be done, if we want to try and preserve this Country. Red flag laws are just one aspect of the state depriving you of your rights, but it’s one aspect of the statist’s push.

          I do not feel all is lost, but simply because they havent managed to implement all that they strive to. And the only reason for that is people fighting back. Thus far predominantly politically, but the balance of power in many places has shifted, and is not going to change any time soon.

        • What is the difference between red flag and a home invader? One got a quasi-legal rationale to take someone elses property without due process?

          An armed robber is somebody who has decided in advance that he’s going to take your stuff, or kill you and take your stuff if you don’t just give him your stuff when he shoves a gun in your face.

          A LEO who comes to your house with a seizure order is somebody who has decided in advance that he’s going to take your stuff, or kill you and take your stuff if you don’t just give him your stuff when he shoves a gun in your face.

          How you deal with such is up to you.

        • It’s almost like many people have never bothered to read the documents they claim to love. In this case The Declaration of Independence.

        • Very well said about winning people to your side. I am not a judge, so I cannot judge unconstitutionality but I know how I want to influence my friends and neighbors to vote. Reasoned arguments will influence many people to be pro-gun, but one violent idiot gun owner on the news will make millions anti-gun.

        • @D Y that makes a lot of sense. I agree with most of what you said. But I’d just add one thing: you can take it to the courts. And I think you can theoretically take the principle of violating people’s Constitutional liberties on allegations to SCOTUS and settle it once and for all. Either way, it’s far more ethical and effective than shooting come cop so that they can send more cops to kill you.

          @FedUp Good That’s mostly false, the truth being that “How you deal with it is up to you.” A cop has no interest in harming you if you comply. A robber very well might. Also, by your logic, I don’t see why you wouldn’t justify violent felons with illegal weapons or narcotics resisting the confiscation of their stuff. Maybe I’m missing something.

        • OB, that is easy to say, but considerably more than 99% of Americans do not have the millions of dollars required to follow that course of action. It is far more accessible to buy a rifle and tell them to come and take it.

      • Nothing to do with the order? They are enforcing an unconstitutional order. They are “just following orders”. They are the same people that would march every one of us into a gas chamber if it was an “order”.

        • Part of me sees where you’re coming from, and part of me is tired of everyone thinking they’re in the Holocaust. You’re not. You have (in varying degrees in varying states) the courts, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights. You also have a slew of Court-verified rights (McDonald v. Chicago for example).

          Please stop thinking you’re in Hitler Germany and being so dramatic. It’s very possible you will be someday, but you are FAR from it right now. Until then, I believe in using our entire tool box with discretion. Does that makes sense?

        • and Hitler’s goons who tried to use “I vas just following orders” Found out in the Haig that it does NOT cover you for committing war crimes. There will, very sadly, have to be some incidents, until Judges start to ENFORCE the Constitution as the PRIMARY law of the land and charge Police officers with EXCEEDING their orders by killing taxpayers in order to “protect them”. That means that some cops, and I’m thinking they were borderline to begin with, will end up tried and convicted. My local PD and Sherriff’s Dept. all say they will refuse to confiscate UNLESS a CRIME has been committed. Only time will tell that tale. Interesting times.

        • Nope; it makes ZERO sense. If folks had resisted mightily AT FIRST then there would have NEVER BEEN a Nazi government. It is too late to resist when all the tools have been taken from your tool box. Wake up.

      • Had nothing to do with the order?
        They volunteered to enforce unconstitutional statutes and deserve to die.

        • This is exactly the kind of comment I was referring to. If you believe some 25 year old who thought being a cop might be a good job deserves to die JUST for being a 25 year old who thought being a cop might be a good job… well you really ought to re-examine your understanding of our system and how it works (not to mention your own value system). Things here in the good old USA aren’t perfect, but jeepers… You must realize that our constitution includes lots of avenues for recourse when someone or some entity violates our rights, right? It’s actually designed that way on purpose. Comments that call for straight-up murder are one of the reasons that a lot of uninformed people think red flag laws are A-OK.

        • “They volunteered to enforce unconstitutional statutes and deserve to die.”

          Unfortunately, you are the embodiment of the reason for red flag laws.

        • Then those 25 year olds are young, naive, and stupid, easily molded to follow any and all orders without question to the death. In which case, it is their superiors who are endangering them by needlessly risking their lives as well as citizens’ lives for political points. Won’t somebody think of the young adults?

  2. If the judge adjudicates the complaint as unfounded, your rights are restored and you’ll soon get your guns back.

    Would this be the same judge who issued the unfounded order in the first place, or one of his best friends?

    How about this one, a case in which nobody ever accused the red flag victim of being a threat at all, and when he appealed, they still wouldn’t let him take possession of his own personal possessions?

    You see, there is no way to build due process protections into these laws, because judges don’t have to obey these laws.

  3. What did the Founding Fathers have that we lack? An organized, existing governmental unit willing to rebel(The Continental Congress).
    In the United States, the threshold of “light and transient causes” was crossed decades ago, and it’s only going to get worse. We in 2019 are as justified in armed revolution as they were in the 18th century.
    Revolution is justified. People are willing to fight and die for it. Only a small minority are willing to fight for freedom, but this was the case in 1776 as well.
    So why aren’t we fighting? People are not willing to throw their lives away if they know that their efforts will be in vain. We need real organization, not just a bunch of scattered neighborhood militias throughout the country(as good as those are).
    How do we get a real, organized group willing to fight, like the Continental Congress? I don’t know. But we need it.

