Tuesday, August 20, 2019

An open letter to Representative Crenshaw

Dear Representative Crenshaw,

I'd like to take a moment of your time to talk to you about your "Red Flag Law" proposition; specifically about two concerns that I, and every other gun owner in these United States has.

The first is that while I appreciate your assurances that there will be "robust due process protections", I'm going to respectfully opine that you are incorrect.  There will be no "robust protection" of due process for gun owners, no matter what you believe.

The reasons are the same reasons that there are no "robust protections" for those persons who are the subject of Emergency Protection Orders.

You see, Representative Crenshaw, "robust protections" means nothing more than a bucket of warm rodent expectorant if the police, the District Attorneys, and the judges decide it doesn't.

If you have sanctions against malicious filing of a Red Flag order, what good are they if the police refuse to investigate allegations of misuse?  And they will.  Oh, if they're called on the carpet about the lack of investigations, they'll look sorrowful and tell you that they just don't have the manpower for that sort of thing.

You can't look me in the face and tell me that the San Francisco Police Department is going to do a damned thing about those damned dirty gun-owners getting screwed over by false Red Flag orders.

Where is the "robust protection of due process" if the police aren't sanctioned for refusing to investigate?

If you have sanctions against misuse of Red Flag orders, what good are they if the District Attorneys refuse to accept a case of misuse of Red Flag "In The Interests Of Justice"?

And they will.  Their explanation will be that they're worried that prosecuting malicious Red Flag cases might deter someone from a legitimate filing, an explanation they'll give with a pious look upon their face.

You can't guarantee the gun owners of this nation that the Seattle District Attorney is going to think that bad Red Flag orders aren't just something those barbarous gun-owners just have to endure.

So where is the "robust protection" if the DAs aren't sanctioned for refusing to accept cases involving malicious use of the Red Flag law?

When the judges dismiss fraudulent Red Flag cases from the bench -- again, "In The Interests Of Justice" -- where is the "robust protection of due process"?

You can't tell me with a straight face that there's a judge in Boston, or Chicago, or New York City that gives a damn if gun-owners get screwed over by an unlawful Red Flag order.

And your answer cannot be:  "I don't know". This is your dead albatross, Representative. "I don't know" is an unacceptable answer. You'd better figure it out right the hell now.

Second is Mission Creep.

Let us postulate that you get a Red Flag Law passed that does everything you promise it will.

Doubtful, but let's imagine this.

So, what happens next Session when the gun-grabbers find a Law That Absolutely Must Be Passed, and stick an extra line in there about expanding your Red Flag Law?  

Now what?

You have a bill that no congressman in their right minds is going to vote against ... and it expands your Red Flag law to allow Internet acquaintances to petition for a Red Flag order.

For better or worse this is your dead albatross, Congressman -- what are you going to do when (not if) gun-grabbers start "fixing" your Red Flag Law by adding amendments and addendums into "Can't Not Pass" bills?

"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer, Representative Crenshaw.  Figure it out now.

I sincerely believe that you are trying your best in a sticky political situation, but I think your Red Flag Law is going to wind up biting a whole bunch of people in the arse. 

I don't really care if it torpedoes your career, but I do care that your misguided desire to "Do Something" is going to bite a lot of American gun owners in the butt.

I doubt if you'll ever see this, but if you do, I hope you at least think about the issues I have brought up in this letter.

Cordially,

LawDog

21 comments:

Old NFO said...

Concur with all... dammit... He knows better!

JaimeInTexas said...

More often than not, military leaders, even great military keaders, in war suck as politicians.
Crenshaw seem to be growing in Congress and not in a good way.

Michael Z. Williamson said...

Anyone surprised that a politician is a complete phaggotte is naive as hell.

C. S. P. Schofield said...

Have you at least mailed a copy to the office of the silly sonofabitch?

Jeff Gauch said...

So make it part of the law that the judge signing off on the Red Flag order owes, personally, the gun owner $30 per day per gun. To ensure that judges don't just refuse to sign off on the orders make it so that if a judge denies a Red Flag petition and that person goes and unlawfully kills other people within 6 months of the petition, the judge can be held, again personally, liable for the deaths and injuries. Then add in a clause that allows the judge to collect $50 per gun per day from those who make false Red Flag claims.

SewerDweller said...

I was willing to give Crenshaw the benefit of the doubt, right up until I watched his 'last video on the subject', where he proceeded to damn himself with his own tongue. I am of the belief, at this point in time, subject to exculpatory evidence, that Dan Crenshaw sold his trident.

Gregory Peter DuPont said...

I'm still patiently waiting for any real consequences of note to land upon those on the public payroll that routinely violate the public trust. Sad to see that Crenshaw has apparently turned into escaping gas from the bloated corpse of John McCain

Sabre22 said...

First off Did Anybody notice it was a CCW holder that got hit with this this. The person they elected to issue CCW permits in Florida is a rabid anti-gunner. i think he was targeted as a warning to CCW holders in Florida in particular and the nation as a whole that we can have a bulls-eye on their backs.
There is No way to fix this to make it acceptable to me. But some suggestions are in order. The case against the Subject of the law MUST be proven in a court of law BEFORE any action is taken. The person asking that the order be filed files a FALSE accusation That person would be charged with a FEDERAL FELONY with a minimum of a 10-20 year prison sentence forfeiture of all property to the person or persons they accused and a fine of not less than 1,000,000 dollars.

