Seattle police call it quits. What's next? Vigilantism

Something will fill the vacuum left by police, and it seems doubtful the left will like the results.

Seattle Chief of Police Carmen Best

 Seattle police cannot use any crowd-control devices and must, effectively, let the violent, lawless rioters run free. 

Seattle’s police chief alerted residents that they are on their own now.

Here is Chief Best's letter to the city council:

University of Tennessee law Prof. Glenn Reynolds wrote in June about the absence of police:

We’ll see a lot of vigilante justice. And what are people gonna do about it? Call the cops? Remember, in the end the police aren’t there to protect the public from criminals, they’re there to protect criminals from the public. Communities dealt with crime long before police were invented, usually in rather harsh and low-due-process ways. The bargain was, let the police handle it instead. No police, no bargain.

Get ready, folks. Major parts of the country are about to descend to the level of the Wild Wild West.

Update: A federal judge has ruled to overturn the Seattle city council's prohibition of non-lethal riot-control measures.

A good friend of mine for 25 years lives in Seattle; he texted me yesterday,

Last night got tense with somebody trying to burn down the court house but Feds kept their distance. They torched the new juvenile detention center that's being built also this weekend.

And the link to this: At Least 45 Arrested After Seattle Police Declare Riot

What Defund the Police hath wrought

This is the link to article.

Linky Linky Linky

I am pasting the links separately because Blogger's upgrade interface is junk and often will not publish them embedded. 

1.
How the Democrats collude to enable voter fraud, at Powerline
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/06/how-the-democrats-collude-to-enable-voter-fraud.php

One of the most pernicious phenomena of modern times is the collusive lawsuit. This is how it works: a left-wing organization sues a government agency that is also controlled by the left. The lawsuit alleges that the agency is obliged to do something that the agency would like to do, but the Democrats can’t get it passed. Then the parties–supposedly adverse, but actually in collusion–“settle” the case by having the agency agree to do what it wanted to do all along. If all goes well, a court enters an order enforcing the settlement. So the net effect is that a policy that the Democrats couldn’t get passed is now a court-ordered mandate. This happens often.

Read the whole thing, but take your blood pressure meds first. It is absolutely in the Dem playbook for November.

2.
Black Lives Matter Is A Radical Marxist Organization. Who says so? Well, its founders.
https://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=44832 and on camera here: https://youtu.be/5J9l6VOxYeE

3.
The sanctification of George Floyd, which is really much less about Floyd than the aftermath.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-sanctification-of-george-floyd/

Another example of the relation between sentimentality and brutality has been the use of very young children in demonstrations. There are videos of two girls, nine and seven, one making a speech at a demonstration and the other marching in a demonstration, her pretty little face contorted with hatred, chanting a horrible slogan, ‘No justice, no peace’ (a justification in advance of further looting, or worse), and making aggressive gestures.

Clearly they had been put up to all this by their parents. If they had been born in Nazi Germany, they would have rushed up to the Fuhrer to present him with flowers. And no doubt the parents of the little girls, in the pride of their self-righteousness, will continue to indoctrinate them into becoming mental clones of themselves, in the belief that decerebrate rage and resentment are really a manifestation of generosity of spirit.

The little girls themselves, deeply unattractive as they have been made, are of course not themselves to blame. But what kind of fathomless sentimentalism is it that believes that a cause is justified or strengthened by the use of parroting children of nine and seven? It is not what the children parrot that counts, horrible as it might be, but that the children parrot it, that they have been turned (presumably by their parents) into mere instruments.

4.
The New Truth - When the moral imperative trumps the rational evidence, there’s no arguing.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/new-truth-rationalism-religion

Or as Stalin's abject apologist, the NYT's Walter Duranty, said of Joseph Stalin:

But – to put it brutally – you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and the Bolshevist leaders are just as indifferent to the casualties that may be involved in their drive toward socialization as any General during the World War who ordered a costly attack in order to show his superiors that he and his division possessed the proper soldierly spirit. In fact, the Bolsheviki are more indifferent because they are animated by fanatical conviction. (The New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13)

5.
Member of an ethnic minority tells a white BLM supporter that he is oppressed and wants reparations. As in right now, from the white guy's wallet. Pop some popcorn before watching!


And a companion video:


6.
What Happens When the Madness Ends? Since it is by VDH, no excerpt is necessary.
https://amgreatness.com/2020/06/21/what-happens-when-the-madness-ends/

7.
What is your woke breaking point?
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/statues-woke-breaking-point-law-of-merited-impossibility/

Reading list for June 17

Trayvon Martin's mother says we need more police. 

