Guest Post by Ron Paul
A common trick of big-government loving politicians is to give legislation names so appealing that it seems no reasonable person could oppose it. The truth is, the more unobjectionable the title, the more objectionable the content. Two well-known examples are the “PATRIOT Act” and the “Access to Affordable and Quality Care Act.”
Another great example is the Violence Against Women Act. Passed in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act provides federal grants to, and imposes federal mandates on, state and local governments with the goal of increasing arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of those who commit domestic violence.
Like most federal laws, the Violence Against Women Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution limits federal jurisdiction to three crimes: counterfeiting, treason, and piracy. All other crimes — including domestic violence — are strictly state and local matters.
The law also forbids anyone subject to a restraining order obtained by a spouse or a domestic partner from owning a gun. This is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment’s prohibition on federal laws denying anyone the right to own a gun. Whether someone subject to a restraining order, or convicted of a violent crime, should lose their rights to own firearms is a question to be decided by state and local officials.
At least the current law requires individuals receive due process before the government can deprive them of their Second Amendment rights. The House of Representatives recently passed legislation reauthorizing and making changes to the Violence Against Women Act. The most disturbing part of this “upgrade” gives government the power to take away an individual’s Second Amendment rights based solely on an allegation that the individual committed an act of domestic violence. The accused then loses Second Amendment rights without even having an opportunity to tell their side of the story to a judge.
This is a version of “red flag” laws that are becoming increasingly popular. Red flag laws are not just supported by authoritarians like Senators Diane Feinstein and Lindsey Graham, but by alleged “constitutional conservatives” like Sen. Ted Cruz.
Red flag laws have led to dangerous confrontations between law enforcement and citizens who assumed that those breaking into their property to take their guns are private, rather than government, thieves.
The House bill also expands red flag laws to cover those accused of “misdemeanor stalking.” Many jurisdictions define misdemeanor stalking to include “cyber” or online stalking. These means someone could lose Second Amendment rights for sending someone an “offensive” Facebook or Twitter message.
Forbidding someone from owning a firearm because of offensive social media posts sets a precedent that could be used to impose legal sanctions on those posting “hate speech.” Since hate speech is defined as “speech I don’t agree with,” this could lead to the de facto outlawing of free speech online.
Instead of addressing concerns over the inclusion of new red flag type laws in the Violence Against Women’s Act, proponents of the bill have smeared their critics as not caring about domestic violence. As Reason magazine senior editor Jacob Sullum has pointed out, these progressives sound like neoconservatives who smear PATRIOT Act opponents as allies of Al Qaeda.
All decent people oppose domestic violence and terrorism. However, the desire to catch and punish wrongdoers does not justify violating the Constitution or denying anyone due process. When government violates the rights of anyone it threatens the liberties of everyone.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
That slow drip-drip loss of “protected rights” is now filling the bucket of tyranny up pretty fast. When will people say enough is enough?
Did I read that right…the fed.gov provides grants?
The states don’t have to accept the Grant’s, correct? The states are not your friends either, they sell out to the fed.gov.
Correct. Basically, no government is “your friend” but, the way the founders designed the constitution allowed you to basically move out of a over – authoritarian state like California, for a more freedom loving state like Montana or Arizona.
These federal laws basically make it impossible for you to move to a state that better shares your values, by imposing their will on all 50.
There is a reason why there were only 3 federal laws back in the day, and everything else was state dependent. Choice. Liberty is always about choice, and an individuals ability to choose what place shares their values. This was to keep the peace, since peaceful people don’t try to force their will on others, they simply relocate to be with those that share their values. Wars start when others force their will on people, AND give them no opportunity to peacefully solve the problem.
Nice idea, but when the fedgov loots 25-35% of your state residents’ income and then offers some scraps of it back to the state, as long as the state sells its soul, few states will do the right thing and reply “F you.”
The fedgov structure IS the problem. Lincoln started the problem, the Federal Reserve Act accelerated it, and FDR’s communism-lite system in the 30’s basically ended what America had been.
Absolutely correct Persnickety. The only thing you missed was the income tax. Originally intended for only the “rich”, (of course we know how all of those things turn out). Unfortunately, I fear soon we are going to experience the backlash of not following the path our founders set us on.
What’s the first thing a woman supposed to do, when she comes home from the battered women’s shelter? THE IRONING, IF SHE KNOWS WHAT’S GOOD FOR HER!
What do all abused women have in common
THEY DON’T LISTEN