A Red Flag Order Is Not Worth Dying For

Bigstock

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.

DO NOT COMPLY.

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.

comments

  1. avatar D Y says:

    So glad the Founding Fathers took this approach.

    1. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

      “..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.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        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

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “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.

      2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

        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.

        1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          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.

      3. avatar Joe Berry says:

        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.

        1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          ” 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.

        2. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          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.

    2. avatar HP says:

      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.”

      1. avatar TheBruteSquad says:

        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.

        1. avatar Rcorrino says:

          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.

        2. avatar BattleBornXcalifornian says:

          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.

        3. avatar Bruce Wayne says:

          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.

        4. avatar Tom Williams says:

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

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      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.

    4. avatar GridSquare says:

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

    5. avatar B.D. says:

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

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “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.

        1. avatar TacitusVII says:

          But accurate, nonetheless.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

    6. avatar anarchyst says:

      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

    7. avatar Donttreadonme says:

      Exactly.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” 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.

        Exactly.”

        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.

        1. avatar User1 says:

          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.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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)

  2. avatar David Deplorable says:

    Mmm hmm.

    Yeah, I signed up for US Law Shield yesterday.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      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.

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

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

    1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

      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?

      1. avatar D Y says:

        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.

        1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          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.”

        2. avatar Toni says:

          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

        3. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          @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!

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          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.

      2. avatar Napresto says:

        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…

        1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          @Napresto thanks man!

        2. avatar D Y says:

          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.

        3. avatar FedUp says:

          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.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

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

        5. avatar SurfGW says:

          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.

        6. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          @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.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          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.

      3. avatar Arc says:

        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”.

        1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

          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?

        2. avatar EnDangerEd says:

          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.

        3. avatar Clark Kent says:

          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.

      4. avatar RMS1911 says:

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

        1. avatar Napresto says:

          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.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

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

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

        3. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          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?

  4. avatar FedUp says:

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

    ROFL.
    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?
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/12/luis-valdes/vermont-teens-planned-a-school-shooting-and-police-confiscate-a-relatives-guns/

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

  5. avatar Jacob says:

    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.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      +1

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      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.

    3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      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.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Great points. Think with the big head not the small one. Also kinda goes with the “avoiding stupid people, in stuipid places doing stupid things” saying.

      2. avatar Hugh Glass says:

        Yeah, but DAYum.

    4. avatar EnDangerEd says:

      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…

    5. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Join and support the Convention of States movement !

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        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.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          “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.]

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…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.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “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.

    6. avatar User1 says:

      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…

    7. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      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.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “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.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “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.

  6. avatar highly-compliant says:

    “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

  7. avatar Lone Conspiracy NPC#4527165342.776&3/8 says:

    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.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      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.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        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.

  8. avatar Michael says:

    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-

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      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.

      1. avatar Michael says:

        Thanks, you made my argument with more details and depth than I could master. -30-

  9. avatar johnny go lightly says:

    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.

    1. avatar Purity of Essence says:

      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.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        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.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “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.

      1. avatar Salty Bear says:

        You’re being fooled. Time to wake up.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          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.

        2. avatar Clark Kent says:

          Stick to predicting lottery numbers. You will have better luck.

      2. avatar Johnny Go Lightly says:

        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.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          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.

      3. avatar GridSquare says:

        “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.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          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 AR15.com 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.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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”…)

        4. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          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.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

        6. avatar Mad says:

          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

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

  10. avatar Stuart K says:

    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.

    1. avatar GapharmD says:

      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.

    2. avatar highly-compliant says:

      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.

      1. avatar EnDangerEd says:

        Nailed it! Well said.

      2. avatar GridSquare says:

        Yep. There’s always been plenty of people to afraid to stand up for what’s right. I always referred to them as cowards.

      3. avatar DerryM says:

        THIS!

    3. avatar Desert Ranger says:

      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?

  11. avatar Michael in AK says:

    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

  12. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    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.

  13. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    Thank my God I don’t have horns. , .

    1. avatar Eagle says:

      Perhaps you should grow a pair…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think you can get some from Amazon.

  14. avatar Shire-man says:

    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.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    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…

  16. avatar Eli2016 says:

    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.

  17. avatar Michael says:

    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…

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      “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?

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        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.

      2. avatar Michael says:

        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…

        1. avatar Hal J. says:

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

          And BTW…”The Rising”?

  18. avatar Shiffrod says:

    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.

  19. avatar Nate in CA says:

    It’s your responsibility to prove them wrong, not prove them right.

    1. avatar Shiffrod says:

      Actually, it the exact opposite. You are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

      1. avatar Nate in CA says:

        In a perfect world, yes.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          In Clown World, no.

          Which one do we live in and which one do we want?

  20. avatar Shiffrod says:

    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.

  21. avatar Rocketman says:

    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.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      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.

  22. avatar Porkchop says:

    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.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      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.

      1. avatar Porkchop says:

        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.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “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.

        2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          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?

    2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

      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.

  23. avatar Daniel says:

    “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.” – Some old dude.

  24. avatar Made in America says:

    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.

    1. avatar Mad says:

      Made in America calling Trump a commie makes you an idiot.Trump and many others are warning America what people like you are trying to destroy.blind deaf and I wish dumb

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Trump was a safety valve to encourage the frog to let the water boil a little more.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Unfortunately you are 1000% correct.

        2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          I don’t think it was planned that way, not by the globalists like Soros. Doesn’t feel right. But that may be how it turns out regardless.

          The leftists have nothing, really. Almost all the policy positions of the Democrat Party, their main front, are underwater in terms of public support. All they have is “the other guys are evil.” That’s really it. And if Trump helps them sell that narrative while convincing a bunch of Americans to relax and stop paying close attention, then Trump really could have exactly the effect you describe. Not sure I buy that, but it’s an interesting thought.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Phil Wilson, I’m not saying that it was necessarily planned but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was.

          Since the tendency of any government is towards tyranny, momentum could’ve resulted in Trump appearing on the scene and being elected. Even if they don’t realize with extreme clarity on a conscious level, I think a lot of people are grasping for some relief from tyranny. Trump represented hope for that relief. When he ran, I recognized that he wasn’t committed enough to real liberty and that he would be an excellent bogeyman for the leftists. At the same time, Trump today was going to be Trump of yesteryear so he couldn’t and wouldn’t go far enough to make real fatal blows to tyrannical government. All of this equaled an ideal safety valve for tyranny; hope for those who thirst for liberty and a focal point of hate for those who wish to snuff it out. The former relaxes some and the latter goes out of their comfort zone and becomes even more radicalized. Seeing all of this (early on during the election) as the likely outcome, I did not vote for Trump. I like him as a person but I don’t think he is a good thing for the nation at this point in its slide further into tyranny. I also believe that in the years following Trump’s presidency, liberty will be very badly damaged as a result of the time he was in office.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Another descriptive term that slipped my mind at the time was “placebo”. Right now the nation needs focused, proper hard hitting treatment for serious illness (tyranny). Instead, it got Trump who is a placebo. The masses believe he is the cure when, in fact, he is delaying real treatment. The disease is allowed to grow and get further entrenched. That isn’t going to end well for the patient.

      2. avatar highly-compliant says:

        Trump is 100% a foreign-controlled president of the international institutions which bring mass-immigration to the world and bring marxism to our “schools” to brainwash the generations of the United States into despotism. Just because he says he’s an enemy of globalism doesnt make it so, you have to consider what has actually happened, and who he has entered into his cabinet. And the foreign nation that owns him aint russia.

        1. avatar MB says:

          @highly. Smoke crack much? CNN will rot your brain…

        2. avatar User1 says:

          @MB

          Trump has been part of a secret club for many years. The same club the Bush family is a part of. They wanted him to be president after Obama. They want him to get reelected. Then the next president is going to be your worst nightmare all because Trump got reelected. It’s all part of their prophecy. How do we know? They told us so, at least those people with the ears to hear. If you have eyes, open them, then you too will see what is in front of you. Non believers will be punished in time.

          Sounds crazy, that’s because it is. Crazy people run the world, good people do not. They are devout followers of the scripture — that’s all that matters. You will not escape their wrath: comply or die.

          Rewind history and look at it for what it is. Then compare it to now. It is clear as it gets if you are not in denial and frozen in fear.

          Alex Jones used to expose everything (before Obama became president) then he was bought. He shilled very hard to get Trump elected and continues to lie for Trump to get his followers to reelect him.. He is working with other talking heads to destroy America for their religion. They hired Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder to get Trump reelected now that Alex has been thrown away like planned. They also bought FOX news…

          History repeats itself when the people are ignorant of the truth.

        3. avatar MB says:

          I see that the Russians ( read leftist ) trolls are out in force trying to convince America that their president ( the uber capitalist is really a Communist and a Russian agent… Right, an I’m the Easter Bunny. Sorry you got the wrong president, the Communist agents are Billary Clinton. We all know what the previous one was.

        4. avatar User1 says:

          @MB

          Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump… They all work together for the same goal. Trump is by far the worst of them.

          The Bushs started a religious “war on terror” and gave birth to the national socialist police state. Obama being half black allowed him to divide Americans. Trump is now combining both to form a new order in the world, which leads to the destruction of America as it was founded. Trump literally hired the same people that Bush did and has done what Obama couldn’t.

          Trump is not a Russian agent, this was clear from the beginning. The Russian conspiracy theory is a deliberate distraction created by the conveying powers to obfuscate Trump’s betrayal of America. While you are busy yelling “libtard” and “lock her up” Trump is destroying America with his religious buddies. He filled the swamp with monsters and he still dares to show up in public to lie to your face for reelection.

          Trump has threaten American industry with tariffs, which the middle class are forced to pay for in different ways. He gave himself and his buddies a major tax cut whilst getting rid of the deductions for the average American. He pushed for getting rid of NAFTA to replace it with a worse agreement. His trade war has only harmed America, it forced American companies to move or fire people. He signed bills to give a bunch of other countries more money, even money to build a wall in their country instead of America. He is calling for the redistribution of money to the corporations from the working class via currency devaluation. He wants to bring in millions of immigrants to take American jobs. There are more illegals immigrants coming in now than ever while Trump continues to pretend he wants to fix the issue. That’s not the actions of a free market American, it’s more in line with a socialist capitalist (aka corporatist).

          You do know Trump is a Democrat turned Republican for election? He is not a Republican nor is he ever going to be.

          The Democrats put up two Democrats for the presidency: Hillary and Trump. The leftists already told Hillary that she was going to be nominated well before the election started. They made sure she was nominated so Trump can be victorious because they already knew Hillary was very unpopular with everyone. They even had the FBI come out right before the election with more criminal evidence to make sure Hillary can’t win. Now the Democrats provide cover for Trump so he can get the job done and they are trying very hard to get him reelected by being absolutely ridiculous [reverse psychology]. They never had any intention of impeaching Trump;; they knew since the beginning that Trump wasn’t working with Russia because they have been spying on him before he got elected. They are the ones that wrote a fake dossier saying Trump is an agent of Russia. They also knew Assange isn’t a Russian agent, hence why they didn’t arrest him during Obama’s term, but Trump sent the order to get him. The Democrats don’t want someone like Bernie Sanders because he likes Russia, criticizes the current administration of Israel and doesn’t want open borders.

          Trump is the golden ticket for the establishment. The Democrat and the Republican party wants Trump. They can do what they want and just blame Trump for everything. It’s a perfect situation for them because Democrat voters will become more authoritarian and Republican voters will be more in favor of the police state that enforce that authoritarianism. Americans will enslave themselves… just because the orange man bad and MAGA country.

          So which is it: are you stupid or just a liar?

        5. avatar MB says:

          @user1 , it appears you may be both…

      3. avatar User1 says:

        Communism is a small group of central planners dictating the way of life for the workers. Everyone outside of the order is a slave to the superior beings. The main religions of the world call for this type of existence.

        Trump is a “communist” like Obama and Bush were. Trump’s controllers simply hired a firm to collect info from the internet to see what the people are thinking. Then his script writers did the necessary work. Eventually they figured out what to say and promise to get elected. This was all talk… The evidence is right in front of you to see if you so choose to look. There is no changing reality, only substituting it with your own delusions, which Americans are good at doing.

        You do not come across like a patriot who seeks to defend human rights and the existence of a liberated country. It is shameful and pathetic for any man to throw away their liberty for egotistic BS.

  25. avatar Porkchop says:

    “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.”

    You might think that, but there is a very long line of Supreme Court cases that say that a post-deprivation hearing is sufficient due process in the case of a seizure of property by a government entity. See, e.g., North American Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (1908) (upholding right of state to seize and destroy unwholesome food without a preseizure hearing).

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      PorkChop,

      There are two problems at stake here:
      (1) How the courts actually operate.
      (2) How the courts should operate.

      Sure, court decisions almost always condone government infringement of our rights. What that tells us is that most of the judges are corrupt and we probably cannot win in the courts. Therefore, fighting in the courts is a questionable tactic.

      Personally, I like the idea of fighting in court first even when we know that the judges/courts are corrupt and will rule against our rights. That provides a rock-solid moral basis for going “hands-on”. After all, once the courts condone eliminating our rights, our only two remaining options are submission to heinous, unrighteous, and unconstitutional infringements of our right, or non-compliance and active push-back.

      1. avatar D Y says:

        At what point do you believe it’s time to go hands on? There seem to be plenty of cases where supposed safety has been determined to be enough to abridge rights, isnt that enough?

        Just curious where others will draw the line.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          D Y,

          Where do I draw the line?

          I have two general criteria:
          (1) When injustice happens in my local region.
          (2) When the injustice is so egregious that I cannot look the other way.

          Criteria number (1) is simple common sense. It does not make a lot of sense for me to drive 13 hours to intervene in a remote event where 50,000+ people are within a one-hour drive. And local people have a better understanding of their local injustice and the best way to deal with it.

          Criteria number (2) is also common sense. We should only go hands-on when we are righteously and morally justified to do so. Unfortunately, when law enforcement are the perpetrators, all “hands-on” activity will escalate to someone’s death no matter how minor the initial injustice. For that reason, even though I would be justified (righteously and morally) to respond with deadly force to an unrighteous and unjust law enforcement deadly threat, I am not going to be the resistor who kills a cop for issuing an unjust $50 fine, or even an unjust $1000 fine. (I value other human being’s lives immensely and I will not kill someone over a one-time $1,000 loss for me.)