    • Great post. I cannot disagree.

      TTAG should quote your comment and make an article around it… NOW. Although, that would mean talking about the real issue and a real solution instead of shilling for insurance.

    • Red flag orders are just a variation on domestic violence claims…. rotten to the core with abuse. Lots of men are accused with nothing more than some crazy womans word for it. In most places there is never any punishment for false claims.

      Advise to men: never date crazy because it will bite you in the ass.

    • Just don’t try to organize it online. As “leaky” as the internet IS you’ll be arrested long before you’re anywhere close to organized. One reason the Continental Congress could do what they did was because news travelled slowly and King George was a control freak such that there was very little “innovation” or “independent thought” within the ranks, even the officers, most of whom bought their commissions “for the glory” it afforded them once they “retired”. In todays America we are ruled by rabble, junkyard dogs fill the Congress, only a FEW are actual State’sMen of any talent. The rest are busy pandering to whatever power block might win them the next election so they can keep their muzzles in the Federal Trough and remain in control. There will certainly be interesting times ahead. Be ready for anything. States succeeding from the Union could very well become a catalyst for a return to what America was at it’s inception. But only time will tell that tale…

      • No! No! No!
        This would be the second (yes, the second) convention of the states. The first one was chartered with the limited goal of amending the Articles of Confederation. That one turned out okay, since it gave us our current Constitution. Do you want to bet on having someone of the caliber of James Madison to write the new Constitution? I certainly wouldn’t want to chance it! Just look at the people the so called blue states (aka slave states) send to the Senate; you want to trust your freedom to that???

        By the way even if you had an angel with a flaming sword force them to deliver the amendments you want, who is going to stop the Congress from violating the new amendments, just like they have the Bill of Rights. The only fix for the current mess is for us, as in you and I, to harangue our representatives and badger them back across the line they have crossed. It is either that or a real civil war, one that will be far worse than the first and could result in partitioning the US into three or four countries.

        • “The first one was chartered with the limited goal of amending the Articles of Confederation.”

          That “constitution” did not mandate the proposed amendments be first sent to Congress, where proposed amendments can be held until Congress can ensure the outcome it wants (dictating how the ratification process by the states will be conducted). With Congress in the middle of COS proposed amendments, the danger of scrapping the current Constitution is pretty much a nothing.

        • “That “constitution” did not mandate the proposed amendments be first sent to Congress, where proposed amendments can be held until Congress can ensure the outcome it wants (dictating how the ratification process by the states will be conducted). With Congress in the middle of COS proposed amendments, the danger of scrapping the current Constitution is pretty much a nothing.”

          You missed the point of the comment you replied to.
          The system you are writing about is one of the ways the constitution can be amended; the second is the way Rusty Chains was writing about: a constitutional convention. In such a convention, there is nothing to say the original reason for calling the convention is the only thing that can be discussed. Just because someone calls for such a convention for the express reason of (as an example) doing away with the second amendment doesn’t in any way mean they won’t just replace the current wording with “No person not in the military or in law enforcement shall have the right to own or possess any firearm.” And, while they are at it, also do away with the rest of the Bill of Rights, and the fourteenth amendment along with it, and anything else they can get passed. Then there’s nothing to say they can’t add to or change anything else currently in the constitution.
          If you think it’s a bad thing where any law being considered in a legislature can have amendments added that have absolutely nothing to do with the original law (and I certainly do), then you get the drift of a constitutional convention.
          [edited because I can’t spell good.]

          • “…a constitution convention…” is a Convention of the States; interchangeable terms. The current constitution states: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

            There is nothing regarding a “constitutional convention”. The original “constitutional convention” was quite a small affair, appertaining to only 13 States. The members of the convention were the movers and shakers of the States assembled, not Tom, Dick and Harry from the hinterlands. Thus it was that the heavy hitters could scrap the Articles of Confederation. Of note, only nine States originally ratified the new constitution, making it “the law of the land”.

            A COS of 33/34 states have no means of imposing a new constitution on the nation. A new constitution, if mystically ratified would have to be overlaid onto the current assembly of states, in all their erratic, complicated and irrational politics. Imposing a new constitution on 13 States was facilitated by the fact there were very few federal laws governing the internal affairs of the States. Nor were there any Supreme Court cases fabricating law out of thin air. The situation is so radically different, it is unlikely the current states would support such an imposition.

            As to a “runaway convention”, the people calling for a COS are not left-wingers, who would embody the idea of cancelling the BOR. The leftists own the urban centers, but not the majority of states, yet. There is infinitesimal chance the leftists could capture the convention, AND have sufficient states to actually ratify a set of radical proposed amendments. Agreed that if radicals could overturn the current political framework, they would have fewer problems with integrating current laws. If the leftists actually though they could prevail, they would be calling for a COS.