Racial equality is so 1960s, say AP and major American newspapers.

The New York Times Recoils at the Predictable Consequences of the Mandatory COVID-19 Precautions It Supports

The American Press Is Destroying Itself, by Matt Taibbi, a bona fide progressive/liberal journalist. 

Suddenly confiscating guns isn’t a Democrat priority when Democrats like the people carrying the guns.

Could be the Bee, but it's real: Tim Kaine Claims America Invented Slavery; Roman Empire and Egyptian Pharaohs Demand Apology

More to be added as I find them and have the time.

Antifa Is Not Fighting For Freedom, But For Communist Revolution
https://thefederalist.com/2017/11/01/antifa-not-fighting-freedom-communist-revolution/

'They Have to Reinvent Her': Margaret Sanger's Fans Work to Clean Up Her Racist Past
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2020/may/they-have-to-reinvent-her-margaret-sangers-fans-work-to-clean-up-her-racist-past

This Leftist Tantrum Is an Information Operation and Trump Is Winning It
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2020/06/18/this-leftist-tantrum-is-an-information-operation-and-trump-is-winning-it-n2570782

The problem isn't the bad apples. It's the orchard.

Why the policing problem isn’t about “a few bad apples”
“The system was designed this way”: A former prosecutor on the fundamental problem with law enforcement.

Protest Also Against Police Unions and Qualified Immunity

A letter to the American public: Why you must decide what you want from cops
If you recruit well, conduct thorough background checks and train constantly, you can have a human with a kind heart and good ethics – but you can't have perfection

Links will be added as the day goes on.

It’s Past Time to Examine How Police Unions Protect Bad Cops

Who is behind the system of systemic racism?

Update: Apparently some people think I am endorsing the concept of "systemic racism." In fact, this essay is throwing the accusation back at those who make it. If systemic racism is real, then there are no places where it is more blatant and entrenched than in the cities named by George Korda, just below, and others under Democrat dominance for many years, even decades. 

If racism is systemic in America, then it is a human-made system, not a creation of nature. So who are the humans responsible for its longevity and power? Why, the very same people who want to accuse everyone else of it.

George Korda: Are we being honest about who is to blame for systemic racism?

Minneapolis, Minn. has been under Democratic control since 1978. Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years; its present mayor is a black woman. Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years; three of its last five mayors have been black men. Six of the last seven Atlanta, Ga., mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors, and the present mayor is a black woman.

A city runs its police department and other services; therefore, if there is so much ‘systemic racism’ in these organizations, why hasn’t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders?

Why aren’t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance, understanding, and virtue?

Because tolerance, understanding, and virtue don’t promote Democratic power. ...
Unfortunately, in too many cases when people say they want an open and honest discussion about race in America, what they mean is they want an open and honest discussion only about what they say is wrong with people who aren’t them. When people talk about the need to deal with systemic racism, if they’re not willing to talk about the systems run – often for generations by the political party or politicians they support – they aren’t interested in an open and honest conversation; instead, they want only to use the issue as a club against people who aren’t them. (HT: Glenn Reynolds)

I am a retired Army officer. Not long after the Vietnam War, a group of colonels got together to assess the state of the Army postwar. I entered active duty in 1977 and there were a lot of Vietnam vets still serving, and I talked in person with two of the colonels who did the assessment.

What they learned was that the Army's ethic of "Duty-Honor-Country" had been transformed by the Vietnam War to, "Me, My Ass, and My Career." Sorry, that was the way they put it.

Why did that happen? The answer would not have surprised Napoleon. The colonels found that there were still some units that embodied the virtues of the service. What made them stand apart was the moral character of the senior leadership, starting with the brigade commanders. As Napoleon put it, "There are no bad brigades, there are only bad brigadiers."

What went wrong in Minneapolis? It didn't start the day George Floyd was murdered, but many, many years before. The murder of George Floyd was decades in the making, as George Korda explains.

The four former Minneapolis police officers charged in the murder of George Floyd.

Ask yourself this question: Why did Chauvin and the other three officers get fired in Minneapolis, and later charged with murder?

One reason only: A passer-by video'd them. Chauvin and the other three cops did what they did because they thought what they had been taught to think by decades of one-party rule in the city, that the fix was already in: if the pols keep their hands off the cops, the police union will deliver the votes.

That has been going on for decades and not merely in Minneapolis.

What needs to be done now? Very simply:

1. Dis-establish public employee unions, starting with unions that represent people who carry guns and the authority to use them.