          Now, when law enforcement agrees to enforce an unjust fine that devastates my family, I will not let that go. Likewise, when law enforcement agrees to enforce unjust laws that devastate my family (such as imprisoning me for having an effective means of self-defense or imprisoning one of my children for defending themselves from an attack), I cannot let that go, either. Or, when law enforcement severely beats or murders an innocent person in my community and the justice system will not prosecute them, I cannot let that go.

          As for enforcing “Red Flag” orders, I cannot let that go because it puts the subject of the order through the ringer, violating almost all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, for a situation where police and the courts KNOW FOR A FACT that the subject of the order has not committed a crime. Even if the subject of the order is not very upset about police confiscating their firearms from their home and having to go to court to attempt to get their firearms back, violating almost all of the Bill of Rights when government knows for a fact that the subject did not commit any crime is so egregious that we must push back.

          The much more interesting question is what I or others would do when we cannot let something go. All I will say in this wide-open forum is that I almost certainly would not run head-long at police with guns-a-blazing since I believe that strategy is not effective.

  26. avatar Salty Bear says:

    “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 they never will. If you’re waiting to draw the line at the UN invasion, it’ll be too late by then. Politicians of this century understand that such drastic measures backfire because they stir up the revolutionary spirit in freedom-loving people. It’s much more efficient to slowly chip away at our rights with things like assault weapons bans and red flag laws, and paint them as reasonable measures to save lives. This is how they operate now, but it doesn’t make them any less threatening. They WILL kill us if we resist. It’s part of their plan.

    Bonus Rant: It doesn’t matter if the person coming to trample your rights has a shiny badge or a piece of paper signed by a man in a silly black robe. They’re individuals just like you, and they have no right to take your stuff. All that rhetoric about law and order and democracy exists only to serve them and their tyrannical interests. Maybe it meant something before, but it’s their weapon now, not yours, and they’re counting on you to be gullible and docile enough to keep buying into it. MOLON LABE and Sic Semper Tyrannis. /Rant.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “And they never will. If you’re waiting to draw the line at the UN invasion, it’ll be too late by then.”

      Exactly. Drawing a line at something that is so unlikely to actually happen, and if it does then you are already way behind the eight ball, is foolish and useless. When, IMHO, the people ought to have pushed back with everything in the 1990s, so very many had drawn their line at UN invasion and/or UN door-to-door confiscation. Now, there is even more tyranny and it is much harder to resist. It gets worse from here.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      An easy way to recognize the lies is to simply ask for some evidence that lives will be saved, other than “we all know” or “it’s obvious”.

      And, BTW, people should have “pushed back with everything” in 1934.

  27. Mr. Boch: Many people of principle have a point at which they will say, “No more. I will no longer be party to this.” Those whom you describe as keyboard warriors have stated that their stopping point is gun confiscation. What is your stopping point? What stimulus will it take for you cease cooperating even if you will not likely survive that decision?

  28. avatar MB says:

    Why are we rehashing this. I will treat whoever threatens my life and property the same way regardless of their status as criminal robbers, LEO, or white papers they are holding saying have permission to threaten me. Since I have committed no crimes I don’t have any reason to worry, whoever approaches me with ill intent or with false accusations does have a reason to worry.

  29. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

    LOL. An article arguing to comply with firearms confiscations published the day after Patriot’s Day. Clueless, completely clueless!

    Reid Henrichs | The Shot Heard ‘Round the World: Lessons for today from Lexington and Concord

    1. avatar Groz says:

      Insulting, really.

  30. avatar Wally1 says:

    I believe that the issue will have to be decided by the courts, but not how you think. I think some officers will refuse to carry out these red flag orders and they will be disciplined or fired. Only then, they will sue for being forced by a government entity to commit an unconstitutional act (and/or) violate a persons 4th amendment. This will probably decide the issue.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Interesting in theory, but unlikely to see any lawsuits or publicity in practice.
      How many cops have you read about who refused to participate in armed home invasion robberies so far?

      Imagine this: A state police director decides it would be a really neat idea to stop every car on the road and see if any of the drivers are drunk. One trooper says ‘that’s illegal’ and refuses to participate. He gets taken off road patrol and assigned permanently to shit duties.
      Every court in the state that hears the case agrees that it’s unconstitutional, including the state supreme court. Then after years of appeals, SCOTUS says ‘not a violation of the US Constitution, state constitutions may vary’. Then the state legislature immediately passes a law banning the practice. And the state’s AG retires amid glowing praise as a ‘civil rights leader’ after fighting every court decision that supported civil rights in this case.

      And that trooper who refused? He worked shit jobs for 18-20 years and eventually retired. What was he going to do, sue because he didn’t like his assigned duties?

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I think that far more people are likely to resist these unconstitutional acts with lethal force than cops are likely to refuse to carry them out. I would be delighted to be wrong on this point but I’m not holding my breath.

      So, what say ye officers… Is there any organized effort amongst peace officers to WHOLESALE refuse these unconstitutional orders?

  31. avatar John in Ohio says:

    *** My original comment got marked as spam. This is a modified re-post. ***

    — Re: Attorney and insurance

    There are a whole lot of people that simply do not have the money for either. Where is their redress of grievance? Where is the constitutional protection of their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms? The hour is much later than some may realize.

    — Re: The whole paragraph (trying to avoid spam filter).

    “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.”

    That’s mostly a load of horseshit and a long-winded way of saying, “You’ll ruin it for the rest of us!”

    Statists and government in general don’t care about actual reasons. They exploit whatever excuses are available. Given the number of fallible and downright dumb people in any population, there are excuses aplenty for anyone looking.

    Do I think that a person resisting with full force of arms will be seen by many as a “hero”? Nope, probably not. It’s highly unlikely. However, there reaches a point under tyranny when a large number of people will forcefully resist or liberty is all but obliterated; not to be seen again for generations or even much later. Even then, it will likely only be re-asserted after a large enough number of people do exactly what they ought to have done in the past. Kicking the can down the road only makes it more difficult. Time favors tyranny.

    In conclusion, I’ll re-post part of what I posted in comments on the other article.

    “Bottom line for all, I don’t really advocate anything except think long and hard about the nature of tyranny and the nature of liberty. Consider what it means to be free and what is at stake. Identify risks and what you are willing to jeopardize. Ultimately, I hope that each resists in some way that makes sense to them at the time and in accordance with what they value most.”

  32. avatar James J. White says:

    The government has the firepower. They aren’t going to let you walk away or get away with resisting. It’s a fact of life so don’t get carried away with a n outlaw fantasy because it ain’t gonna work. If you care enough about the 2nd Amendment , join the NRA, become an active member and get involved in politics no matter how you claim to hate it.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “join the NRA”

      I laughed so fucking hard that I almost pissed myself!

      1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

        Yeah, No kidding! With a commercial like that who would actually believe the NRA is a “[email protected], Civil or Constitutional Rights Freedom Organization!” Just like I am finding it hard to stomach any of these ridiculous “Pro-Anti-Bill of Rights surrender orders/Red Flag Orders” articles…As of recent, any [email protected] credibly of TTAG has been going out the window as of late. Most of these articles sound like they were written by collaborators help the “Red Flag order movement”. I haven’t seen anything positive, or anything to rally the [email protected] troops on how to fight “these unconstitutional orders”. All I’ve seen is a surrender and each or their own B.S. ….Nothing [email protected] constructive. Is Mr. Boch have assisting in mounting any legal challenges against “Red Flag Laws and there Unconstitutional nature.”
        Is TTAG helping set up a ” legal defense fund for U.S. Citizens wrongly accused!?” I certainty couldn’t afford to defend myself against a police order that was ” arbitrary and capricious”! I certainly wouldn’t open my door for Law Enforcement (even though I DON’T own any firearms…) Since they would just seize anything they think is a weapon away, or any property the local police think is contraband…How with I retain my rights, or property if i CAN’T afford to fight for it?! Id lose everything?! So what, I’d have to see if I can receive “constitutional rights insurance in my state?!?” If I can, will I be able to afford it?! What will they do send me a “prepaid civil rights attorney, and an insurance adjuster for my property? ” Will I be able to sue for damages, infringements, mental anguish, AGAINST all parties involved!? How long will this take?! What if my employer gets involved with a “Heresay order” while I try to clear my good name from Pre-“CRIMES” I’ve never committed!? Futhermore, I find these “Red Flag Orders” , TTAG’s: NOT [email protected], poor [email protected] ideas and lack of constructive dialogue disturbing in general.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As of recent, any [email protected] credibly of TTAG has been going out the window as of late.”

          Why? Presenting an array of thought is somehow a problem? Didn’t see any claim by TTAG that this blog is designed to be, or limited to, an echo chamber. Besides, no one can be compelled to visit TTAG.

    2. avatar highly-compliant says:

      “join the NRA…”
      we already tried that since the 90s. The height of idiocracy of the NRA was when they published articles about how the “Council on Foreign Relations” was behind gun control (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130802/council-on-foreign-relations-pushes-executive-gun-controls) while simultaneously having multiple NRA board members who were published on the member roster of the Council on Foreign Relations, James Gilmore III and some others, I can’t remember. It was ridiculous, it is ridiculous, and that people can’t pull their head out of the sand is even more ridiculous. The NRA is a gatekeeper for continuous gun control, controlled opposition. Not everyone involved, there are lots of loyal Americans in the NRA, but where it counts the NRA is greased by the same funny-money that corrupts our senate and legislators.

      We are at a unique point in our transition to world government where our law makers and enforcement still have to acknowledge and placate to the Constitution on paper when people are paying attention. This period wont last forever though, at some point something will happen to cause that to change and when it’s gone, it’s gone. Right now, if Americans were clear-headed enough, they could organize in mass and force absolute adherence to the constitution, and no one could fault them for it, as all legal authority is bound to that same standard as well, technically. Only by chipping away, creating exceptional emergency law, can the enemies of the constitution defeat it, through our own gullible compliance. Anyone that isn’t yelling from the rooftops these days that “the british are coming” might as well just slap on a UN/IMF flag patch because acting like everything is hunky-dory is doing the nation a historic disservice by displaying apathy in the face of its obvious peril.

  33. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Glad to see that Boch has the guts and good sense to go on record to distance himself and TTAG from the bat$#it crazy cop hating anti authority squirrels drawn to this forum for years. We all know the list of usual suspects that comprise a small minority of TTAG readers, but for years have regularly posted a disproportionate volume of TTAG comments advocating what amounts to armed insurrection and anarchy under the guise of protecting 2A rights.

    The cop hating anti-authority TTAG red meat TTAG articles that trigger these usual suspect fools have greatly subsided since Farago’s anti LE/pro weed sorry hide departed TTAG (good riddance).

    The rest of TTAG regulars who aren’t cop hating anti government extremists need to know that the vast number of LEO’s across the U.S. are conservatives who are pro 2A, support lawful possession and carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens, and oppose CA,MA,MD,NJ,NY style gun control and so called “red flag laws” that are nothing more than Trojan horse ploys to implement mass confiscations.

    Nut job ranting comments on TTAG threatening LEO’s reinforce the negative gun owner stereotypes that anti 2A cop hating liberals feature in their “common sense gun laws” propaganda and anti-gun talking points.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      “The rest of TTAG regulars who aren’t cop hating anti government extremists need to know that the vast number of LEO’s across the U.S. are conservatives who are pro 2A, support lawful possession and carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens, and oppose CA,MA,MD,NJ,NY style gun control and so called “red flag laws” that are nothing more than Trojan horse ploys to implement mass confiscations.”

      So who is actually going door to door taking peoples property based on allegations? Yes, a somewhat snarky way of putting it, but to lump people into pro cop or cop hater, is equally so.

      If cops believe in peoples rights, they have a choice to not enforce laws that they know are unconstitutional. There is zero difference between that choice, and choosing how to deal with cops who show up to take your property without due process.

      It certainly seems human nature to take sides, but it’s also not productive to lump everyone into categories.

      1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        It’s mighty convenient for felons, woman beaters, and other prohibited persons to hitch their wagon to the pro 2A bandwagon and pretend there’s a legit basis why their right to possess a firearm “shall not be infringed”, when in reality a look in the mirror reveals who’s actually responsible for their legal woes with the criminal justice system.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, you’re suggesting that if it becomes too much to bear, we should ignore the LEO and address our grievances to the politician?

    2. avatar highly-compliant says:

      Get real. American citizens can have their homes invaded and guns taken at mere rumor without sound substantiation or even committing crimes. That’s never happened before. I don’t see anyone threatening law enforcement. I see people saying they will give their guns when pried from their cold dead hands, which used to be the NRA mantra before they sold out to internationalism and cheap money. I’ve worked with LE and active MIL my whole life, I served in combat. I would expect nothing less from American citizens than to fiercely defend their rights and if anything, I’m only disappointed in all of the people that want to roll over and pretend like nothing is wrong because life is too sweet and the going is too tough to resist what deep down they know is wrong.

    3. WTF is all that supposed to mean! Because if was supposed to be a rant in favor of Our US Constitution, and our Bill of Rights!? You certainly DIDN’T convince me! If YOUR looking for the CNN , or MSNBC comments board…It’s over there! Just take a hard left at the HTTP//: …….

    4. Proposed 25 September 1789
      Ratified 15 December 1791

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Bill of Rights

    5. Proposed 25 September 1789
      Ratified 15 December 1791

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      Bill of Rights
      Search and Seizure

  34. avatar enuf says:

    There are countless cases of people who should not have had guns killing innocents. Killing spouses, killing kids. Mostly these are domestic, rarely are they mass shootings of just random people.

    All of it splashes back on our gun rights because people are stupid when they are emotional. Because people are stupid when they are scared and terrified and will listen to any damned fool politician who claims to have the solution. The hoplophobia of scared and stupid and political people sucks this shit up like sweet honey.

    We ignore the need for a means to take guns away from assholes and crazies at our peril. It is one of the reasons we will lose our rights one day. We allow the anti-gun side to write the laws and we make noise or we fight in courts but we do nothing ourselves that is the least bit constructive. The least bit about the problem that what crazies do we get blamed for.

    Some of you even hand the anti-gun people some of your own crazy gum flapping. Especially on the internet, but I’ve heard it in person too.

    We need lawyers and politicians on our side of this problem writing the language of these laws. Don’t even care what they call them. Call it the “Due Process For Bad Apples and Wrongly Accused Apples Too” law if you like I could care less.