            To date, there is no stomach in the land for replacing the current constitution. For an originalist-minded COS to have success, they would follow Article 5 rules, and the current Congress has at least three means to thwart proposed amendments. Any ratified amendments from a COS would drop right into the current legal environment, being subjected to the same twisting the current constitution has endured. For instance, a Balanced Budget (no borrowing) amendment would of necessity require a provision for unforeseeable events, and “unforeseeable” (or “emergency”) would be defined by the current legislature and courts.

            To have any real, lasting effect, the results of a COS would require changing the culture to overwhelmingly demand tightly limited government, a task at which “conservatives” have been mightily successful, no?

            Observe…the fiction of a “runaway convention” is the work of the left, people who do not want any chance of return to the ideas of the Founders.

      • “Join and support the Convention of States movement !”

        Was fortunate enough to be in contact with a national spokeser for the COS movement. Asked how they imagined their amendments would fare once the current judiciary got hold of them? Asked how fast they thought Congress would act on their proposed amendments (send the proposed amendments officially to the states – constitution does not permit COS to send proposals directly to the states)? The spokeser said, “Almost immediately.” Asked why anyone thought that, since the constitution they seek to amend says nothing about the timeliness of action. That pretty much ended the conversation.

        The COS is a great exercise of the constitution, but will be no more successful at controlling government than the current constitution and amendments.

    • A major problem is the NRA. They have taken the soul away from those with the ability to fight. They have pacified them…

      The NRA and the Republicans have removed all the American spirit from the men and replaced it with another form of leftism: Love the government, love the military, love the police, fly the U.S. flag over your state flag.

      Until we can stand, assemble, educate and get active, we will continue to collapse through compromise. America is barely holding on to their guns. Once the guns are gone…

    • The most realistic scenario I think would be for a state or core of states to declare a return to rule of Constitutional law. No guarantee that would work, of course, and I can’t see that happening under current conditions. If Americans win against leftists in the political arena, and the return to rule of law happens that way, I would expect some collectivist authoritarian states might decide to split off. If so, I hope the USA just lets them go.

      Regardless, it feels like leftists have reached critical mass in terms of numbers, and have lost patience with the slow march through the institutions. I don’t know what they will do, but if they are defeated politically I doubt they’ll back down quietly. If they win politically, I can’t see them just leaving Americans alone.

      • “I don’t know what they will do, but if they are defeated politically I doubt they’ll back down quietly.”

        You are seeing today, that prophecy fulfilled.

        • “You are seeing today, that prophecy fulfilled.”

          Yes, I guess it’s not much of a prediction if we can see some of it playing out right now.

  4. “This is the highest wisdom that I own; freedom and life are earned by those alone who conquer them each day anew.” -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

  5. The left knows some idiot gun owner will do just that and they’ll get the rest of what they want because they can wave a bloody badge or 2 and say see I told ya they’re all nuts.

    • Maybe, but if they get what they want, they will have opened Pandoras Box and out will pop the first real civil war America has ever experienced. It will be ugly, but it will clear out the Leftists, those that survive will self deport to places that are already a socialist paradise.

      • Only if they are very quick. They will be hunted, possibly in other countries as well. They may end up deported in steamer trunks, in pieces.

  6. Now, now, be a good (supply own choice), and get on up in the boxcar, we’ll see that we get you and your whole family a nice hot shower when we get to the camp…I made my mind up a long time before most of you were born…come the Rising…-30-

    • Michael,

      And how did the Jews get to that point of cooperating and climbing into boxcars in Nazi Germany? Answer: incrementalism and giving the German government the benefit of the doubt.

      If Nazi Germany had announced at the outset that government was going to round up and execute all Jews, most Jews would have resisted (hopefully) and probably many German citizens would have resisted as well (hopefully). Instead, it started incrementally with the German government announcing that Jews were not entirely trustworthy which required somewhat minor-ish limitations on Jews’ rights. But no one pushed back because those infringements on their rights were somewhat minor and they figured the good graces of government would come through soon enough. Then the infringements became more serious and still no one pushed back because the whole thing had to be some sort of misunderstanding. And so it went until the German government was piling people into boxcars and sending them to death camps. And even at that point, the German government still did not publicly declare what they were doing.

      The problem here is not the arguably minor/temporary infringement or our right to keep and bear arms. The problem is a government ATTITUDE that said government can toss out the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, along with our presumption of innocence. And that includes enforcers (police) who are “just following orders”. Such activity requires significant push-back.

  7. Reverse the question. Is there anything worth dying for ? I have always suspected most 2A gunowners are full of BS when they say the amendment is the bulwark between freedom and tyrany. This age doesn’t have the 3% as did the founding fathers age. They KILLED Brits over much less than Red Flag orders. So as the author says, bend over folks. Although he tosses in his own bravado about poking holes in folks he also is full of BS.

    When, not if, the Radical communists take control of the Federal Govt they WILL confiscate all the guns just like NZ. And there wont be any resistance.

    • I suspect you are correct. I just keep reminding myself of the two things that will be inevitable once the commies take control: All of the insufferable true believers who are currently helping the commies gain power will be murdered by those same commies, and that the founding of their socialist Utopia will be fairly quickly followed by the collapse of their socialist Utopia. In the long term the commies cannot win.