2. Revoke qualified immunity for police.

3. Stop electing Democrats. Put Republicans in office, and then after 10 years or so, fire them, too,

The NY Daily News - hardly an example of the vast rightwing conspiracy - said about three years ago that cops should be required to pay for liability insurance, at least in part. I am not sold on that right now, but it is worth considering, especially if qualified immunity is revoked.

Update: Law Prof. Ilya Somin posted this piece.

Update: KT Cat at The Scratching Post points out that my list is incomplete. Maybe he is onto something.

Update: Kevin Williamson also: Comforting Abstractions - We have real people to hold accountable, and we know their names.

Who is responsible for the mess in Minneapolis? The answer to that question is not unknowable — but it is, in many political quarters, unspeakable.

Minneapolis’s municipal government, its institutions, and its police department are what they are not because of the abstract Hegelian forces of capital-H History, but because of decisions that have been made by people. Who these people are is a matter of public record. We know their names: Jacob Frey, Betsy Hodges, R. T. Rybak, Sharon Sayles Belton, Medaria Arradondo, Janeé Harteau, Tim Walz, Mark Dayton . . . the rogues’ gallery is practically inexhaustible.

But, oh, the transmuting magic of partisanship! Minneapolis is a Democratic city, with a Democratic mayor and a Democratic city council (0.0 Republicans on that body), in a state with a Democratic governor and a Democratic state house; these are the people who hire police chiefs and organize police departments, who specify their procedures and priorities, who write the laws that the police are tasked with enforcing — Democrats and progressives practically to a man. (Not every member of the Minneapolis city council is a Democrat — there’s a Green, too.) That’s a lot of lefty power, hardly anything except lefty power — but, somehow, the bad guy in this story must be Donald Trump. ...

...  one of the problems here is the power of police unions, which resist efforts to increase accountability and oversight of their members. There is a political party in this country that is very much committed to increasing the power of public-sector unions, that has worked hard with some success to do that, and that is enormously dependent upon the financial and political support of those unions for its campaign efforts — and it is not called the Republican Party. It’s the other one.

Update:

 

Update:

What Democrats have done and why

Liberal Cities, Radical Mayhem

Democratic mayors and governors seem unable to stop the destruction of their own cities.

This isn’t merely about damage to property. It’s about destroying the order required for city life. Non-criminals are afraid to go into these cities to make a living. The police pull back from active policing, which creates more opportunity for criminals, especially in poor and minority neighborhoods. Businesses that are finally starting to emerge from government lockdowns have new costs to absorb and more reasons for customers not to return.

What all these cities have in common is that they are led by Democrats who seem to have bought into the belief that the police are a bigger problem than rampant disorder. They are either cowed by their party’s left, or they agree that America is systemically racist and rioting is a justified expression of anger against it. They offer pro forma disapproval of law breakers but refuse to act to stop them.

The Left Couldn't Care Less About Blacks

The left-wing mantra of “America is racist” has little to do with caring for blacks; rather, it is indispensable to bringing America down.

Second, without a lopsided black vote for the left-wing party, the Democrats, no Democrat could get elected to national office. It is therefore imperative to repeat as often and as vociferously as possible how anti-black America is. The angrier a black person is at America, the more likely he or she is to vote Democrat. Some years ago, after talking to listeners of every race on my radio show for decades, I came up with this riddle:

“What do you call a happy black person?”

Answer: “A Republican.”

To the left, blacks are not real people as much as they are an electoral bloc. How else to explain Joe Biden’s recent comment, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” The contempt for blacks — from the sentiment that one is “not black” unless one is a Democrat to his use of the word “ain’t” — is obvious to any nonleftist.

Here's the Real Story on George Floyd, Police Abuse, and Racism, and What You Should Do About It

While police abuse is not necessarily a racial problem, it is nonetheless a big problem. Derek Chauvin, the man who killed George Floyd, had a long record of complaints. Gregory McMichael was not immediately arrested. The men who killed Breonna Taylor entered her house in plainclothes without announcing their presence. These facts should make Americans’ blood boil, and they should lead Americans to demand concrete action.

I don’t always agree with former President Barack Obama (okay, I almost never agree with that scandal-plagued president), but I agree with his basic advice on police reform. Obama encouraged activists to develop concrete demands and to focus on achieving change at the local level.

Police unions often protect bad cops who pose a danger to the community. In some cases, police have effective “get out of jail free” cards that they hand out to their family and friends. This institutionalizes an “old boys club” culture.