    Don’t like a law? Write a better one.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Don’t like a law? Write a better one.”

      Shall not be infringed. I like that one.

      Government blatantly ignores the supreme law of the land so other, lessor laws mean absolutely fuck-all to it. At this point, it’s pissing into the wind. Tyranny is upon us.

    2. avatar D Y says:

      Do you really believe legislation pushed by a Republican, in any of the leftist states, of ANY type, that serves to protect the 2A in any fashion, directly or indirectly, will ever see the light of day?

      I wish it would, and I would fully support things such as increased funding for mental health treatment etc, but there is no way you will EVER get “but we will repeal x y and z gun laws in exchange” signed into law. Politics has devolved into take or do not take. There is no compromise on the 2A. All pro or anti 2A laws passed that I can think of, have had near zero bipartisan support.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That’s actually pretty silly. I prefer no law, not a better law. That is what freedom looks like. If a law is necessary, then show me why, show me a law which will actually make a positive difference, and show me why it does not infringe on my guaranteed freedoms. Can’t do that? Then the answer is *no* law.

  35. avatar Representative Republic with rule of Law and untouchable Bill of Rights called America the end! says:

    Police who enforce these illegal laws against the Constitution are treasonous traitors..who violate their oath.

    Common Sense dictates the need to have a Neighbor Hood Militias across the nation with sufficient ability to resist tyranny of America and Constitution. When this happens the Commies may wise up and realize the juice is not worth the squeeze.

    These UN-elected appointed jack booted SS thugs only care about their jobs if they take away a citizen’s self protections and Natural Human Rights WITHOUT a Crime being committed or Conviction and based solely on a misguided speculation from a anti-freedom Commie’s opinion.

    No one with good intentions wants to disarm other people; only those who know their actions will be resisted want to render people unable to resist.

    America is a Representative republic were government is SUPPOSE to protect citizens rights.. not empowering government!

  36. avatar MB says:

    “A Red Flag Order Is Not Worth Dying For” = “If we just obey the Gestapo and turn in our guns they will leave us alone and everyone will be safer”… yup, want to bet how many times that was said by Germans and Polish families from 1936-1939? Sorry people, I have an aversion to railroad box cars. I have known people with numbers on their forearms, you may also although time has erased most of those, but I suggest you ask one of these survivors about gun confiscation laws.. Then tell us everything will be all right….

      1. avatar Eli2016 says:

        Wow. Just wow. I thought she was describing California today! Damn right we need a wall. Between California and the rest of the country. Subscribed and saved. A good reminder for us all and especially Mr. Boch.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        Jaw dropping. History IS repeating itself. Give me chills.

  37. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    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).

    And a woman should simply submit to a creepy man who wants to barge into her home uninvited and fondle her while she is fully dressed. After all, it’s not like the man has demanded full-blown intercourse against her will.

    These “extreme risk protection orders” or “gun violence restraining orders” … 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.

    So, it would be unreasonable for a woman to resist a rapist when the rapist will only penetrate her for two seconds and she will be able to confront the rapist in court.

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

    Thus, after the state has presumed that you are guilty and you have proven your innocence, your judge (who are always robots and never have political agendas, personal biases, or axes to grind) will find in your favor. In favor of what (since you did not actually attack anyone) no one can say for sure.

    I cannot decide which is worse: the legislatures who enact these abominations, the judges who use them to issue confiscation orders, the police who enforce them, or the pundits who tell us that we should play along so as not to look like the bad guys.

  38. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Okay, I am going to keep it simple so everyone can understand.

    “Red Flag / Extreme Risk Protection” orders are an abomination and need to be vigorously resisted for three simple reasons. The subject of a “Red Flag” order:
    (1) Is guilty until proven innocent which violates the very foundation of criminal law in our nation!
    (2) Has to prove that he/she is not dangerous, which is impossible because you cannot prove a negative!
    (3) Loses his/her rights even though he/she has not committed any crimes!

    No legislature has any righteous authority to enact such an abomination. No court has any righteous authority to issue such orders. And no police agency has any righteous authority to enforce such orders. Period.

  39. avatar Pg2 says:

    Are forced vaccinations worth it?

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Start your own fucking anti vac blog already.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Baby need a paci?

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Apparently you do!

  40. avatar Ben says:

    A new low for TTAG.

  41. avatar SW_Corsair says:

    Thank you for letting the (true) III%’s know where the author(s) of these recent articles stands on defending the rights of the people. I suspect this might encompass everyone who writes articles for this website and a substantial number of the commenters as well. Heh, it’s not called the III% for nothing you know.

    Now, this is only my second time writing an article here, and possibly my last now that I know where this site stands on the whole issue. (aka you’re advocating letting our rights be trampled upon yet again in the hopes a corrupt CJS acts in a ethical fashion. Don’t hold your breath. )

    The line against tyranny has to be drawn or free peoples become slaves. This very issue, again, is the line where some of us simply state “no more.” Anything involving a government organization showing up at my front door demanding I surrender my natural right to self defense is morally and ethically in the wrong. To this end, yes, I will do my very best to, “take one or two with me” knowing the odds and outcome in advance. I have no illusion of my abilities nor am I “Henry Bowman.”

    When “they” start to ramp this program up with more and more illegal attempts to disarm the people who support the 2nd Amendment, and boy it’s coming as hard as they can push it without starting an overt civil war, there will be a point where a critical mass will be reached. (Period.!) Most will do nothing, but the III% will act and I use history as my evidence.

    Now, speaking solely for myself, I do my upmost to be an outstanding citizen, veteran in actuality. I haven’t had so much as a speeding ticket in something like 20 years. (Stated to simply demonstrate my respect for “just, and sensible laws.”) If by some measure of outstanding bad luck I’m the one who must die before the above mentioned “critical mass” is reached, well, I’ll pay the price just like many of my relatives did in the past. I rather consider it a personal point of honor to be as brave as they were. With this said, my family is grown up now, and my elders have passed on so I don’t have to worry about little John or Jane anymore. Such things wouldn’t hold be back, nor do I wish this day to ever come. (But I fear for the future.)

    To those who say, we the true III% are “cowards,” I simply state, the right sequence of oppressive buttons haven’t been pushed quite the right way yet, but history if anything, is circular with concern to humans; dark days are coming.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      Dont go anywhere. Honestly I believe it is valuable for both camps (and all those in between) to exist, and heck, even debate. There are smart folks who fight legal battles, and those are absolutely preferred to the other fight. But to stop posting/reading/listening because not everyone agrees, just means no one will have anywhere to go.

      It’s not healthy if everything we hear backs up what we believe. There is room for all of us, as long as our end purpose is preservation of the US, as it was intended.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “If by some measure of outstanding bad luck I’m the one who must die before the above mentioned “critical mass” is reached, well, I’ll pay the price just like many of my relatives did in the past. I rather consider it a personal point of honor to be as brave as they were.”

      Well said. My hat is off to you.

  42. avatar strych9 says:

    I look at it thusly:

    If you resist and get killed or locked up forever, who’s going to sit on that pile of cash the government has to pay for a civil rights violation and wait ten years to then laugh like a maniac when every officer involved in the ERPO suffers a house fire so they can mutter darkly from their cash throne, like a Protoss Dragoon, “For vengeance…”?

    1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

      And the cops will laugh at your court orders as they destroy your guns. Winning in court doesn’t mean you really win. Remember, a cash payout is no skin off the nose for the government, they just tax more of it.

  43. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Apparently Boch is going to keep posting these articles until he gets the response he wants? (Or just because they get a lot of clicks.)

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      It’s fair to have disagreements with the NRA and TTAG. This is an important topic to rationally discuss among gun owners across the US, while dimissing the troll posts of course. If I faced a gun seizure, becuse of someone like my hippy-dippy Lib (biological) brother, I would NOT go out in a blaze of glory. I’d hand them over and legally fight to get them back, then I would drastically step up my current support (time, money and energy) for 2A, ensure my 3 kids follow in my footsteps, and legally finacially ruin my brother (biological).

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Excellent plan, thank you so much. I assume you have several million dollars liquid and available. But I don’t.

  44. avatar Pg2 says:

    Medical kidnap. Look it up. What’s worth what?

  45. avatar Ralph says:

    If fighting back is out of the question, they WTF is the Second Amendment good for?

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      Ralph, one of the few credible voices on this troll board.

    2. avatar MB says:

      Exactly ! Without the 2nd, all the other God given rights so enumerated are meaningless. When is enough? We already have 22,000 + “gun control” laws on the books. We need make better citizens, not more laws.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Better citizens? Another troll bot post. This site is in the dump.

        1. avatar MB says:

          @Pg2 You sir, are delusional. I am as a realist, you need to start your own ” vaccination” blog, I am sure there are many people in that camp. I am not saying you are wrong, but I guess you prefer knows killers like measles, rubella, and small pox to an extremely rare reaction to the medical components of vaccines.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          Not sure what’s worse, your grammar, or your lack of knowledge about the subject you just pretended to have some knowledge on.

        3. avatar MB says:

          @Pg2. So you are the grammar police as well. What I do find fascinating about this blog is now I know how we have come to being ruled by leftist and Communists by the shear number of Fudds, cowards, lazy and complacent narcissists, phony “Operators”, oath breakers, and experts in nothing that infest this site. I figure about 50% I don’t need a PhD. to know and understand my rights as human, as a citizen, and as a patriot. Maybe some here need an education, I hope it doesn’t come to late when you ( the collective you ) stood by and watched our rights be eroded and violated to where they become no longer defensible.

    3. avatar GridSquare says:

      Spot on Ralph. There’s really nothing left to say after that.

    4. avatar B.D. says:

      Simple, effective, and straight forward no bullshit message. Well said.

  46. avatar Samuel Lee says:

    Truth is the agenda is bloody. The Democrat plan is to make encounters deadly and a constant…The Democrats are envious of command and control societies Iike North Korea and China and demand one party rule, one world order….

  47. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Crazy people should not have guns.

    Only a crazy person would want a military design semi assault weapon auto rail machinegun AR 47 with a big clip bumpstock bayonet that only has the single solitary purpose of killing garillions with one trigger pull.

    Gee that was easy!

  48. avatar Porky says:

    “: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.”

    Except, the STATE only needs to prove you MIGHT be a danger. YOU need to prove BEYOND SHADOW OF A DOUBT that you AREN’T crazy. How on earth do you meet that metric? You don’t. The court rules that it is “Better to be safe than sorry” and keeps your guns locked up. Also the cops are immune to civil litigation after potentially kicking your door down and shooting your family. Oh well, guess you just shouldn’t have owned guns!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You must be a new guy. They are temporary *NOW*. If they are not knocked down, 14 days will become six weeks to allow better evaluation, will become six months for the children, will become permanent to save the immense cost of listening to the subjects bitch. It is *unconstitutional*, you dope, duration is not only unimportant, it is easily changed.

      Addressing original author, not “porky”.

  49. avatar Justin Martz says:

    This article (and the idiot who wrote it) made me write my first comment on this site, and now I’m removing myself from their email list for having them as a writer. “Pro-gun” website that blatantly tells you “Rape doesn’t hurt as much if you just accept it. Why fight back?”… what a joke.

    Please move to Australia to be around more people like you.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      There’s an email list?

  50. avatar Steven says:

    Someone has WAY too much faith in the court system of this country. Does anyone actually believe the courts are there to right wrongs? Stop gulping the peyote.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I practiced law for 35 years before I retired. I know exactly what the System is and what it’s intended to do. If my faith in the system was balanced against a feather, the feather would be heavier.

  51. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Read thru all the posts on this thread, and it occurs to me that many of y’all are content to keep kicking the can down the road and letting your progeny pick it up, when y’all know what the ultimate goal is. And what the ultimate resolution of this will entail.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Aye. Avoiding the inevitable will make the chances of success much slimmer and the work much uglier. I think that, deep down, all liberty loving individuals here know what must be done. Some just don’t seem to want to carry their own water right now. Unfortunately, that’s human nature.

  52. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    Since the removal of free speech just about everywhere, there is NO place left to actually say what needs to be said in very plain language. Resistance is NOT futile, but it only works if you’re willing to die for those beliefs.
    I also agree with the many here that say anyone enforcing an unconstitutional order is just a thug, the likes of which lived in Germany…

    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
    Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
    Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yes. I can remember a time in my own life that plainly saying what needed to be done wasn’t terribly risky. Now, few dare utter it. If THAT doesn’t tell people how late the hour is, I don’t know what else to say about it.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        i never cared about the danger of uttering the truth, not then, and not now. even back then i got looked at like i had 10 heads. Now i get some that are seeing it too but scared to utter it for themselves. I have always put liberty above all else including my life

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          In principle, I agree completely with you. In actual practice, it doesn’t generally work that way. In my comment, I was trying to articulate that there are things that I could express freely and financially support, meaning with very little concern about government goons trying to lock me up, back in the day that I cannot without increased concern today.

          For example, local retired nuns openly supported the IRA and sent money from their pensions and fundraisers. Today, they would be incarcerated for supporting a terrorist organization if the IRA was still as it was then.

          Another example is that I could (and did) give public speeches detailing how tyrants ought to be handled. These days, I could find myself on a number of lists, investigated, and possibly imprisoned under various secret directive that have been enacted since; all under the name of anti-terrorism and national security. AFAIK, even the notion of a black site was not something openly discussed in the media and admitted by government. These days, it’s almost a bragging point for the bastards.

          The point, I guess, is that if I said publicly what I said back then, I would much more likely than not end up in a cell somewhere today.

      2. avatar Woohoo says:

        Lol. The saddest part of it all is the force behind gun control is the force behind marxism, is the force behind transatlantic slavery, is the force behind communism and nazism, is the force behind the middle east wars and world wars, is the force behind left media and right media, is the force behind the federal reserve, is the force behind king george III who we fought in the first place, is the same as the force that caused the execution of jesus. But all this build up, they want us all to kill eachother so they can exit stage then re-enter to close-curtain and clean house when we are too weakened from exhaustion of the apocalypse to resist. The Christians claim thats when the anti-christ comes, the muslims call it dajaal, the jewish dont have any bad news, they are expecting only a messiah. But all roads lead to the same city, if people dont figure out what all this circus-show is about before the bullets fly, we dont have good odds.

        If you want to test whether or not youre loyal to your own country, google image search the term, “purim twin towers costume”, and reflect on the results.