      • That’s low level. We have surpassed that level. We are onto another much more awful plan that is religious based. This plan will repeat itself until it becomes successful. Trump won’t save you from it because he is part of it — Hillary was never meant to win.

        You worry about high school level troubles. The silly Antifa generation has no power if not given it by those in control. If those little safe space kids took over we would win, they are not the real threat.

    • “They KILLED Brits over much less than Red Flag orders”

      Uh, no. Maybe you should go back and read the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that The Founders listed and if you have any questions, perhaps crack open a history book.

      Your state legislature hasn’t been prevented from passing necessary and wholesome laws by Royal Decree or been dissolved to prevent it from reaching a decision. Congress hasn’t been called to meet in odd places.

      There is no standing army guarding the streets and trampling your rights without any public oversight. They’re not being exonerated in show trials and regular people aren’t being condemned in the same.

      You’re not being taxed without representation.

      And on and on and on.

      If you’re making a list then you can add ERPO’s to it but we’re nowhere near where the Founders were. Yet.

        • You’ve just got your panties in a wad because not everyone agrees with you.

          Besides all the “Shoot it out! Revolution 2.0!” people here are a bunch of cowards letting their ego write checks their pansy ass won’t cash. They won’t even put up a soapbox and advocate shooting cops in public and sure as shit they won’t go Lexington and Concorde on cops who’ve already killed an innocent guy enforcing these laws.

          They’re like drunks running their mouth in a bar to try to look hard. If they were serious they’d have already thrown a punch. They haven’t done so because they are too scared to put their money where their mouth is. They want attention and to look badass specifically because they know that they are not.

          This is just egotistical preening and virtue signaling. Middle school bullshit at best. Men act. Cowards run their mouth with this “I’m super hard” shit. These people are POTG’s version of the “I’ll kick your ass!” idiots on other political boards. When the metal meets the meat they’re the last group of morons you want around you.

      • Laughable nonsense from a keyboard historian. Take the uprising at Lexington and Concord. Farmers coming together as an unorganized group to repel a detested group about to seize a community store of arms. Willing to KILL Brits over it. The Declaration was a formal COLLECTIVE statement across 13 colonies.

        Go back to school little boy and re-read See Spot Run.

        • And an ERPO is the same exactly how?

          Oh, it’s not. Because you’re not going to get dragged into a Kangaroo Court over it, denied a lawyer, called a traitor and hanged. Well, most likely you’re not if you’re outside Cali. You have a bunch of still respected rights. The Colonists didn’t. That’s the point. L&C was the last straw because there was no other option hence the noting of a ” long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”.

          You don’t have that list and don’t play like you do. You might have the start of it but you’re not even a tenth of the way to such a list.

          There is no comparison between Lexington and Concord and an ERPO. Those people didn’t mass on a field and fire on the British Army because someone made an unsubstaniated allegation against John and they were coming for John’s powder, ball and arms.

          The whole point of that battle was that it was the final straw in the Crown’s attempt to subjugate an entire set of colonies after having removed ALL other options via massive abuse of government power on a large scale.

          You still have other options. Lots of them. The King doesn’t control the courts or the judges and even if you lose you get appeal after appeal after appeal. So many that sometimes it takes decades for us to actually execute people who get the death penalty. To the point it frustrates those “law and order types” that these convicts have “too many rights”. That’s not a tyranny problem.

          If that doesn’t work you have elected representatives you can appeal to for “redress of grievances”. You’re still free to convince enough people and change the law too. You can speak in public against these laws all you want and no one is going to hang you for it. Failing all of that you can go back to court again and sue.

          None of that was an option to the Colonists, which is why L&C happened, because it was either complete and abject surrender due to a lack of alternatives that had been systematically denied to them or fight.

          This comparison is fucking horseshit. Don’t try to defend it with name calling and other tomfuckery. That just makes you look like a moron and an asshole.

      • “There is no standing army guarding the streets and trampling your rights without any public oversight. They’re not being exonerated in show trials and regular people aren’t being condemned in the same.

        You’re not being taxed without representation.“

        Well… these days there’s no need for a standing army to guard the streets, because an army of cameras and other survellience methods are simply being used in their place. The modern nanny/police/spy state is by far, by far, more effective on its worst day then the 1770s British Army in its best day. The capabilities are godlike in comparison. Hell the modern spy state is far more effective then an occupying army of WW2 status would have.

        I would also argue there’s no need for “show trials” for these people because they now simply get away with it Scott free.

        I would further argue, that there is indeed taxation without representation because the big liberal cities legislate laws in a similar manner as an absolutist crown.

        I will also add, your angry and disparaging comments towards those willing to fight are showing your true colors. Sure, internet tough guys are a dime a dozen. Yes, they can get quite annoying.

        But you’re wrong if you believe none of them, and no one is willing to fight. Humans, and Americans have ways of surprising you. One could easily paint many of the founders as simple blustering loudmouths with no bark to their bite… and I’m sure many in the British parliament did.

        • “I will also add, your angry and disparaging comments towards those willing to fight are showing your true colors.”

          Willing to fight who? Where? When? How? I watch a lot of television. Not seeing any incidents of POTG duking out with “jack booted thugs” over “rights”. Admittedly, I cannot watch 137 channels of cable TV, but if you have a link to an incident, or incidents where legal gun owners are taking their grievances and firearms to the street in armed battles with government agents, I would watch that channel non-stop.

