Figliuzzi: This is How the Feds Should Dragoon Local LEOs Into Helping Enforce Their Gun Control Schemes

[WTPUSA]

Source;  https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fugliuzzi-this-is-how-the-feds-sh...

Figliuzzi: This is How the Feds Should Dragoon Local LEOs Into Helping Enforce Their Gun Control Schemes. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/fugliuzzi-this-is-how-the-feds-sh...

Lets take a look at this with a critical eye.

 

Figliuzzi said; We need the Justice Department to use its power of the purse and offer incentives for local, county and state agencies to abide by their state’s red flag laws and, just as importantly, disincentives when they don’t.

Is this financial blackmail to promote what is primarily a political objective?

 

After Colorado passed its red flag law in 2019, Michael Allen, the district attorney in nearby El Paso County, derided it as “unconstitutional,” tweeting that it was nothing “more than a way to justify seizing people’s firearms under the color of law.” He described the law as “a poor excuse to take people’s guns” and said it’s “not designed in any way to address real concrete mental health concerns.”

Granted, in some circumstances, Red Flag Laws do save lives. So, why are the 'Red Flag Laws' written without the 'Due Process Sections'? What purpose do they serve without due process where questions can be raised and law abiding people get their day in court to present their side? How can there be justice without Equal Treatment under the Law?

 

We’ve heard similar arguments from the sheriff in El Paso County and the sheriff in Lea County, New Mexico; and even a sheriff’s association in Minnesota.

If the Laws the Legislature have Constitutionally questionable sections, why won't the Legislatures correct those Constitutionally questionable portions of the Laws, unless the Legislators Primary Intent is Political instead of the safety of citizens?

 

Red flag laws save lives. Take it from Douglas County, Colorado, Sheriff Tony Spurlock, who, according to Pew Reports, has taken “political heat from gun rights advocates who question the law’s due process protections.” 

Shouldn't a Sheriff honor his oath of office to protect support and defend the Constitution under 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

 

The Justice Department offers millions of dollars in grants each year to law enforcement agencies. To increase compliance with red flag laws, it should prioritize grant awards to those departments that comply with their state’s red flag laws and put those that don’t at the bottom of its pile.

This seems like even a more blatant financial blackmail to me.

 

The Justice Department should also direct the FBI to reject applications to attend the prestigious FBI National Academy from law enforcement executives who don’t demonstrate support for utilizing their state’s red flag provisions.

This not only weaponizes and politicizes the FBI, but it acts as Bribery to induce performance of a Basically Unconstitutional Political Act. IMHO.

What do you think?