  53. avatar daveinwyo says:

    The first people to offer non-compliance in N.Z. were the criminal gangs. These laws make us all criminals. Too old to run, my give a damn got up and left. This country has been going downhill since JFK with Reagan and Trump as abberrations rather than the norm. The only good thing I ever got from the Government was an education in unconventional warfare. Read the Art of War and other great works before they are banned. Better yet own hard copies to pass on after the ban.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Stock up on books before the mandatory burn begins, and the beheadings for those who resist…

      sounds… historical. Almost like it already happened. Wonder why these idiots don’t see it the same way for these red flag “laws”.

      Not everyone who is “too old to fight” is useless… Sometimes simply standing your ground instead of running is all that is needed. The problem is that cowards would rather roll over, show their bellies, and comply to tyranny rather than fight it any way THEY can. Not wait for someone else, or for the govt to hold court, but doing what you can do is exactly what established this nation to begin with. Farmers, young boys, everyone who understood the value of defiance to tyranny took a stand and fought. Now days, it’s non existent. Sad.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The problem is that cowards would rather roll over, show their bellies, and comply to tyranny rather than fight it any way THEY can.”

        Let’s see how that plays out….Bonus March, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy 1&2. Where were you? How many more such episodes are needed for you to have justification to attack police and military units in retaliation, in “the movement”?

        The Second Amendment is not recognized by government as absolute, is that not enough reason to start “the rising”? Every law, regulation, ordinance restricting the use, possession, movement, type, power of firearms is unconstitutional. Is that not enough to bring out the screaming, machine gun firing patriot in you? If not already, when, what, where? Why wait on others, on something else?

  54. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Thinking people will show up knowing you are violent and have guns. Not likely these people will be dressed in business suits carrying a briefcase containing the EPRO (or whatever), hands crossed in front of them, holding the briefcases, politely asking to serve you with the restraining order, and asking you to peaceably transfer your guns to their waiting vehicle.

    Action beats reaction, and you will likely face guns drawn. Dieing honorably will change nothing you will be aware of, even your honorable point about “jackbooted thugs”, etc. And…you will not be available “come the rising”.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      When one person resists, it’s a call to action. When 100 people resist, it’s a movement. When 1000 people resist, it’s a revolution.

      Somebody has to be first. And nobody has to volunteer — the first will be chosen, and it will be against his will.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “When one person resists, it’s a call to action. When 100 people resist, it’s a movement. When 1000 people resist, it’s a revolution.”

        “Somebody has to be first. And nobody has to volunteer — the first will be chosen, and it will be against his will.”

        Nice words, but not germane to the comment…understand you will be at a tactical disadvantage against already drawn guns. Throwing you life away needlessly only weakens “the movement”.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          how do you know that person won’t be ready? How do you know they will always have the upper hand? If you continue to give it to them, maybe you should join them.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” If you continue to give it to them, maybe you should join them.”

          Oh, please….quit being a snot, and act like an adult. Being unable to differentiate between a caution/recommendation for consideration, and an attack on your idea should disqualify you to even own a firearm; immature people (children) with firearms are a serious danger to everyone around them.

          Not every, not even a majority of, gun owners (or even POTG) answer every knock on the door with gun drawn. Reality is not like that. If the SWAT team shows up, getting your firearm into effective position will be detected as a threatening motion (even moving your hand at all can get you killed, as we have seen).

          My caution, for the adults in the room, was to be sure to think the situation through long before the event arises, because you will literally only get one shot at the confrontation, and understanding the tactical situation is important..regardless of all the bluster, bravado, and baloney that often appears here.

        3. avatar B.D. says:

          Did you just say having an opinion should disqualify someone from their 2A right?

          Well, we know what side you chose. And… fuck you.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Did you just say having an opinion should disqualify someone from their 2A right?”

          Nope. However did you conclude that?

          Having an opinion is great, so it is for everyone else too. Opinions are not required to support, like, reinforce, validate, protect the sensibilities of anyone else. It is, however, incumbent on us to deal with opinions of others in a manner to enlighten, challenge, stress our own thinking. Intelligent discourse is useful, resorting to rants, ad hominem attacks and bullying screeds reduces our opinions to mental diarrhea.

        5. avatar Eli2016 says:

          “My caution, for the adults in the room, was to be sure to think the situation through long before the event arises, because you will literally only get one shot at the confrontation, and understanding the tactical situation is important..regardless of all the bluster, bravado, and baloney that often appears here.”

          I have been trying (however weakly) to make this point to the Keyboard Kommandos who frequent these pages but to no avail. Thank you for clarifying. There is more than one way to skin a cat. POTG should first consider what state they live in and where they live. Secondly, they should as logic would dictate PREPARE. Legally, logistically, and of course without shooting your mouth off about every move you could or would make. It is not brain surgery. If my state ever goes down this unconstitutional path I am ready. Bravado excluded.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If my state ever goes down this unconstitutional path I am ready.”

          As you note, being “ready” doesn’t mean automatically defaulting to the “shoot first, ask questions later” mode. One reason I am not familiar with my neighbors is to cut down the number of people I can disturb to the point one of them decides to launch spurious complaints about me being a danger. Haven’t heard of a complete stranger randomly declaring that some resident in some house in some neighborhood has a gun and is a danger to people on the street. I rather like being on a wave and smile, but no more, basis with the neighborhood.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Get a glass front door. If a group of armed thugs line up at my door, I won’t draw, I’ll pick up the AR-10 and introduce them. Assuming that everybody is just helpless before the JBT contingent is unrealistic. If 10 people try, and 10 people die, killing 20 JBTs in the process, it will be over, other JBTs will have previous appointments when called.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Get a glass front door. ”

          There may be some merit to your recommendation. Hadn’t thought about that before. Thanx.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        You nailed it, Ralph.

  55. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

    Red Flag laws are the gimmick dejour by the left. They propose outlandish crap all the time, occasionally one sticks. On the surface they appear largely the same but do vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
    On so many levels these are wrong, we know that. RFL’s will become the divorce lawyer, angry girlfriend and mother in laws best friend.
    Will a day in court right the wrongs done under the guise of “public safety”? In many cases, no.
    You cannot unring some bells, this’ll be one of them. Even if dismissed, many places will retain the issuance and enforcement under the order on the books.
    Child custody, security clearances, employment related firearms access, licensing….there are countless areas where the mere issuance of a TOP or OOP will stick to someone regardless of the ultimate adjudication.
    Good luck trying to get compensated when your guns are eventually released from PD secure storage. They are not curators protecting property and investments. They are warehouse guys who handle piles a things every day, what is special to us is not special to them.
    In places like New Yorkistan, where I live, these things will hang around people’s necks like anchors long after resolved.
    When a service member or national guardsman gets jammed up under one of these laws let’s guess what that persons career prospects are going forward. No ones CO wants to be the guy who was wrong and restored weapons access to a guy coming off one of these things.
    This is just one more in the death by a thousand cuts the anti’s are inflicting on us.
    There are many ways to protect individuals and to reasonably preserve public safety (no such thing as a perfect system) already available out there. These assaults on rights, due process and decency are disgraceful and I pray SCOTUS eventually finds them to be what we already know they are.

  56. avatar James J. White says:

    Here’s an idea, claim that “tyranny is upon us” and whine and complain and dream of resisting while you sit in your gun room (or a foreign chat room?) and fantasize about shooting back? The only organization that is dedicated to the 2nd Amendment is the NRA and it is amusing that the same people who claim to uphold the 2nd Amendment laugh at the NRA. The Russians are laughing too.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      The NRA is about to go bankrupt due to its internal corruption and betrayal of gun owners. It is also about to be disbanded by New York State regulators for violating laws governing nonprofit organizations. Since the NRA ship is sinking, we will hear a lot of NRA shills making noise, while former NRA shills suddenly declare they were against the NRA’s red flag laws all along (see latest Hickok45 FAQ#85 video). Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are seeking an 18-month sentence for self-admitted Russian spy and NRA-insider Maria Butina.

      1. avatar HuntingtonGuy says:

        NY, as screwed up as it is, isn’t putting NRA out of business. NY screwed them on their version of carry shield because they weren’t licensed to sell insurance products in NYS. Honestly, it was another unforced error by NRA to not have their act 200% together before launching something so visible and contrary to what NYS gubmint would easily tolerate.
        NRA is bleeding because they’ve turned into a bloated, top heavy, insulated from their membership, ego driven organization who has gotten away from their purpose.
        Wayne needs to be thanked for his service and shown the door. They need to fire their PR group and start over, they need to stop putting their hands in our pockets every time they communicate with us and they need to stop thinking they deserve a slice of our support and start earning it again.

        No, NY isn’t hurting NRA. NRA is hurting NRA.

        FWIW, I’m a Benefactor LM member and have carried a card since the 70’s. I’m not the traditional NRA badger, but they need to get their crap together.

        1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

          It seems you are unaware of the latest developments in the NRA soap opera. (I am a Benefactor Life Member myself, by the way.)

          First, let’s be clear, the NRA Carry Guard insurance and training program was _entirely_ an Ackerman McQueen operation. The investigation of New York State put Ackerman McQueen and its contracts with the NRA under a microscope.

          What I am talking about, however, is the fact that the NRA and Ackerman McQueen seem to have blatantly violated nonprofit reporting statutes, including having people of the main organization, such as Oliver North, getting paid by the main organization and via undisclosed contracts by Ackerman McQueen.

          There was an internal financial audit at the NRA last year that was triggered by the pending investigation of Ackerman McQueen. This audit not only resulted in unearthing corruption at the highest level, funding cuts to Ackerman McQueen, layoffs at NRATV and the eventual lawsuit by the NRA against Ackerman McQueen, but also the NRA auditor leaving the organization after reporting the truth to the NRA leadership and not getting any response in fixing the problems.

          Since keeping the house in order of a nonprofit organization is the job of the Chief Executive (LaPierre) and the Board of Directors (oversight committee), they are all legally liable for any irregularities and criminal wrongdoing. If the State of New York, where the NRA is incorporated, finds that the NRA has violated nonprofit statutes, the state could sanction board members, remove board members, disband the board, or close down the organization entirely.

          NRA’s Dirty Laundry Exposed as Pro-Gun Group Cleans House
          https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/nras-dirty-laundry-exposed-as-pro-gun-group-cleans-house/

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      You can’t man up when someone answers your bullshit directly up-thread so you passive-aggressively post down-thread. You even misrepresent what was posted. What a fail, even in the virtual world. If YOU are the NRA, that explains some things. ROTFLMFAO!

      https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/john-boch/a-red-flag-order-is-not-worth-dying-for/#comment-4239772
      https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2019/04/john-boch/a-red-flag-order-is-not-worth-dying-for/#comment-4239770

  57. avatar GS650G says:

    The next Democrat in the white house will make gun confiscation his first priority and the red flag laws will be used for that purpose

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      And mandatory vaccination laws. Count on it.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Man, I hope so. And I hope you’re the first one to get the needle.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          You are pathetic. Go get your shots and stfu.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Number 2.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Hopefully you volunteer.

  58. avatar SoCalJack says:

    Red flag order being served, comply or not?
    Many seem to have predetermined their course of action. The bigger question is, “what, as a gun owner, are you doing NOW to fight for you 2A rights?” How many folks, new and old, have you brought to the shooting range recently, how much money have you donated to your gun rights groups last month, how many folks have you ralied to vote in your last local elections? Maybe you made big contributions 5-20 years ago, but the fight continues. We have many enemies, therefore need to grow our numbers, raise our voices, step up our efforts, and carry on smartly. Just my opinion.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “How many folks, new and old, have you brought to the shooting range recently, how much money have you donated to your gun rights groups last month, how many folks have you ralied to vote in your last local elections?”

      Concealed means concealed. Stealth is good. Being under-counted (underestimated) has advantages.

  59. avatar James J. White says:

    The one positive thing that the Mueller report came up with is the fact that Russia and foreign enemies were using social media propaganda to attempt to disrupt the political stability of the greatest Country in the world. Think about that when you read screwball posts that tend to recommend anarchy and laugh at the only voice that gun owners have in the political arena, the NRA.

    1. avatar Charlie Foxtrot says:

      The NRA is the only voice that gun owners have in the political arena? Wow, that’s quite some ignorance there.

      Ammoland | NRA’s Dirty Laundry Exposed as Pro-Gun Group Cleans House
      https://www.ammoland.com/2019/04/nras-dirty-laundry-exposed-as-pro-gun-group-cleans-house/

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “Think about that when you read screwball posts”

      I do think about that when I read some of yours. It makes sense in light of your posts. You’re projecting.

  60. avatar SurfGW says:

    For all of you writing inflammatory comments about revolution or shooting at officers serving a lawful (for now) order, what makes you think you are not highlighting yourself to anyone who wants to legally doxx you to get your house raided?
    Or maybe a judge will issue an order because you are a threat and when you get shot in the raid you provide “I told you” talking points for anti-gunners while people face palm.
    THINK BEFORE you spout your opinions!

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Come and take them.

    2. avatar SW_Corsair says:

      Good question.

      The answer is to use VPN tunnels and anonymous encrypted email address’ which are only connected to using said VPN tunnel.

      Quiet easy for the average user to do these days.

      Not perfect as nothing ever is, but certainly good enough to make a “joe random comment” on the ‘net.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The answer is to use VPN tunnels…”

        The “eyes” see all, whenever they wish.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          The effort it takes to track a single Ip through a VPN requires more than you understand. You are paranoid, and scared. It’s sad. Lay off the kool-aid.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The effort it takes to track a single Ip through a VPN requires more than you understand.”

          The “eyes” have little difficulty with that. Avoid “the eyes”.

        3. avatar SW_Corsair says:

          Rationally speaking, if I know what a VPN tunnel is and how to set it up with an anonymous encrypted email account you don’t think I don’t understand that?

          If “they” want me so bad as to expend the energy, time and manpower to follow my tracts, well, “Molon Labe.”

          I’m too old and busted up to care *that* much anymore, but I still wouldn’t mind doing my part for the III% in such an “event.” When enough single “events” occur on a frequent enough basis, the sitrep will change with concern to the big picture and things will get interesting nationwide. History will then repeat; it always does.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Rationally speaking, if I know what a VPN tunnel is and how to set it up with an anonymous encrypted email account you don’t think I don’t understand that? ”

          Just noting that a VPN available to “the eyes” may not be much protection; be aware. As in NSA established TOR.

        5. avatar B.D. says:

          It might not be much protection, but it’s better than none.