        • OK, so this will be a bit long.

          “Well… these days there’s no need for a standing army to guard the streets, because an army of cameras and other survellience methods are simply being used in their place.”

          There is a completely legitimate debate about the surveillance state, something I personally am against. However, the fact that we can even have that conversation tells you we’re not to the “cartridge box” yet in regards to this topic. No one is going to haul you away on “treason” charges over your open complaints about cameras or “shotspotter” or the NSA.

          So yeah, they’re a problem, but they’re not on the level of the Crown in the Colonies. They’re also one our society grapples with to some regard. Perhaps not the way you or I would like, but again we do to some level. The King isn’t threatening us with death just for disagreeing so… not as big of an issue. That doesn’t mean that it’s not an issue but it’s not in the same league.

          “I would also argue there’s no need for “show trials” for these people because they now simply get away with it Scott free.”

          Police immunity is indeed an issue too. However, as a society we’re willing to a let a city burn to the ground because people disagree about this. That’s not tyranny. How far do you think pulling a “Ferguson” in the USSR would have gone? Shit, they’d have shot people just for talking about Mike Brown and rolled tanks on that little uprising if it happened.

          “…that there is indeed taxation without representation because the big liberal cities legislate laws in a similar manner as an absolutist crown.”

          Two things here. First of all, cities vs rural is an issue and I don’t think we deal with it as well as we could.

          However, you do have representation. It might not be as effective as you would like and your representatives may be outnumbered by those of the more urban interests. That happens. It’s called a Republic. Just because you lose a vote doesn’t mean you didn’t get to vote. Just because not enough people listen to you doesn’t mean you didn’t get to speak. Your opinion may not carry the day but that’s not a justification for shooting people.

          This idea that the cities are acting like the crown is similar to the Leftist idea of “equality of outcome”. It’s not about how much money you make being “fair”, it’s about having the same legal opportunities to make money as everyone else has. Life’s not fair and, in pure politics terms, your opinion only matters if enough other people share it. Deal with it and work to change the minds of others. Don’t make a bunch of bullshit comparisons to history and claim their valid because “muh feelz” as others here have done.

          Again, none of this is to say that ERPOs or these other issues are not issues. They are and some of them are quite serious. However, we still have other options than reaching for the guns. Now, should those options be taken away, I would start to feel differently, but they’re not being taken away at this point. In fact there are YouTube channels and TV shows about how to “beat the system” in a lot of these regards, so to steal from rappers “dat free speech”.

          “I will also add, your angry and disparaging comments towards those willing to fight are showing your true colors.”

          Aww. Feelz much? Maybe someone can come along and call me a “fudd” or a “coward” because they lack an argument. It’s happened repeatedly before. I’m an asshole, I’ve said that from day one.

          Let me just say this flat out. I don’t write for this website any more. I give exactly zero fucks what anyone on this website thinks or feels. Zero. I don’t consider myself to work here, as such, I don’t feel a need to maintain any level of professionalism towards the rampant stupidity in the comment sections which has gotten markedly worse in the last few years.

          I’ve also lost my patience with the incredible amount of stupidity that gets posted here very simply because I know that the other side watches what gets posted here and saves it the same way we watch what gets posted on The Trace or in the NYT. They do that very specifically so that they can make us look bad with messaging. I also know that politically speaking part of the reason we lose is because we suck at selling our position, a sale that gets harder to make the more we play into the hands of the antigunners. This is an echo chamber and we’d do well to remember that what plays well here or over on CalGuns or doesn’t actually play well when we have to discuss things with other people who don’t agree with us or are leery of us because of the picture painted for them by the grabbers.

          If you can’t deal with me questioning your tactics, not your goal but your tactics, with a bit of harsh language then your rights are already gone and the statists are going to eat you alive.

          This conversation (not this one with you, but the general comments here about Boch’s article) is, to steal from serge, “pants on head retarded”. It’s a bunch of limpdick virtue signalling from a bunch of fucking retards who think “mall ninja” or “fudd” are insults that destroy the soul of anyone they disagree with about some minor technicality. These people are not useful in the fight for civil rights. In fact they are worse than the antis. Yes, WORSE. They’re like that steroid abusing asshole at the gym; nothing but fucking trouble.

          I never said no one would fight. I said the people who run their mouths won’t and that’s a bet you can take to the bank because 99.99% of the people who say shit like this just want the TTAG version of “likes”.

          I’m also saying that such talk serves no purpose other than to make us all look like a bunch of frothing at the mouth lunatics who probably shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, never mind a bunch of them. This “but muh rights! it’s a right not a need!” line is just that, a line. Your “rights” don’t mean fuck all when the other guy has a gun and says you ain’t got no rights. That’s the road we’re headed for and sloganeering and virtue signaling are only going to get us there faster because the very people we need to convince that we’re reasonable aren’t going to see it that way when 200 comments appear on this story about the benefits of shooting police.

          King and Parks are the big dogs of the Civil Rights movement and they didn’t get desegregation and voting rights and shit by violence. King didn’t shoot a bunch of cops and Parks didn’t blow up buses. They went to court both legally and politically and they won. They didn’t tear the system down with a bullshit and unnecessary revolution that killed millions. They changed the system. You can see the same thing working for the LGBTQGHEJK#*3 crowd.

