So much for stated ABA “principles.” You can’t tell it by their actions.
The ABA’s House of Delegates approved a resolution recommending disarming American citizens based on accusations of “hate crimes” and being a threat, the American Bar Association announced Tuesday. Despite due process concerns raised by some who still view the Constitution as an impediment to total and arbitrary “progressive” rule, Resolution 118B passed by one vote.
While the resolution calls for “documented evidence,” that’s an arbitrary term and has no bearing on the quality of the evidence or of its admissibility. What is to be “verifiable” is a “procedure to ensure surrender of guns and ammunition pursuant to a restraining order” and a means to report resulting restraining orders to state and federal authorities to preclude the accused from buying guns and ammunition.
“Gun violence restraining orders are a modest common-sense reform to address at least one piece” Estelle Rogers, a “progressive” (naturally) member of the Civil Rights and Social Justice (!) faction declared, adding the other requisite gun-grabber narrative talking points that “the right to keep and bear arms isn’t absolute.”
Connecticut Bar Association President and gun infringement activist Monte Frank then made the obligatory reference to Newtown as a reason to support the measure, ignoring the inconvenient truth that his state’s restraining order edict would not have applied to the lawful owner of the reportedly stolen guns.
Joined in opposition by the Law Student Division, Vermont attorney Peter Langrock tried to steer things back to the Constitution, warning “such orders raise First Amendment concerns because they could target people based on speech, including statements on social media. Langrock also said the ex parte orders raise 14th Amendment due process concerns, and gun seizures based on such orders raise Fourth Amendment concerns.”
What’s clear is there is a dominant faction of “progressive” lawyers within the ABA leadership – officers of the court – for whom the Constitution is something to be twisted, subverted and ignored as suits their agenda. Recalling that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, is it any wonder that “innocent until proven guilty” has been reversed, and that demands are being made to deny fundamental natural rights of citizens not even charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one?
Because “haters” have no rights…?
We’ve already seen from recent events that those the lying cultural Marxists smear as “Nazis and fascists” are blocked from speaking under the outrageous and tyrannical insistence that “Hate speech is not free speech.” So much for respecting the right of free speech. And now, unsurprisingly, so much for respecting the right to keep and bear arms. If that’s the case, if America is to be a land of rights for the politically favored, why not go all out? Do “Nazis” and “fascists” really deserve search and seizure protections, or protections against self-incrimination, or jury trials, or immunity from cruel and unusual punishment?
That’s where all this is heading, you know.
OK, but what do we do about “haters”?
What, you mean real ones, or the ones accused of being haters by the Marxists, folks like gun owners, Republicans, immigration reduction advocates, pro-lifers, Christians, Oath Keepers…? Constitutionalists…?
How about if someone commits a crime you investigate and if warranted, charge them, try them by a jury of their peers, and if they’re convicted, sentence them appropriately? Who but the mob and its leaders – those bent on tearing down the Republic and replacing it with Killing Fields – does that seem unreasonable to?
Still, this is just one branch of the ABA making these noises, some may say. And none of this has force of law. Why maker big deal of it?
“Guilty until proven innocent” is now being endorsed by many prominent in the leadership of the influential (and demonstrably anti-gun) ABA. That means it will be noticed, considered and when convenient and exploitable, promulgated and advanced by radicalized law professors and students, attorneys, judges and politicians, not to mention by “social justice warriors,” their media cheerleaders, and the calculating minds behind the so-called “deep state.”
So take this as the shape of things to come unless and until those with a different vision of America can stem and reverse an emboldened collectivist tide. And be prepared to be called a “hater” and worse.
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
—–
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?“
No comments:
Post a Comment