          Seems about fitting for this topic of gun confiscation, wouldn’t you say?

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It might not be much protection, but it’s better than none.”

          Am told there are alternatives that are more secure. One tool has been mentioned here, already. Avoid “the eyes”.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What a silly thread. The subject of unconstitutional seizure of firearms and the potential result of that should not be discussed in secret, it should be shouted from the rooftops. Except, of course, for operational operators operating operationally, who clearly need a mishmash of acronyms before they can whisper anything at all.
          And I shall avoid the Nays, as well, whatever the flaming hell all that is supposed to mean.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The subject of unconstitutional seizure of firearms and the potential result of that should not be discussed in secret, it should be shouted from the rooftops. ”

          Then we should be happy to have concealed carry banned. What is the purpose for concealed carry, anyway?

          (no, I don’t subscribe to the notion that only sinister people conceal their weapons)

    3. avatar El Roberto E Lee says:

      “Laughs in ProtonVPN and TOR”

  61. avatar Tony says:

    You can’t fight anything if you are dead. If the police show up at your house with a red flag confiscation order and 10 mins later you and your family are lying dead in a large puddle of blood, then what have you really accomplished other than getting dead?

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      If they kill your family, who you are trying to defend and they are unarmed, I would say you did a shit load. Because that case will end up in supreme court. Anyone who thinks these things will just go away through politics is naive and would show their belly no matter what they called the law that takes away your freedoms. Fuck you, coward.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If they kill your family, who you are trying to defend and they are unarmed, I would say you did a shit load.”

        It is important to keep different situations separated as to specifics and responses. This thread is about police serving EPRO warrants, and confiscating firearms, not about a full court press to deprive the populace of firearms, with no other intent.

        In an EPRO situation, it is unlikely your family is being defended by you, as the EPRO is designed to protect family from you. As such, you are involving your family in even more abuse as you place them in position to be collateral damage. You, alone, may be “defending” your rights, but not from a position of home defense.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Good god you are the most confused and selfish person on this forum.

          You are defending your home, your rights, and the future of COUNTLESS others as well.

          Good luck. I’d rather die on my feet than live as a bottom feeder like you.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Good god you are the most confused and selfish person on this forum.”

          Confused about what?

          If you are subject to EPRO delivery, you are not defending your family by shooting through the door. The cops aren’t there to harm your family. The cops aren’t even trying to harm your family. It you suffer an illegitimate EPRO, it is you who are the target, not your family. It would be you instigating a gunfight that endangers your family. Since your family is not endangered by your receipt of an EPRO, a proclaimed defense of family is no justification for shooting at the police at your door.

          BTW, when the cops did come, and present the EPRO, how many did you shoot?

        3. avatar B.D. says:

          Surrender your rights then. Keep telling yourself you are protecting your family that way.

          Where would this nation be if people thought like you in our fight for freedom?

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” Surrender your rights then. Keep telling yourself you are protecting your family that way.”
          Where did I endorse anyone surrendering anything? Discussing different elements of a situation is not an endorsement, but an inquiry.

          “Where would this nation be if people thought like you in our fight for freedom?”
          You don’t actually know anything about my “thoughts”, only my queries and observations. But to answer your question, how do you think we got here with all those freedom fighters you imagine are holding back the bull?

          The second, and last, civil war ended 154 years ago. Has the nation grown closer to the constitutional republic the founders set? Why not? Has there not been sufficient erosion of the constitution, yet? Why hasn’t there been a third civil war? I noted earlier several instances where government forces attacked citizens who were not threatening the union, not declaring outright rebellion. Where were all the patriots?

          But the point is, the posting for this string was an opinion about the wisdom of dying for nothing, when alternatives exist. You jumped to defending your family when resisting an EPRO. Your family would not be under attack, you would be instigating a gunfight that would endanger your family. What sort of protection of family is that?

          In the instance of your experience with a restraining order, you found the judge in your case ruled out damaging your RTKBA. If the ruling were different, were you equipped and prepared to shoot everyone in the court room to “protect” your RTKBA? Were you planning to illegally purchase a gun and shoot up the police station and judicial building in retaliation? Were you going home to barricade, and shoot it out when police enforced the confiscation order?

          Dying for no purpose is not inspirational. Look at the most recent case; man died because cops didn’t like his hand movement. Who was inspired to rise up and launch a revolution? Who was inspired to forcefully resist the next confiscation (and there likely was at least one more since the murder)? Did you start your own armed militia? Are you going to rise up only when you are personally involved? What inspiration is that for the rest of us?

      2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

        So what happens after the police take your guns, a non LEO robber breaks in and harms your family? Will he politely wait to after the court date to give you a fair chance? Remember Katrina, looters oftened followed the police and national guardsmen who confiscated peoples’ guns. Gun confiscation puts your family in jeopardy by leaving it defenseless. It can take years to win in court, and even then the police can ignore court orders and destroy your guns anyway.

        As far who is responsible for endangering your family, the blame is on the cops who chose to execute unlawful orders and endanger your family with just their presence. The judge who signed off on a illegal order for politics, and the accuser who brought up such charges. Even the people who wrote such laws share the blame.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Gun confiscation puts your family in jeopardy by leaving it defenseless.”

          And being uselessly dead doesn’t?

        2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          Might be more merciful than prolonged suffering of fighting the courts for years, going bankrupt doing so, and the police ignoring the court outcome and destroy your guns anyway. Either way, once they have your guns, you won’t be getting them back.

    2. avatar Tony says:

      My point is that you have to be smart. If you go tow to tow with the cops all you’re going to do is get yourself and your family killed and in the process, you have gained absolutely nothing. I’m definitely not saying surrender; always fight with everything you have. However, you must also be SMART in how you fight. Going toe to toe with the police and going out in a blaze of glory is not smart.

  62. avatar B.D. says:

    Come and take them.

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Your bravado will go away when your comments provide justification for a 3am no knock SWAT raid where the first thing you will hear is the sound of glass breaking as a 203 CS grenade enters your room followed in close succession by bigger glass breaking from a widow entry and an 11 inch 416 to the forehead and operators shouting “FREEZE – PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR HEAD”.
      Don’t be an idiot and quiet your comments

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Come and take them.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        also…

        VPN (is the simplest way to put it to someone like you)

      3. avatar GridSquare says:

        That’s right, shut up and submit. You seem awfully eager about what you just wrote. Maybe you should stop jerking off to your confiscation police state fantasies.

      4. avatar B.D. says:

        also also… I have an ex who attempted a temporary restraining order, which I fought and won, so she could use it in a custody battle. The entire thing was fabricated and exaggerated. There are already hundred if not thousands of people being red flagged for these kinds of things. I am fed up because I have been through it. Maybe you lack the balls to fight, and common sense to remain untraceable online, but not everyone is as stupid or cowardly as you.

        Go lower your american flag and replace it with a british one. Red coat tyrant. Silence your fucking self.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” I have an ex who attempted a temporary restraining order, which I fought and won”

          You know, you could be taken more seriously if you took time to explain the incident, how it arose, how it took place, what you did, and how you fought it and won. Rather than try to impress us with how tough you are (did you shoot the cops at the front door?), you could use your experience to benefit us all.

      5. avatar B.D. says:

        also lastly lastly… the first thing I would hear will be my motion detector alarms, and dogs. You suburban safe zone dweller coward.

        Come. And. Take. Them.

        1. avatar SurfGW says:

          With your anti-government comments bordering on domestic terrorism, whose to say they won’t study your dwelling in more detail. Perhaps a rooftop entry (do your motion detectors work on the roof?) or some jamming of your WiFi/ Cell / motion detector…
          make yourself a big enough target and you will get snatched onvthe move in your car…
          You can’t even begin to imagine the methods available to operators against threats.
          We are both on this site because we believe in gun rights but we differ in the methods. I suggest you stick to voting, writing emails to your representatives and writing checks to the NRA; be a big enough man to obey even the laws you don’t like until you can elect people to change those laws.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          All I read was “obey”

          be a big enough man to realize NONE of that shit changes anything. It’s been this way for decades now, and look where it has gotten us. Throw your vote into the fire and expect change. Good luck. I will be a “big enough man” (clearly you are an old fart) to fight for what I believe, rather than vote or expect someone to have my best interest in politics. Society has brainwashed you well old man.

    2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Keyboard courage from B.D. (Big Dummy?).

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        come and find out.

        1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

          Tough typing bull$#itter. Be sure to have a friend or family member post the update at TTAG when your [email protected]$$ gets taken out Lavoy Finicum style.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          Good luck to you too.

          k. bai.

  63. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    One thing to take note of…. for anyone going through a divorce, especially if children are involved, the other sides attorney will press for your significant other to get a restraining order, no visitation order, and/or now a ‘Red Flag’ seizure in some States. Standard SOP now esp female attorneys.
    It doesn’t matter what you did or did not do, Family Court will side with the female most of the time.
    I’ve witnessed, as a detached observer that happens to work in a courthouse, the truly eff-ed up things that a couple will visit on each other.
    So bottom line, if you believe your marriage is on the rocks, it’s probably better to move any personally owned weapons to a neutral location and have no operational control over them.
    YMMV

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Wisely said. In jurisdictions with lots of military, protective orders go in place and you have to prove that you don’t have access to any guns by allowing random searches. It’s SOP long before GVRO but GVRO made it so only incompetent lawyers don’t request it.
      Don’t expect a hearing within 21 days; courts are backlogged for 6 months or more and will not speed it up so you can enjoy your hobby while being potentially threatening

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        Wut? Paperwork is filed and you have 7 days before court. No court is going to wait 6 months… It’s obvious you have never been through this stuff. No court would want to keep a family in a 6 month waiting period of no contact from either side. That would be a serious lawsuit waiting to happen. To keep a parent from their children just because someone filed paperwork for that long? Yea right. Even as single people, that gives someone 6 months of waiting and festering to become unreasonable and violent, if they were not already. No court is going to say “well, we are just so backed up, we thought a potentially violent restraining order could wait”… Families would win billions from shit like that across the nation.

        Also, there are no random searches… most courts realize that one party files paperwork to simply issue a no contact order, and without a history of violence, there must be proof of the claims in the filed paperwork. Most times, they will just simply draw up a temporary order that does not infringe upon any rights and is basically a no contact order. That is what was offered to me, and I chose to fight it, and won. Even if I had chosen to allow such an order without being proven guilty of anything, there would have to be evidence of domestic abuse, or violence, etc etc, and I made sure to ask if my right to own a firearm was hindered. Even though it was put in the claim, that I used a weapon (lie), the judge said no, because there is no proof without presenting a case. Basically, the court wants to do as little as possible and get involved as little as possible. If no contact is 90% of the reason these things are filed, then that is what they will issue and 90% of parties will agree to them before a trial even begins. This was what they expected me to do, and instead, I showed up with a lawyer and a case. Even if you have a history of something stupid like DUI’s and drug related incidents, there is no violent threats unless proven through evidence during trial, which, again… courts would rather avoid.

        You clearly have no idea how it works.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          OK. Thanks for the explanation; that is useful.

          What arguments did your lawyer use to reach your successful defense? What do you think your lawyer might have done differently at court if guns were confiscated, or you were informed the proceeding made you a prohibited person? Was your lawyer experienced with 2A cases? Did you use a civil, or criminal lawyer?

  64. avatar Dr Fool says:

    If you’re willing to fight and even die, here’s a thought: why not do it on your terms – submit but retaliate afterwards against those who give orders – judges, politicians, etc?

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      wut?

      I’ll just leave this here:

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

      1. avatar Dr Fool says:

        All I am saying you may have a better chance to win if you stab them in the back. If your goal is to die, a direct confrontation is a solution.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          If you submit and hope for a second chance to fight, you have already lost. At least in death fighting for freedom, there is hope of inspiration and lets be honest… someone has to do it. You can judge all the people you want by their comments on these places, but just know that some of them (us) are not fucking around.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

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

        Go to the source; Franklin was not talking about government tyranny.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          Franklin’s remarks about the trade offs between “essential liberty” and “a little temporary safety” seem to have been directed at those in the colonies who could see that further compromise was no longer possible by the Crown and that it was up to the colonies to cave in in order to maintain the peace. Franklin was urging them that to do this would be to give up the entire game and thereby scuttle any chance for real liberty and independence in the colonies.

          To the fucking source. A fight for privacy is a fight against tyranny. It’s pretty clear cut. When people were told to conform to british law so they could be treated fairly according to a tyrannical governments law, Franklin wrote that it is a trade off which would end the fight. Use some fucking common sense you idiot. It is a direct quote against tyranny. There is no other way to source it.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…seem to have been directed at those in the colonies who could see that further compromise was no longer possible by the Crown and that it was up to the colonies to cave in in order to maintain the peace. Franklin was urging them that to do this would be to give up the entire game and thereby scuttle any chance for real liberty and independence in the colonies.”

          The above is the understanding generally published, but Franklin was not addressing “the Crown” at all, nor addressing the overall conflict over natural rights, and rights granted by kings. Franklin’s statement regarded money.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, of course he was addressing government tyranny, that is tyranny by the government at the time, ie the British government.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, of course he was addressing government tyranny, that is tyranny by the government at the time, ie the British government.”

          Popular assumption, but not correct. Go to the source; interesting reading.

  65. avatar GridSquare says:

    I fly the Gadsden flag, high and proud, and if that offends you then go back to your liberal suburban HOA where you can’t even fly the American flag.

    Next, I’m actually having another flag made, it’s got a yellow background with a cobra coiled up but with a grenade in its mouth, and it says:

    “Fuck around and find out.”

    Yep. Be mad. I do what I want. You don’t like it, then it then you can come down to my house for a free ass whooping anytime you want, my door is always open. In fact I don’t even have a door.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Not a bad idea. I like the new flag idea. Maybe one that is a clear shot at these red flag laws though, instead of a spin off. I’d buy that. But I do like your mentality and your flag. Fly it high.

  66. avatar El Roberto Lee says:

    Guys, don’t fight the cops when they show up at your door, they have every advantage, do what you have to do to LIVE another day, so that you can take the fight to the traitors on your terms, you will have the advantage then, but the biggest thing is you will have ANONYMITY. Stop thinking like ruby ridge/waco and start thinking like IRA/hajjiman/SF etc. gasoline is effective, computer skills effective, those naughty pictures you took with an slr and giant lens are very effective. Unless your an ex spook or SF goon dont Try to go toe to toe with a swat team, WE HAVE TIME, not a lot but there is enough time to get ready. Make them fight by their rules and be ready to fight with no rules. SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      When all legal option are exhausted and due process fails, how is one going to fight once all means of self defense have already been relinquished? You keep telling yourself “live to fight another day” all you want, see how helpless you are to defend yourself after it’s done.