          If I wanted to make a bunch of TTAG friends and get “likes” or “upvotes” I’d be agreeing with all this counterproductive shit and completely losing my gun rights down the road because I acted like a fucking moron and played right into the hands of the antis and statists.

          Personally, I care more about the 2A and undercutting statism than I do about the feelz of idiots who managed to Google this website. I see stupid and I call it out. Screaming “I’M GONNA SHOOT SOME COPS!” is some wannabe Tupac shit, it’s stupid and it’s counter-fucking-productive in terms of rolling back the infringements those same assholes complain about. It only invites MORE laws like this. I mean Christ, my entire region shut down because some stupid lady from Florida came here and said some strange shit before she offed herself, how well do you really think gun owners talking about “fighting back” by massing on some cops is going to go over?

          If the cops show up at your house with an ERPO take them to fucking court and win or just shoot yourself. The first option helps “the cause”. The second minimizes the damage your dumbass does. The more reasonable we appear the less reason they have to come after us. The more unreasonable we appear the more the people in the “squishy center” are going to agree with the statists: that we’re dangerous nutbars who can’t be trusted with guns and that WE are the problem.

          I mean fuck man, look at this comment section. Back a few weeks ago I make a suggestion that maybe John should consider his marketing image a bit better, along with some off-color jokes, and I get flamed for it pretty fucking hard because John’s done a ton of good work and what the fuck have I done? Fair enough. But now, John gives us some “let’s not all get ourselves murdered and plastered all over CNN as having deserved it because that’s not good for you or for the 2A cause” and HE gets roasted by many of the very same people who got mad at me for “fat shaming” his previous post. Is this some kind of joke or did I miss the memo where bizzaro world became reality?

          Christ, this site is turning into the Microsoft Support Center more and more every goddamn day.

          • “Christ, this site is turning into the Microsoft Support Center more and more every goddamn day.”

            Nicely done; thank you.

            (Was gonna give you “+1000”, but knowing how you feel about “likes”…)

        • Well the other options are not quite as viable or effective as you make them out to be. While the courts are not controlled by a king,they are controlled by political parties who at timesard not much better than kings. The courts and judges are very likely to be biased against you no matter what, and if you get a anti leaning judge, game over. Another issue is that it can take years in court to get your rights restored and your guns back, don’t expect if will be just a couple of weeks, it may be half a decade! Not to mention that even a half competent lawyer will bd a fortune that will drain your resources not to mention the lost time and opportunity costs attending court for long periods. Even if you do win in court, police departments have refused to follow court orders and nog return gunsto their owners. One guy in CA got to court ordrers for the police to return his guns, they still destroyed them anyway, so the guy won in court but still lost in the real world.

          Police departments only hold onto confiscated items for so long before they are destoryed, and court cases can easily last longer than this. Furthermore, don’t expect the cops to take good care of your property. If they do return your firearms, they can be in ruined condition, like with Katrina. Sueing the cops? That is rich, cops generally have many legal and civil, such as the SWAT officer who tossed a flash bang into a crib and burned a baby’s face off, and wasn’t disciplined. Or thd cop who rear end another car, and arrested thd driver despite the officer being at fault.

          The big issue here is that these redflag laws are designed to be a zugzwang move. Say you give up your guns, take these other options and each one fails, you are stuck with zero meaningful options. Even in court, you are playing their game by their rules snd are handicapped. While they don’t play by the rules and will cheat against you and most likely will win in court too. Even if you do somehow win in court and get your guns back in working condition (which is a long shot), you still have lost by expending resources and time to crawl on your knees to beg for forgivness for just being a gun owner.

          • “Even if you do somehow win in court and get your guns back in working condition (which is a long shot), you still have lost by expending resources and time to crawl on your knees to beg for forgivness for just being a gun owner.”

            Is it any law we don’t like, or just laws affecting guns, that justifies refusing “the system”, and just shooting law enforcement? How about government enforced “hate speech” laws (we all know they are coming)? How about laws that (these exist) where you can be jailed for not using the preferred pronoun for a human?

            So many here advocating shooting cops over a political issue, so many people shouting for “the rising”, yet no incidents where cops are being shot for enforcing EPROs. The system is not your friend, but neither is dying needlessly for a revolution that isn’t coming.

            • I don’t see a revolution either which only leaves slavery.once the guns are gone genocide will take place.if you don’t believe your own government will hesitate to murder you well your just being silly

              • “if you don’t believe your own government will hesitate to murder you well your just being silly.”

                Wouldn’t draw that conclusion from anything I write (except sarcastic ridicule of gun grabbers). But the question remains.

  8. I think you guys are taking the wrong position here. This is the same incrementalism concept that got us here in the first place, slow heating water frog etc.

    With your logic we won’t ever resist any constitutional violations, because the changes will always be too small to justify force.

    • Exactly. They will slow ban everything down to single shot and 22s then they know that we don’t have the ability to fight back and confiscation is obtainable. That’s the goal and that’s what there are bringing. Everyone has their own situation, some can fight, some cannot. But if the time comes when my kids are grown and my actions will only affect me I don’t think I take it lying down.