Government employees who enforce a fraudulent Red flag order will be subject the same punishments as a civilian. In other words NO civil liability.

lastly if the subject of the order surrenders their firearms and then becomes a crime victim. The person filing the order, the people who enforced the order and the court itself will be subject to the criminal penalties listed above.

A wish list I know so just don't pass the dam law.

Borepatch said...

I sincerely believe that you are trying your best in a sticky political situation ...

I don't, but even if he is there's no basis of trust left that warrants any compromise here. Crenshaw is new to this game and so maybe doesn't know the history. Eric Raymond laid it all out well in a post about the destruction of the middle ground:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4939

Somewhat ironically, today is the anniversary of the shooting of Vicki Weaver. If Crenshaw trusts governments not to abuse the process than he's a fool. I don't think he's a fool, so there must be another explanation and that explanation is unlikely to burnish Rep. Crenshaw's reputation.

Beans said...

Unfortunately, Sabre22, what you propose won't hang.

Why?

Because there are already laws that are ignored because FEELINGS...

What laws? Well, when was the last time you heard of a supposed rape victim (who is female, always a female) who lays false charges on a gent, gent loses everything from job to marriage and, oh my, the poo-poo or the gent's public defender (because he is now broke) finds out the allegations are even more false than Rooshian Collusion. Then when the whole affair falls apart and is dismissed, Missy Fake Charges does not get charged with anything for filing false charges because it would 'dissuade any future victims from coming forward.'

Red Flag Laws, like Rape laws, or Domestic Battery Laws (a buncha laws abused even more than sex assault laws, and the charger who files false charges rarely if ever gets charged with filing false charges, no matter how much harm is done (up to and including suicide and murder, ask LawDog about DB law abuse, I'm sure he'll be able to drop a ton of instances on us)) are always going to be overly selectively enforced, with no repercussions towards false reporting, and because 'guns' will always be met with overwhelming force way above using the local SWAT team to serve traffic warrants (seen it...)

Eck! said...

Lawdog,
Too late....

Florida, two people similar names, only permitted legal owner, the other criminal.
guess who got red-flagged. Now he apparently has to petition the court (at his expense) to a clear his name and recover his guns.

Due process, is supposed to be before the fact, not after.

Eck!

carolinaTURTLE said...

Here’s a thought. If someone is dangerous, why not take him (or her) into custody? Or is that somehow part of the process as well? I have the sense, that the idea is to take the guns. So it doesn’t matter, how well a red flag law it might be worded. Really, it’s a new avenue to reach the end goal of Citizen disarmament!

Anonymous said...

Once a type of personal property the ownership of which is specifically protected by the Constitution can be administratively confiscated "for the good of society" with expensive (feature, not bug) after the fact "due process" any ownership of any property will be openly at whim of bureaucrats.

Jerry said...

The only way to make these go away is to use them against gun control advocates, police officers, court employees, judges and their families. I love the law about undetectable guns. File a charge against someone. The police find nothing. See they do have an undetectable gun. Right?

pjk said...

I looked into this and I thought that Crenshaw was pushing legislation called TAPS - Threat Assessment and Prevention System - or some name like that. In other words, the system used by the Secret Service to evaluate threats. The idea of that legislation was to provide the training and tools to do the threat assessments similar to the way that the Secret Service does it.

I had not heard that he was sponsoring any kind of Red Flag law as he was quite clear that a Federal Red Flag law couldn't be made to work.

Am I wrong about this understanding?

Anonymous said...

Preemptory enforcement does not, can not, and will not work to do anything but preempt the rights of lawful citizens...and that in fact is the true goal of grabbers everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely brillant. This should be read on tv, on radio and on the halls of congress.

Unknown said...

Man's foresworn upon his Oaths. That he gave as a soldier. That as he gave to be in Office.

There is absolutely NO way to honor the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Fourteenth Amendments with a Red Flag law.

You don't really get a warrant for all intents with this. (4th) The order doesn't comprise one.

You don't and can't really do due process for this. (5th) The weapons are currently getting seized and would continue to do so with any variant, without warrant, and you have to fight to get them back, spending money, etc. It's unjust takings.

You don't get confronted by your accusers (6th)

And there sure as HELL isn't equal protection under the law (14th)

There is absolutely **NO** way to reconcile these with the aforementioned.

NONE.

It's a dead albatross around his damn neck no matter how he wriggles around trying to reconcile LawDog's statements or mine. He's an OATHBREAKER the moment he said he was for this. It's very probably a good thing he's not in a district I can primary his worthless backside...I'd be going there when election time comes around.

Unknown said...

@pjk: He initially came out with a statement that could legitimately be taken to this, using the system in question. No. Just simply, NO.

Frank said...

Due process will end up being enforced via dead cops on the front lawn, because playing by the rules will end with US dead.

Ken said...

He needs to either stand down on this, or stand revealed as just another redcoat.