    2. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

      Yep, just bend over and let them have their way with you, that is how you win, by licking their and begging not to be killed.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      El Roberto Lee, it’s going to take a mixture of the tactics you posted, those that are fed-up going toe-to-toe, and others. I’m glad you posted. It’s another avenue in the same direction.

  67. avatar SurfGW says:

    BD, I am in my prime and can still run under20 minute 5k’s while still good enough to get my name on the board I the gym for some lifts/CrossFit WODS; You clearly are young and thinking with the wrong head.
    Hope you grow up to think more rationally before anything bad happens to you or your future ex is more effective against you.
    I have a delicious IPA to drink watching the sunset with my family thinking about the waves I caught in the morning and getting ready for Easter to calm me down. Cheers!

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      My future ex? Dude… I hope you never have to experience your loved one flip the script on you. Seomeone you trusted, try to take your family away from you. That is how I know you are an asshole…. to wish that kind of shit on someone. You fucking coward hypocrite. Go eat a magazine of FMJ and save the future the trouble of finding out the hard way where your loyalty lies.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        Don’t wish the pain and heartbreak of divorce on anyone but it is amazing how men with uncompromising attitudes tent to get divorced much more often. If you mature, your next marriage will probably go much better.
        Wish I could offer you a beer to relax.

        1. avatar B.D. says:

          again, you have no idea how much I compromised. You have no idea the details of the relationship or how it led to me filing for divorce, winning a custody battle, and diffusing a fabricated order of protection. All you know is what I have told you, and from my stance on 2A, you are right, I will NOT compromise. Same with my family. I will NOT compromise and allow someone unfit to raise them.

          Stay sober, you think clearer.

    2. avatar George Washington says:

      Ugh……. You’re an uppity little bastard, aren’t you?
      We won’t be in need of “your kind” when IT happens…js

    3. avatar GridSquare says:

      IPA!? You sir have crossed the line!

  68. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

    Well, personally I think they’re worth dying for. All it takes is a glance through a history books to see what happens once firearms are surrendered to the state, in ANY capacity. Far too many good men have died defending my right to own firearms for me to just go belly up to some cops with a piece of paper.
    I only see these things going down 2 ways. They could kick my door down in the middle of the night, in which case I’m probably dead anyways because I would have no idea what was happening and would respond…. aggressively. Or they could knock and tell my politely that they have an ERPO and are here to seize any firearms in the house, in which case I will politely tell them I’m refusing and perfectly willing to die to keep them, and then just let the dice fall where they may.

    1. avatar SW_Corsair says:

      Based upon the majority of responses here, after the 97% are voluntarily disarmed, new articles will be written in the near future and the comment section will be giving advice on how to peacefully get taken into custody when government actors come to forcibly put you and yours on the buses and railcars. I’m sure “they’ll” only keep you in custody for the prescribed “legal” 10 days until you get to plead your case with a reversed “burden of proof” in front of a judge. (roll eyes)

      Don’t think it would/could happen here? I suggest you take a crash course in 20th Century History on what happens to disarmed population groups. Never, ever, give your guns for any reason, at any time, to anyone!

      When “they” come, if you draw breath, you fight. Yes, some of us will be first to fall and we won’t make it. This is the way the world works; it’s not fair. Toughen up like the great men who came before us did. Not all of them made it either. Remember them fondly and honor their memory by taking the right course of action when the times comes. Fight!

      To the few true III%’s remaining, good luck gentleman; it’s very hard to stay positive when the sheep are actually arguing for their own disarmament without any notable resistance.

      I’m done here. There are too many other websites to frequent.

      Last thought: These are also the kinds of “friends” I (we) don’t need to be around; “they” become the very people who would turn you into the government for a pat on the head in the hopes of not being the next victim.

      1. avatar B.D. says:

        The last thought about friends is exactly why I have none, or, very few (because I am not a total loner) but also no social media and I do not frequent my opinions about this stuff to my so called friends in the minimal amounts of time I spend with them (mostly co-workers, and only at work) because you can trust NOBODY.

        Good luck sir. And I am also heart broken at the amount of people willing to comply rather than fight. At least people like you give me hope.

  69. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Quote: mnivorousBeorn says:
    April 20, 2019 at 18:28

    @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! End Quote

    There are corrupt courts/judges in America today at every level. There are almost daily articles of blatantly unconstitutional rulings that continue to degrade our rights. It may be worse in the communist controlled states but shows up in theoretically conservative states.

    Now days I lean to move your gun to a safe location, allow the search and fight in court.

    After the communist takeover (about 2028 or 30) they will pass outright confiscation laws and I expect the war to begin.

    Be Prepared !

    1. avatar OmnivorousBeorn says:

      Outright disarmament is a completely moral and legal situation than temporary confiscation of weapons . . .

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Huh?? Say, WTF?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Huh?? Say, WTF?”

          Agree. Some of these comments seem to be computer generated.

  70. avatar Chadwick says:

    Ttag- “your rights aren’t worth dying for!” Me- “yeah maybe I need to find a new source for gun news updates.”

    Go tell Europe that zero resistance to jackbooted thugs is a great end game. They’d still be speaking German. Too bad when you get locked up there eventually won’t be anybody to speak up. “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here.”

  71. avatar George Washington says:

    Awful lot of “what ifs” and maybes in your article…js
    These judges ARE NOT on your side in court… People understand the kangaroo courts and they know the railroading they will receive from these traitors of the Constitution…js

  72. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The blatantly obvious influx of names who have never before posted a single comment at TTAG suddenly advocating capital murder and suicide by cop are easily recognizable as the work of liberal anti-gun trolls lamely posting fake comments pathetically portraying what they imagine to be the stereotypical “from my dead hands” gun nut. They think they’re much to clever for TTAG regular readers to spot their ridiculously transparent attempts.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      Bullshit. People are fed up and won’t deal with kangaroo courts who will NEVER side with them. Sad to see “the regulars” of this site being submissive and cowardly red coats. BTW, being a “regular” does not give any credit to anyone, it’s like saying you follow something on facebook. I come here pretty often, does not mean I agree with every article, especially in these contexts.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        yep what i would suggest is keep some at home that you are prepared to loose. hide the rest elsewhere away from home but not all in the one location but several. what they are doing is Unlawful. Lawful is what is morally Just and Fair and is recognized under common law. This has nothing to do with Legal. Any law can be Legal but how often are laws also Lawful. Legal is closely tied to commercial or maritime law which is commercial law originates. Believe it or not your birth certificate comes under commercial law and is the first “contract” in your life. The common law equivalent is the live birth record which has no connection to contract law. Most laws these days are not more than statute law which is part of commercial law. To move from statute law to common law it has to pass before judge and jury with jury nullification in play with all jurors having full knowledge of their responsibilities in regards to judging the law not just the guilt or innocence as to the charges that have been laid. The problem is that most courts these days select jurors carefully to try to get a guilty verdict and part of that is clandestinely selecting on lack of knowledge of these responsibilities. This is just as much treason and sedition as anything any of the politicians themselves do

  73. avatar Stonewall Harpet says:

    Most civil wars don’t start because of one grievance or issues. It is an accumulation of actions that are like the twig that bursts a dam. Not to mention the political climate, will of the people, and propaganda being pushed to incite all sides.
    Your article shows that your logic is that of a pogue. You would have people willingly bide time until everyone’s doors are getting kicked in. That will never happen. Our government is not stupid. They will continue the rope pulling of sides back and forth, slowly taking small portions until they have the advantage.
    At the moment I am typing this. We no longer have the right of free speech (music with lyrics about shootings), our right to bear arms has been trampled (+/- depending on where you live), due process has been scratched, etc. At what point do a free people stand up for that freedom? According to you they will stand up too late. And as for all the keyboard commandos, STOP! Let them know not what you can do, what you have, where you are, or that you oppose anything until you DO.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “At what point do a free people stand up for that freedom?”

      Good question, one for which I have received no serious answer.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        This has been a question in liberty circles for as long as I’ve been alive. There is no clear answer and if someone believes that they have one AND a solution, they would be a fool to post it online or to utter it amongst anything but highly trusted friends.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This has been a question in liberty circles for as long as I’ve been alive. There is no clear answer…”

          The Founders discovered that point, but not without setting a proper support, which took time. Can we establish such a line in our day and time without respected leadership building the supports? Do we establish that “time” (through whatever means), and put it on the shelf for dusting off at that “time”? What if we forget where we put the darn thing? Do we wait until some sort of osmosis gathers to produce a catalyst, and act without a plan, without leaders? Do we discard the idea of that “time”, and continue the contest solely via the ballot box?

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You started out serious and thoughtful but ended up silly. With sincere respect, the tail end of your comment read like snarky liberals that don’t particularly care about the answer; aka their one sided “conversation”. I understand that you’ve been verbally attacked a bit in these particular comments so perhaps you were just on the defensive when you wrote.

          I gave you an honest answer based upon my experiences. What you choose to do with it is up to you.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I gave you an honest answer based upon my experiences. What you choose to do with it is up to you.”

          John, you replied to yourself. Who were/are you addressing?

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “John, you replied to yourself. Who were/are you addressing?”

          I was addressing you, Sam I Am.

          Since I obviously wasn’t addressing myself and the only replies consisted of one from you and one from me, that comes off as more silliness in your comment.

          Again, you asked a question that I believed was an honest one. In response, I conveyed how it appeared then and appears to me now. It was an opinion based upon what I observed and observe. That’s the best and most honest reply I could’ve made to your inquiry. Hopefully, you weren’t pretending to be obtuse as your writings indicate far more intelligence than that.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          OK, thanx.

          As I selectively remember it, the thread is about dealing with an EPRO that authorizes gun confiscation. You related that you had experience with a bogus EPRO. I noted that rather than a tirade of limited value to the audience, you could be most useful by detailing the episode. You related an outline of what happened. I then asked questions regarding exactly how you ended up successfully negating the restraining order: what type of lawyer (criminal/civil), what specifically was presented to the court, what was the reasoning by the court agreeing with you, what sort of documentation was required, did you speak? All of those questions would be quite interesting to the audience. In fact….

          Why not write the whole thing up (minus the vitriol) and ask Dan to publish it? Now, that would be a real service to us all.

          Cheers

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “You related that you had experience with a bogus EPRO.”

          @Sam I Am: I believe you are confusing me with B.D. I did not post that I had experience with a bogus EPRO.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          John, you are correct about my confusion.

          Can you summarize for me? I do want to address your comments.

        8. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Sam I Am: No problem on the confusion. It has happened to me more than once.

          Summary:
          You had commented that you hadn’t received an adequate answer to the question, “At what point do a free people stand up for that freedom?”. I more or less agreed as I have not heard a consensus to that question over many years. I further meant to imply (but I don’t think I succeeded) that I didn’t think there was a one-size-fits-all answer. I finished up cautioning that if someone did have an answer and a solution, it might not be wise to post it or speak of it in public; assuming it was tending towards illegality.

          I believe that to be the sum of what I was trying to convey. As far as I recall, I was agreeing with you. lol

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I believe that to be the sum of what I was trying to convey. As far as I recall, I was agreeing with you. lol”

          Thanx. We do not disagree. Apologizing for the goof-up.

        10. avatar B.D. says:

          coward.

          We should be publicly fighting these red flag laws, not hiding amongst ourselves. Calling people willing to die for their freedoms stupid for posting something online is like calling our forefather stupid for standing up to british law through our declaration of independence. A trend must be set, and people must be influenced. If you chose to cower in fear of being red flagged, then I feel sorry for you.

          Also, Sam I Am has been “verbally abused” because he is an idiot. Multiple people have called him out on his rhetoric and he just keeps the same liberal “nah nah nah boo boo” argument going.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Also, Sam I Am has been “verbally abused” because he is an idiot…..and he just keeps the same liberal “nah nah nah boo boo” argument going.”

          When you are digging yourself into a hole, the best action is to stop digging. You have no idea what you are talking about.

          You have so much to offer regarding your experience with EPRO, yet you are stuck in tirade mode, wasting the value you could bring.

          So, once again…give us the details, not just an outline, on how you successfully dealt with a restraining order. Important information lies in how you chose an attorney, the approach he took, your input to the process; things like that. Already suggested you write up the entire episode (minus the angry rants), and submit as an article for publication here. To date, no one commenting here has had any experience like yours. Help us out.

        12. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Thanx. We do not disagree. Apologizing for the goof-up.”

          No apology necessary, Sam I am. It was a simple mistake. We’re good. It won’t be long before we’re arguing about something or another, as is often the case. I’m glad we have you around. Cheers.

  74. avatar Dan says:

    Jesus, this one sparked some talk.

    Honestly, I think a lot of the bravado on this and web boards like it is…premature. And dangerous for the cause of firearms ownership.

    The problem is this: the situation with gun rights hasn’t gotten to the point that armed resistance would generate any public support. If you shoot a cop trying to do his job, you’re not going to be a hero. You’re going to be that asshole who shot a cop and has a dozen new gun control laws named after him. And your loved ones will be alone.

    Further, the issue is that, unlike the revolutionaries at Lexington and Concord, we don’t have anything like structure. Sure, there’s a percentage of the population that would be willing to fight to retain their right to defend themselves. But who’s going to lead us? How are you going to get the word out that it’s not just a lone nut in his bunker, but it’s time to kick off Civil War II?

    My life is precious to me. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t be carrying a firearm to defend myself. Thus, I’m not willing to throw it away on a lost cause.

    That’s the problem of armed revolution. When is it time to start shooting? And once we start, when (and how) do we stop?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…unlike the revolutionaries at Lexington and Concord, we don’t have anything like structure.”

      Many seem to think US history started in 1775, not knowing and understanding that militias (structure) existed well before L&C, and many members had served together for years prior. The Revolution was not anchored on a rag-tag random assembly of men with firearms, resulting from spontaneous combustion. A consensus developed over time, and respected leaders arose, especially those providing the intellectual basis for full independence. In short, the militia was not an unruly mob throughout the colonies.