    • The ONLY way to maintain your rights is to incrementally compromise them so we can all live forever without violence.
      In all seriousness, these people that try to synthesize consensus, appealing to their normalcy bias, “dont rock the boat guys”, just like the colonists that called the founders trouble makers. No accurate perspective of how far this whole thing’s come and where it’s going. This isn’t a temporary transient issue, this is the leading edge of what will become absolute despotism the likes of which have never been seen. Whats going on now in the world is the beginning of an acceleration, if you think it will simply pass-by if you just keep your head down, youre going to be disappointed. This is a one way trip. The entire world is nearing to a catharsis. Soon we will have to make a choice, fall in submission to world government, or fight it. There is no in-between. And if you are unaware, Trump is a big part of it, Hillary was never intended to win, sorry to break that bad news but it’s the way it is. Humanity is going to walk itself into a global caste system or it is going to reject it. (I’ll leave out “who” that world-government is so I dont get censored by TAG).

      All people should be able to recognize the direction this train is headed by now, whether you’re religious or not. If societies around the world decide to fight it, which some certainly will, it will result in the largest losses of life in history, there’s no way around it.

      And so what?! The measurement of liberty isnt whether youre breathing or in the ground, it’s what you do with the minutia of time you have been given by providence. A world under heal of world government is a world unworthy of the title of “humanity”. We’re not animals, we aren’t willing to be ruled by others. Thise that do rightfully earn their title of slave. I believe in all the things embodied by the Constitution, but the constitution isnt a coupon, it’s a blueprint. We’ve tried to use the Constitution as a coupon, holding it up and saying “look see! I get two-for-one free speech and 50% off the second amendment! It says right here!” The despots have placated to that so far, and will continue to placate until theyre pretty sure they dont need to anymore, and theyre very close to that now.

      Where we are now as a nation is in direct opposition to what we set out to be and an affront to nature and decency. How anyone could be satisfied with the status quo is beyond me, i suppose it’s in the nature of man to avoid conflict by submitting to tyranny. Personally, I’ve been making as many kids as possible, teaching and preparing them for the future by showing them reality, and defending them from the subversion of the socialized public, until they decide what they want to do with their lives. This fight is only beginning but will go on for generations.

      No kings.

    • Aragorn: Not for ourselves. But we can give Frodo his chance if we keep Sauron’s Eye fixed upon us. Keep him blind to all else that moves. Gimli: Certainty of death… …small chance of success… …what are we waiting for?

  9. If those advocating dying for your rights are serious, there are probably better ways to make a statement on your way off this mortal coil

  10. I wonder how a gun trust plays in as well as nfa regulated stuff, in theory the trust actually owns it and likely already has a provision on if a trustee is no longer able to possess the weapons. That probably wouldn’t stop them from confiscating them. But that is the problem with these “arrest the guns for the possible forthcoming crimes of the person” laws, you don’t really get a say in the matter until after the fact.

  11. Maybe I’d feel better about the “have your day in court” approach if it wasn’t wholly apparent that a good number of people involved with the legislative process are biased against rights in general.

    Then again the anti’s want us all dead so why do the job for them? Conundrum.

  12. Hmmm…is this similar to wearing a fanny pack with separate compartments for gun & magazine Boch?!? Was THAT worth dying for? Just to make a point?The po-leece(Gestapo,Stasi,ILLinois State Po-leece) ain’t yer friends. I have no advice. I’ve lived a good life. Break my door down at your peril…

  13. I’m guessing that 90% or more of the Keyboard Kommandoes here will comply. Some with more resistance (read harsh language) than others. I don’t think stupidity will overrule common sense but you never know. Of course this pertains to the guns that have been bought at retail outlets w/a NICS check and a paper trail. There are many guns however that have been “received” in other ways. In this country at least, one can always get or hide a gun without a paper trail. Pray that TTAG readers have the brains to see through the issue and plan accordingly.

  14. The best way for me to not die for my rights is to let the other guy die trying to strip them away. A 2nd civil war is not coming. A real war is here. In war you either; fight and die, fight and kill or die, watching your family die along side you, wishing to hell, that you’d done one or the other…come the Rising…

    • “The best way for me to not die for my rights is to let the other guy die trying to strip them away.”

      The man you are paraphrasing had over 10 million soldiers backing him up. Discounting those who are simply venting, how many people do you think would really resist the police in such a manner as people are discussing here?

      • Nobody that I know of, yet. And that’s with Florida claiming to have robbed around 1000 homes to date.

        One man in Maryland put his foot down and said no.
        So they murdered him, proving that they were more willing to kill him than he was to kill them.

        There are basically two options available to the victim here, cooperation and homicide. Anything in between is just stupid or insane. Refer back to Gary Willis in Maryland if you’re unsure how that will work out.
        And after the first couple of times the victim chooses homicide, the police will stop sending two friendly folks with holstered sidearms and start sending in the death squads to break the doors down in the middle of the night.

      • Every redflag murder brings 100 or more Patriots to our side. On der Tag, all we need to have is one more than they can muster. Asymmetrical warfare favors what they fear most, the leaderless resistance. There is nothing to infiltrate. There is no one for their agents to provoke. There are no defectors to torture. There is nothing for them to attack. There is nothing for them to capture. Over the years, I’ve seen most of what they’ve got, and while it could be very effective if everything went according to the plans in their “top secret”, loose leaf notebooks. Unfortunately, for them, once the shooting starts, things never go exactly as planned. I remain unimpressed. They have to win every single time. We only have to win once. come the Rising…

        • I think you vastly overestimate the number of gun owners who would fight the authorities under these circumstances.

          And BTW…”The Rising”?

  15. I really dont get this guy. Seems to disparage many who claim they will use deadly force to resist and then rolls right into nutty UN conspiracy stuff. If that part was satirical, then you are a pretty good writer because I can’t tell.

    Bottom line, if you go belly up to the fuzz when they show up at your door to enforce an unconstitutional action, then why the fuck did you buy any guns in the first place?

    I think I might be done with reading Mr. Boch’s editorials for good.

  16. Hopefully this red flag fiasco will convince many gun owners on the fence about whether or not police are the enemy. Dianne Feinstein wont be knocking on your door but Officer Pyle from down the street damn sure will.

  17. What I don’t understand is how any LEO can in good conscious carry out such an unconstitutional order. What the hell ever happened to the Second Amendment to the Constitution? Government is not supposed to simply seize personal property without a court order and that order should only be given AFTER a fair trial where the defendant has a right to present his or her case before a judge and cross examine the witnesses and try to refute the evidence provided. The country is turning to crap before our very eyes.

    • For the same reasons many of us probably dont go to pro 2A rallies or openly flaunt unconstitutional laws…they have a family to feed, and people they love. I’m sure refusing to enforce these, in many/most locations, would jeopardize that officers ability to feed and house his family and himself.

      If we arent willing to make the sacrifice, it’s unfair to dump it on the back of someone else.

  18. I put in my two cents several days ago, so I won’t repeat my observations about the legalities of the process.

    Instead, how about some practicalities? The police will have tactical superiority. You are going to be outnumbered and outgunned. If you want to die to make a point, that’s your choice. But the point you make won’t be that you are a patriot defending your natural right to keep and bear arms against the encroachments of the left. The message that will be received by society as a whole is that you were a dangerous nutcase who clearly should never have been allowed to touch a firearm, and that there are probably more out there like you. If you do survive, you will go to prison and never (legally) own a firearm again, assuming you ever get out.

    So, do you comply in the short run and take your chances in court, or do you refuse to comply and ensure that you will never own a firearm again . . . if you live? Everybody gets a choice.

    • At what point will your story be heard if you comply? They get almost zero news coverage, until someone fights back. If you comply, your plight and fight is done in near silence, alone, on someone elses terms. If you refuse to comply, people are going to hear about it. I can only hope there are enough left out there that can think, maybe otherwise on the fence, who will realize the travesty these laws are as they see real harm being inflicted in the name of safety.

      • Due process requires a fairly speedy hearing, within a matter of days, usually, but you would have to consult each state’s laws. It would most likely parallel the time frame for hearings on, for example, family abuse protective orders. In my state, Virginia, such hearings on FA protective orders have to be heard within 15 days of issuance.

        With respect to results, I found this on Wikipedia:

        “In Marion County, Indiana (which contains Indianapolis, and the most of the uses of Indiana’s ERPO law), a 2015 study published in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law found that seizure petitions were filed in court 404 times between 2006 and 2013, from persons identified at being a risk of suicide (68%), violence (21%), or psychosis (16%). The study found that in 28% of firearm-seizure cases cases involved a domestic dispute and 26% involved intoxication. The study found that ‘The seized firearms were retained by the court at the initial hearing in 63% of cases; this retention was closely linked to the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court dismissed 29% of cases at the initial hearing, closely linked to the defendant’s presence at the hearing. In subsequent hearings of cases not dismissed, the court ordered the destruction of the firearms in 72% of cases, all when the individual did not appear in court, and dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing.’ ”

        It appears that, at least in Indiana, if you show up for court (and presumably act like a normal, stable person while in court) you will get your firearms back. I didn’t see any figures for other states.

        • “It appears that, at least in Indiana, if you show up for court (and presumably act like a normal, stable person while in court) you will get your firearms back. I didn’t see any figures for other states.”

          Thanks for the information. Discovering the same in our own jurisdictions would be a good thing.

        • Dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing.

          24% dismissal rate is nothing to celebrate about, unless you are a gun hating anti. Winning in court still does not grantee the police department will return your guns, at least in working condition. That have been several times the police ignored court orders and refused to return firearms to their owners, what would you do then?

    • Other issues are that it can take years in court to win to get your rights and guns back. There also have been cases where people have won in court, but the cops ignored court orders and refuse to return their guns anyway. One guy got two court orders and a NRA backed lawsuit to force the cops to return his family heirloom firearms, which the cops destroyed anyway, so he still lost.

  19. More of Boch bullshit.
    Always trying to stir up problems and get everyone goin’. Just like that Commi Trump. Poison the people’s mind with more and more bullshit. Almost every time I see a Boch column in TTAG, I would normally delete the column because most of the time he just copies the original submitter’s column.