      The “inspiration” for rebellion was crushed at Waco and Ruby Ridge; government lied and people died. Where was “the movement” after those egregious episodes of government out of control? Where were the recognized leaders of “the movement”? Where were “the militia”? Where is the final line to be crossed that will spark a national uprising?

      For those paying attention, “the revolution” has been underway for a coupla decades, and we are not winning. So far, the culture owns the soapbox, and the ballot box. Not seeing anything changing because we are proclaiming “the cartridge box”.

      1. avatar Eli2016 says:

        “For those paying attention, “the revolution” has been underway for a coupla decades, and we are not winning. So far, the culture owns the soapbox, and the ballot box. Not seeing anything changing because we are proclaiming “the cartridge box”.”

        Lovely sarcasm. But be careful Sam. You’re starting to sound like a person with a college degree. CNN will be contacting you soon. Seems you’ve been recommended by Don Lemon. 😉

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Great stuff !! Thanks for the levity; enjoyed it. But to clarify, I am always right; maybe incorrect sometimes, but always right.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “The “inspiration” for rebellion was crushed at Waco and Ruby Ridge; government lied and people died. Where was “the movement” after those egregious episodes of government out of control? Where were the recognized leaders of “the movement”? Where were “the militia”? Where is the final line to be crossed that will spark a national uprising?”

        There were so many groups that were on the very cusp of fighting at that point. They had the means (IMHO, way more “useful things” than I am aware of groups having today) and the will. It simply did not happen. I think OKC had much to do with that. You are correct, BTW. I was around and involved before that time, during, and after. I agree with you. At the time, it caused me to take a long, sober look at individual liberty and its status/value in our modern culture and society.

  75. avatar Caesar Sanchez says:

    lol Boch is a damn idiot.

  76. avatar Wake Up says:

    I hope people reading this site are starting to notice the pattern of its attempts to normalize the eroding of our rights. It also seems to be attempting to demoralize us with articles of “aww shucks it just ain’t worth it.”

    thetruthaboutguns.com is super sketchy to me at this point and seems to be a way to gradually fight against gun owners and freedom loving people from another angle. Especially this latest assault concerning red flag laws, an obvious attempt at “de-radicalizing” gun owners.

    I hope none of you are falling for it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Reporting things is not the same as advocating (unless one is comfortable being spoon-fed the party line by “reporters). Presenting different thinking is not endorsing. Considering other ideas is not attempting to “normalize” other ideas.

      If people are not happy outside an echo chamber, there are so many other outlets to sleep in.

      1. avatar Wake Up says:

        Obvious shill is obvious.

        How many cents are you paid a post Sam? You’re really canvasing the comments replying to everything with scare tactics or outright nonsense. Must be saving for a vacation.

        That might work on the boomers that frequent this site but not us.

        People are paying attention to the “editorial slant” of this site.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “How many cents are you paid a post Sam?”

          Any number you have in mind is probably correct.

          Have been here only since 2013, so don’t claim to be an old timer on the blog. However, between this blog and two others, it is impossible to read every news or opinion published regarding guns. So, it is with appreciation I enjoy that Dan posts an assortment of articles that offer more than one voice.

          As to my own submissions/comments, I am an iconoclast (and an absolutist regarding the Constitution and BOR), challenging mindless repetition of sloganeering, bullying, and mantras. Would rather engage in a good intellectual debate than read endless renditions of RTKBA, “Shall not be infringed”. Sometimes appealing to the deep analysis, other times ridiculing gun-grabbers through rambles that look like a gun grabber speechwriter.

          Point remains…there are other forums available that do not stray an inch from “RTKBA”, “Shall not be infringed”, and “Once again with gusto”. TTAG is not mandatory reading for anyone. It is not a political rally.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          I love how he says “It’s not a political rally”

          But continues to try and turn it into one.

          Come. And. Take. Them.

  77. avatar Bruce Frank says:

    John Boch, I think point about resolution in a couple of weeks is extremely optimistic. I do not know how the majority of these “Red Flag” laws are created in the other states, but California has allowed confiscation with nothing but anonymous complaints with actually no charges brought. One victim was not charged with anything and there was no opportunity for redress and obtain return of his firearms.

    He had to bring his own case in court, but when the court found in his favor and ordered the guns returned, nothing happened. This continued for months with the judge finally threatening jail time for the officers if the guns were not returned. Still unexplained delay, but the forearms were eventually returned…at the cost of several trips to court and significant legal costs involved!

    At least in CA this is essentially another style of “SWATing” game event.

    1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

      Agreed, the author and some of the posters who think a court case to get your guns back are daydreaming. In NY, it took one woman fighting in court for 5 freakin years to get her guns returned from the police. Another case from CA, a guy had to get two court orders against the police to return his guns, which they ignored and destroyed his guns anyway.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        in which case those police should have been dragged out of the station and hung.

        1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

          But Sam I Am will state that proves the antis right!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But Sam I Am will state that proves the antis right!”

          Lost the string here. Would you mind elaborating on the point you made the conclusion reported above?

        3. avatar Toni says:

          the point is the nuremburg trials showed that just following orders is no excuse for doing something that is wrong. If a law is unconstitutional then the cops no matter their ranking should refuse to comply with orders to enforce from higher up. To do so means they are complicit in treason and IHMO if a few were hung many others would quickly loose their taste for enforcing unconstitutional laws. The ones that then need following up on are the ones writing these laws and putting their name to them to put them forward

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “the point is the nuremburg trials showed that just following orders is no excuse for doing something that is wrong.”

          Yes. I believe there was a tribunal before those people were jailed, or executed (very, very few low level soldiers were executed for “Ordnung ist ordnung”.

          If authorities are carrying out unconstitutional court orders, the issue is with the persons creating the orders, but it might be tough to shoot them in the head. Killing the messenger, without benefit of tribunal, is so much more satisfying, and it somehow freezes the the people who are most responsible for “the crime”. Stops ’em cold; right there. Problem solved; game over.

          BTW…the war crime trials were merely a cover for what has been common practice after all wars….kill the defeated leaders. The war crime trials were designed to make revenge look respectable. Were the right people executed, jailed? Most assuredly, but the trials themselves were not an exercise in justice. The victors were too ashamed of acting like all the conquerors in the past, and needed to put lipstick on the pig.

          Let’s at least be honest about our motivations. Some people are frustrated at the never-ending assault on the freedoms protected by the constitution, and are eager to take out their revenge on the first figure of authority they can justify with “Molon Labe”.

          We are so far beyond what the Founders would tolerate under a king, that it is just silly to be talking about a third civil war. We are disorganized, leaderless, unprepared, comfortable, intent on the things that really matter to us (proof: even the most rabid revolutionist showing up on gun blogs still has a job, still worries over the bills, still pursues trivial events, still stays home when pro-America and pro-gun rallies are scheduled).

          We are not committed revolutionaries. We have other priorities. We cannot convince the overwhelming majority of the voters that the nation is in peril. We do not properly influence popular culture, nor the reflective media. We do not have the money available to create a “conservative” media (even Fox News is drifting further left, weekly), nor create alternatives to “social media”; we must play in their structure, by their rules.

          The combat in front of us is not guns and bullets, but the combat of ideas, and we are losing so fast that we want to take our marbles, and start shooting the big kids that own all the “boulders”. With that environment, Mao’s dictum, “The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” is useless. We need to create that sea for ourselves, and shooting process servers will not achieve that.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Still unexplained delay, but the forearms were eventually returned…”

      What you describe is, that is “is”, due process; going to court. Learned the hard way that a court ruling is ineffective, until a court issues a subsequent, separate order that the first order be enforced.

      Our resident cop at the LGS/range tells us (no one has verified yet that I know of) the police have authority to confiscate your weapons, but no legal means to transfer guns confiscated (no FFL). So…once confiscated, there is no legal way to return them. If the “resident cop” is to be believed, they can’t even hire someone to destroy the guns, and there are several guns locked in storage forever. Now, that there is some kind of due process.

      1. avatar SurfGW says:

        Cop and judge friends tell me that the police only have a process for returning guns after a criminal trial.

        GVRO guns are stored in evidence lockers like evidence in a criminal trial but the GVRO is not a trial. Priority goes to criminal cases. When the lockers get inventoried, things not tied to active criminal cases get thrown out.

        Combine the fact that a gunowner would be lucky to get a court hearing in 6 months and you have almost certainty that GVRO guns will be destroyed.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Replied to another comment, but I’ll reply to this one too: As this entire topic shows, there’s a world of difference between due process and “a process.” It was a difference that led our country’s founders to start a revolution.

  78. avatar Ing says:

    “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.”

    I don’t HAVE a few thousand bucks to hire an attorney. So I guess the gov’t would just get to keep my property AND my rights, since I don’t have the resources to buy them back.

    Tell me…what’s my life worth again? And what country are we living in?

    1. avatar Bill says:

      You have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be provided to you.

      1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

        Is that true if you have not been accused of a crime? I’m not sure it is.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          It probably isn’t. And in any case, legal representation is usually worth exactly what you’ve paid for it.

      2. avatar B.D. says:

        *One of theirs will be provided to you

  79. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

    Surprised Boch doesn’t write an article just telling us the sell all of our guns tl FNLs, as gun ownership just isn’t worth the risk of dying by the polices’ hands or the extreme financial and legal costs from going to court. Afterall, can’t be redflagged if you don’t own guns, right?

    1. avatar Gordon in MO says:

      Who says you can’t be red flagged if you don’t own guns? What is to stop them. Just cause they can’t find the guns doesn’t mean you don’t have them.

      The next step is to put an end to it, they can report gun shots and screams at your house and swat you.

      1. avatar Bad Hat Harry says:

        Yep, and it is a old time practice for cops to carry a “throw down.”

  80. avatar Bill says:

    If they are not worth dying for then I suggest the and I hope the people trying to enforce one consider that before they try serving one on me.

  81. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Exactly! it’s not worth dying for, you hear that cops? Don’t come and try to take law abiding peoples guns because you might end up dead. its not worth it!

  82. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The shallow and transparent fake comments from anti-gun liberal trolls continues at a fevered pitch.

  83. avatar Scott says:

    My state doesn’t have a red flag law, but in the unlikely event one passes I will go through my collection and choose the guns I have no particular use for, document them separately including enough information for an accurate appraisal, and store them together in an obvious location. The rest will end up carefully stored, locked up in one or more undisclosed location(s), not likely to be discovered by any reasonable court ordered search. You fill in the blanks about how I would proceed in the event I am red flagged including the part about how I am an old guy, who has owned guns his entire life and have held a concealed weapons permit for decades without complaint.

    Even though I live in a constitutional carry state I maintain a concealed weapons permit, not just for carrying out of state, but also as a demonstration of my reliability as a firearms owner in the eyes of local law enforcement.

    I live in a small state where one can influence legislation. In the event a red flag law is proposed I will actively lobby my legislature for a law that maintains my right to due process and provides for consequences for the complainant, including the right of the accused to sue all parties for damages or loss. The complainant should not be allowed to remain anonymous and should be held legally liable if he or she abused the statute.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      ” The complainant should not be allowed to remain anonymous and should be held legally liable if he or she abused the statute.”

      Now you’ve done it. Proved you are an inveterate fossil, biased, bigoted, homophobic and a whole lot of other stuff. Why? Because you left out the other 24 person types.

      Off to the mines with ya’.

  84. avatar John Galt says:

    If you live in a province like kalifornistan and you have a large collection you may NEVER get them back regardless of any timely hearings

    Commiefornia will only return your guns at the rate of one every 30 days and after a backround check for each one. If you have 50+ guns expect to never receive them all back in your life time. The state is hoping you die before they return them.

    SO THIS IDEA THAT AFTER A HEARING YOU WILL GET YOUR GUNS BACK IS TOTAL BULLS**T……………stop lying about it!

    1. avatar SurfGW says:

      Makes sense because you still have to show that you are eligible to receive the guns.
      Do you have to do a separate court case for each gun?

  85. avatar Sam Ho says:

    The way I see this is we have to vigorously defend against these evil Red Flag laws and the Luciferians that are pushing them. They are Unconstitutional on two easily defendable grounds.
    We have to fight this or the wicked moslems and their Luciferian buddies will disarms us all.

  86. avatar Donttreadonme says:

    This article seems like back peddling after the article about preparing. US law shield isnt available in all 50 states.

    The NRA needs to fight this in court and push it up to the SCOTUS, to irradicate these clearly unconstitutional laws. Being denied your rights without due process is clearly a violation of our rights. And when anyone can file a bogus complaint without repercussions these laws are ripe for abuse.

    We have the right to due process before being denied our rights, we have the right to face our accusers in court, and people should sue people in civil court over bogus complaints at every opportunity.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “We have the right to due process”

      “Due process” is no more “absolute” than any other “right” under the constitution. Couple the SC endorsed idea that government actually has “compelling interest” in promoting safety for the community, with provision of means to challenge punitive action, and you have “due process”. Consider…you can be jailed on “suspicion” without the right to a trial before you are locked up. You can be arrested and “detained” (jailed) on probable cause of a cop, pending formal charges; an arrest warrant is not needed in every episode of arrest. And there you are, jailed awaiting a bond hearing, not a trial. Yet, this is actual “due process”. If you look closely, it is not much different from pre-crime actions under an EPRO; different, but not so much.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        There is a difference of degree and kind between due process and “a process.” It’s a difference that makes ALL the difference. I’m pretty sure you know this.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There is a difference of degree and kind between due process and “a process.” ”

          As it stands, “Due process” is whatever the legislature and courts declare it to be. Seems there should be a real difference, but even the definition in dictionaries are not specific enough to prevent “a process” from being “due process”. The only obstacle I can see is those places where a law/process that cannot be complied with is prohibited. Such is definitely not the case in Californication.

  87. avatar kap says:

    let them come, let them take, then dig up the one for a rainy day and play VC on the political structure, informants, make it total war!

  88. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The blatantly obvious influx of names who have never before posted a single comment at TTAG suddenly advocating capital murder and suicide by cop are easily recognizable as the work of liberal anti-gun trolls lamely posting fake comments pathetically portraying what they imagine to be the stereotypical “from my dead hands” gun nut. They think they’re much to clever for TTAG regular readers to spot their ridiculously transparent attempts.

  89. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The fake comment anti-gun trolls are busted yet continue the blatantly obvious fake posts using names that have never been used previously for a single comment in this forum. All these new posters suddenly advocating capital murder and suicide by cop are pathetically transparent and obviously recognizable as the work of liberal anti-gun trolls posting fake comments they imagine to be stereotypical responses of rabid gun nuts. So lame, so easy to spot. Give it up and go away trolls!

  90. avatar David Walters says:

    This article has elicited the greatest number of contrary comment posts I’ve ever seen on this site. It’s obviously an issue that affects all of us and I could expect some controversy over the topic. But a zeal on both sides has surprised me.

    I’m not going to take sides. But there are several suggestions in the comments and even in the article which I think could guide those who wish to take either side. Act on them.

  91. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Last year a hurricane hit Florida. After the storm a police officer shot and killed a man trying to steal his police car.

    The officer stated the reason why he killed the car thief, was because there were guns in the police car. We discussed this on TTAG. There were many who supported the officer’s actions. But at the same time they said, a civilian should never kill to protect their personal property. Including their private firearms.

    Killing a thief was the best and most cost effective way to prevent stealing. Now it’s ok to steal as long as the government does it.

    The “gun Community” is full of weak people with 6 or 7 gun safes. And have their grandfather’s gun.

    These so called atheist Libertarians are just cowards. The Mormon Bundy Ranch family are real supportes of Liberty. But they believe in God. They are judgemental. So they are not welcome by atheists.

    An atheist by definition worships government. They support replacing private church charity with the Welfare industrial Complex. And the civilian industrial disarmament complex that goes with it.

    I fully expect the Libertarians Liberals and the Left to comply. They want “free drugs” “free Marijuana” “free stuff” from the government.

    My life insurance is paid up. And I will keep it that way. I will not comply.

    Up until now this ilhas just been an intellectual exercise. With speculation and boisterous statements. But laws have now been passed. So people are going to have to man up and decide what they want to do. Never forget most of you voted for these politicians.

    And if you did not vote, then you “still did” vote.

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      BTW
      It was organized religion. The church that organized armed resistance to tyranny. That history lesson is something the Three L’s never learned in school.

  92. avatar Tom Worthington says:

    It saddens me to hear the advice to simply “comply” and then just hope for the best.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “It saddens me to hear the advice to simply “comply” and then just hope for the best.”

      Isn’t it that way with all the rules, regulations and laws?

      It saddens me to hear people proclaim that the only acceptable response to an unconstitutional law is to put a bullet in the head of the process server, then die in a blaze of not glory.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        America does not have rule of law anymore. It’s been that way for a very long time. The Constitution is no longer followed. Most American don’t even understand what human rights are or what’s in the Constitution.

        They will not put up a fuss or fight the system. Technology will not allow them to escape. They will not have guns to fight because they wanted until it was too late.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Spot on, User1. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

      2. avatar Tom Worthington says:

        You have a valid point. Maybe the best course of action is to simply let the government do whatever they will. What chance have I to make a real difference, one way or the other?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What chance have I to make a real difference, one way or the other?”

          If your only chance to make a difference is killing police because you thing a law unconstitutional, then you really do have no chance. We have already had one possible “patriot” shot for moving his hands during serving of an EPRO. Where was “the rising”? The principle is pretty clear, isn’t it? Unconstitutional law, unconstitutional service of a restraining order. Unconstitutional shooting of a person oppressed by unconstitutionality. Where was “the rising”.

          You planning to “Get one for the Gipper”? Look around, all those posting here who are screaming about “the rising” will not be there to back, nor honor you as the cause célèbre for launching “the rising”.

          Use the system you have to “fight” the system. Once you declare war on “the system”, there are no laws of normalcy; killing you is the goal. And the dead no nothing.

        2. avatar B.D. says:

          If only our founding forefathers thought that way…

          I can assure you that you are not alone, and other will die for their freedom. Idiots like Sam I Am will die in court rooms. I’d prefer the method that actually obtained our freedom to begin with. Force

  93. avatar Phrederick says:

    This is why “conservatives” have failed to conserve anything.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “This is why “conservatives” have failed to conserve anything.”

      “Conservative” is a play dough word; stretches to whatever you want. Unlike, “Shoot cops in the face for enforcing laws you think are unconstitutional”. Only one fit for that one.

      When it comes to blaming “conservatives” for not being small government enforcers, it is way late in the day to come to that realization. Politics became a career path way back there. The defenders of ideals are long gone. Now it is a matter of managing expediencies that will result in re-election. We are in the long goodbye now, only the timing is in question.

      “And that’s the way it is, April 21, 2019”

  94. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    The paid anti-gun trolls persist with the fake comments. The new names with their fake comments advocating capital murder and suicide by cop are pathetically transparent and obviously fake work of liberal anti-gun trolls posting fake comments they imagine to be stereotypical “from my dead hands” responses of TTAG readers. The liberal trolls still can’t see or are pretending they’re too clever for the rest of us to spot. TTAG needs to intervene on this and all future articles hijacked by the fake comment liberal anti-gun trolls.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The liberal trolls still can’t see or are pretending they’re too clever for the rest of us to spot. TTAG needs to intervene on this and all future articles hijacked by the fake comment liberal anti-gun trolls.”

      You want TTAG to squelch speech, while we rail about others squelching firearm ownership?

      As someone (oh, I don’t know, maybe a well regarded Justice of the Supreme Court?) is supposed to have said, “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

  95. avatar El Roberto E Lee says:

    Some of us will be the avant guard, willing to go right then, whatever the cost, more will comply with the intent of releasing unholy hell upon the traitors afterwards, the fence sitters will fence sit and the cowardly cucks will surrender. The NRA isn’t going to save you, nor is any lobbyist. The feds are busy implementing tyranny, right now the real enemy are the local governments and police/sheriffs willing to carry out unconstitutional orders that infringe on basic human rights. The avant guard and guerrilla patriots are good. You fence sitters better not wait long, and there is no hope for the cowardly cucks, who will end up getting smoked by both sides. Whatever you choose to be or are forced to be, resist with all your heart, in every way you can, with words, with deflagration, with music, intel, hacking, fighting, the littlest thing could turn the tide in our favor , and woe to thee, you cowardly cucks, you are about to place yourselves in between two destructive forces hell bent on winning at all costs.

    1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Another obvious liberal anti-gun troll fake comment. Go away troll, you’re busted.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Some of us will be the avant guard, willing to go right then, whatever the cost..”

      Once again, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy…what are you and those “some of us” waiting for? If the record of attendance at pro-gun rallies is an indicator, those “some of us” are very few. Folks who won’t attend a pro-gun rally are unlikely to even be the reserve. That is the problem we face.

      1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        Troll, still unconvincing, go away.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Troll, still unconvincing, go away.”

          Such simple-mindedness. Anyone who challenges your dogma is labeled a troll. That’s really effective intellectual firepower.

          What do we call someone who cannot stand thinking other than their own? Don’t have a label for that handy; open for suggestions. What do we call someone who repeatedly dodges questions?

        2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

          What part of “You’re busted” do you not understand Sam. You liberal trolls continue the mindless pretense in denial of the fact that TTAG regulars were on to your Trojan horse fake comments ploy early on. Give it up and go away troll, you’ve failed.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          OK, there is that pearls before swine whole thing, so….

  96. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    Red Flag and bump stock laws have been endorsed by both liberal hacks and conservative minions.
    The reason? :Common sense gun safety.

    Common sense gun safety is taught at ranges, classes and other venues, but never in a congressional setting.
    Gun safety, as preached by the retards, has nothing to do with with guns. It’s all about libtard control and power, nothing else.

    What needs to be done to everyone of those people is well known but cannot be discussed.
    It really is a shame that dramatic boat accident deprived me of a means to save myself….

    Tired of kicking the can down the road.

  97. avatar Max says:

    God, 400 plus comments. If you get this far, this is my statement. I have a vindictive ex-spouse and her friends.
    I have 2 guns on site. On the other hand, they will not find the rest of my guns. I haven’t decided how I will respond if Texas passes a red flag order.
    If I wanted to, I could go out that day and buy another weapon before the paperwork works it’s way through the system. It’s a BS job, or could I could get the rest of my guns and make a statement, or I could just wait for the swat raid and shoot back. They cannot stop a determined individual.

    1. avatar B.D. says:

      my point exactly, and even though I beat my ex in court, it is at their will to determine who is flag worthy. That is the point these people are missing.

      A message to all LEO’s and military: They are not worth dying for. Get it? So keep yours and join the freedom fighters who will kill you if you try to take innocent peoples rights away. It’s clear cut. You either side with tyranny, or fight it. There is no in between.

  98. avatar Zef Emerald says:

    Excellent point. That is why I’ll be good and ready when those SOB’s show up in my woods. Got me a nice ripe chunk of Uranium and one dead-sharp axe. I’m not afraid of splitten that thing right in two and blowen the whole hill top off.

  99. avatar Frijoli says:

    At what point do you stand for your rights? Only you can decide…. Not TTAG, nor anyone else.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “At what point do you stand for your rights?”

      Perhaps when the odds of success are favorable, not inevitable.

      1. avatar Toni says:

        And IHMO that would have been about 100 years ago before the govt got the power it now has. It will keep going downhill as long as people dont make a stand. death my a thousand cuts is how it has been going for almost 100 years now

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “death my a thousand cuts is how it has been going for almost 100 years now.”

          The last serious attempt to hold the federal government ended in 1865. That dust-up put a loud and bloody period on the idea that States were sovereign, and the government a servant.

        2. avatar Toni says:

          well it seems that the only way forward is open civil war because doing the same thing over and over certainly seems to be getting us liberty back….. NOT!

          How far down thier rabbit hole do you wish to go?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “well it seems that the only way forward is open civil war…”

          As noted, been there, done that, lost the t-shirt. And that was with whole modern (at the time) armies in the field. The notion that a disorganized, leaderless insurgency will prevail in civil war 3 is not a serious effort.

          The catalyst for civil war 2 was simple refusal by a major to surrender his command peacefully. We have had much worse government assaults on the populace, most recently in 1993, and there was no uprising, no organizing. “We the people” haven’t been a serious armed threat to the central government since 1865. We are left with only the ballot box, and we are not “selling” our message successfully. Measure of “success”? An overwhelming demand by the super majority of voters that we will not stand for an encroaching government. A majority so massive that leftist, liberal ideas will be fringe nudnicks, like it was before the 1969s. If we cannot make that change, then “progress” will roll along like a glacier, crushing everything to sand.

  100. avatar Mort says:

    Red Flag Laws AKA government theft under color of authority!
    I guess it’s not important that it violates due process.

  101. avatar brandon says:

    The author is really naive. It is almost as if he just stepped out of a time warp from Beaver Cleaver’s era. Does he really think that any innocent victim has 1. immediate funds on hand to get a good lawyer 2. will get a court hearing within one week 3. will beat the case in 100% of cases and 4. will have their guns cheerfully returned to them immediately afterwards…and in the same condition as seized ??? IMHO anyone who has observed the operation of our justice system during the past 25 years knows better. I also disagree with the authors suggestion that caching guns elsewhere is solely for the purpose of retrieving them ONLY as soon as one’s rights are restored. For me, I would cache some guns elsewhere and retrieve them IMMEDIATELY after my guns were wrongly seized in a “red flag” scenario.

  102. avatar David Bradford says:

    You Keyboard commandos need to read up on your history. The founding fathers put up with YEARS of crap before the fighting got hot. Things started getting bad after the French and Indian war in 1763 when Fat George tried to make the colonists pay for the war. Other than some protests and random acts of civil disobedience/vandalism NO ONE was shooting at the British troops. A handful of protesters were killed prior to June 1775 by the Redcoats but no return fire happened. That was 12 years of ever-increasing restrictions and offenses before responding with deadly force. It wasn’t until they came for ALL the guns at once that the real fighting started. Individuals had been persecuted, threatened, assaulted, prosecuted and jailed and the masses did little to stop it.

    As an individual, If you are Red Flagged you are screwed! Even if you comply, you are marked for life as a threat. You may have done absolutely nothing wrong to deserve the label, but it is now yours in perpetuity. You will likely lose your government permission slip to own a gun forever(merely an infringement on your God-given rights). If you resist, you die. If you shoot at the cops, you die as a dangerous gun nut that needed to be stopped before you could hurt any innocents. Your death will NOT in any way further the 2nd amendment struggle(even POTG will see you as stupid and/or crazy). It will be a hollow act of resistance and unless you can hold a standoff lasting more than a few hours you can expect little more than a mention in the news for a day or two. Don’t kid yourself, there will be no organized violent resistance until there is an organized mass confiscation plan in place or a blatant coup attempt on the US government.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “A handful of protesters were killed prior to June 1775 by the Redcoats but no return fire happened. That was 12 years of ever-increasing restrictions and offenses”

      Waco…1993.

      76 men, women and children dead in a government assault on a civilian religious compound.

      Founders would have put up with that?

      It is popular to declare one’s courage, but seeing is believing. There was no national uprising against the outrage at Waco. There will be no national uprising over any number of red flag orders, or any number of unnecessary/illegal deaths due to service of a red flag order.

      Acts of an oppressive government were not unknown prior to 1993. Patriotism wasn’t invented in 1994. “Molon Labe” is a great war cry for a video game, a phantasy novel, an internet posting. Not so much for a rallying slogan to oppose a tyrannical government.

      We had our one chance at stopping the central government encroachment into individual rights in 1860. Case closed; issue settled. Ballot is all we have. We’d best learn how to win politically.

  103. avatar Auric Blowfeld says:

    TTAG= Laughable at best.

  104. avatar SicSemperTyrannis says:

    The author’s Facebook profile picture makes it obvious where this hack’s loyalties lie. HINT: It’s not with the men and women who actually respect the Constitution.

    https://m.facebook.com/john.boch.18

  105. avatar Free Helicopter Rides For Commies says:

    Sorry, but enforcing an unconstitutional non-law (Marbury v Madison set the rule that anything that violates the Constitution is NOT a law!) against someone who has committed no crime, using the threat or deployment of deadly force, is a deprivation of rights under color of law that is a capital offense according to federal law. In my state, if someone – even a cop – is threatening or using deadly force against you, you have the RIGHT to use lethal force YOURSELF, AGAINST THEM!

    If I have to fight it out in court after the fact, fine, but I WILL NEVER SURRENDER MY ARMS under an UNLAWFUL ORDER. And if I must kill every tyrant and every JBT that tries to deprive me of my rights, well, “if there must be war, let it come in my lifetime, so that my children may know peace”.

Leave a Reply to Eagle Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email