I did not kill George Floyd
The attempt to hold all whites responsible for the death of Floyd shows what a dead-end woke politics is.

There’s a new sin. Forget gluttony. Forget sloth. The great moral error today is whiteness. To be white is to be fallen. Whiteness has become a kind of original sin, an inherited moral defect one must atone for throughout one’s life. In the wake of the brutal execution of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, this almost religious treatment of whiteness as an existential flaw has gone uber-mainstream.

We Don't Have a Racism Problem, We Have a Deep State Problem: The Hideous Police Killing of Duncan Lemp

That tiered justice system that black activists talk about is real. The people pulling the strings who revel in all this chaos never pay for their massive crimes. They get away with treason, presidential coup attempts, mishandling of classified documents, child trafficking, insider trading, and even murder (Jeffrey Epstein did not kill himself) while the cattle are thrown into prison for twenty years for petty drug offenses or shot dead in their beds with no explanation. We are not who we should be mad at. We are in the same herd of oppressed and abused livestock. Some of us get abused more regularly than others but we’re still locked up in the same rancid farm. It’s time to act in unison and break out of the prison they’ve built around us.

Read all of each one.

Update: Professor Alex Tabarrok on Police Union Privileges Revisited, read all of it, too. It's not long.

The fiction of the riots

The Sole Justification Offered for the Riots Is a Fiction

Rioters and their enablers claim that the present disorder is justified by an epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men. But no such epidemic exists.

Harvard economist Roland Fryer conducted a now-famous systematic review of police violence, and found that cops were more likely to use low-level force against black suspects than against white suspects, but no more likely to use lethal force. The racial disparities in the use of low-level force shrank when Fryer accounted for differences in group behavior, but a gap remained between white and nonwhite suspects even after such controls. And the fact that the police are more likely to place their hands on a black suspect, push them into a wall, or shove them to the ground no doubt contributes to the sense of hostility between law enforcement and African Americans.

But the central claim advanced by those defending the riots is not that police are disproportionately likely to use low-level force against black suspects. The central claim advanced by those defending the riots is that “they are killing us,” that blacks are “hunted” by racist police departments and are in danger every time they leave their homes. The evidence simply doesn’t back that up. And as stores are burned and livelihoods destroyed, churches desecrated and precincts set ablaze, evidence is something we must insist on.

As I said earlier, Rioters don't care about George Floyd.

One result: Another black man murdered.

Will there be vigils held for him? Protest marches at the injustice of his death? Enormous media coverage of the particulars? Leaders of the Congress demanding a full-scale investigation?

Will a massive national public outcry demand his murderer be arrested and brought to justice?

To ask the questions is to answer them.

 

Rioters don't care about George Floyd

FB post here.

Buzzfeed article here.

White privilege rioters

'There are anarchists': Minnesota officials say 'outside agitators' are hijacking peaceful protests

MINNEAPOLIS — Drifting out of the shadows in small groups, dressed in black, carrying shields and wearing knee pads, they head toward the front lines of the protest. Helmets and gas masks protect and obscure their faces, and they carry bottles of milk to counteract tear gas and pepper spray.

Most of them appear to be white. They carry no signs and don't want to speak to reporters. Trailed by designated "medics" with red crosses taped to their clothes, these groups head straight for the front lines of the conflict.

Night after night in this ravaged city, these small groups do battle with police and the National Guard, kicking away tear gas canisters and throwing back foam-rubber projects fired at them. Around them, fires break out. Windows are smashed. Parked cars destroyed. USA TODAY reporters have witnessed the groups on multiple nights, in multiple locations. Sometimes they threaten those journalists who photograph them destroying property.

The mayor and governor say outside agitators are hijacking peaceful protests over the death of George Floyd and literally fanning the flames of destruction. ...

"There are detractors. There are white supremacists. There are anarchists," Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan said Saturday afternoon. [But] most of the hard-core protesters in Minneapolis are far-left or anarchists, and that far-right groups have not yet made a significant appearance.

So who is setting out pallets of bricks for rioters to throw?


Antifa’s white privilege -- Even in a riot, the races aren’t equal

The laws that antifa learn to despise in their four-year colleges guarantee their racial privilege. If you’re black and angry enough to burn down banks and stores in your black neighborhood, tomorrow you’ll have to live in the ruins. If you’re white and you burn down banks and stores in someone else’s neighborhood, tomorrow you’ll be back in white world: fixing bikes or brewing espresso, waiting for The Man to cancel your student loans, living in a historic urban neighborhood whose historic black population you and your white friends have gentrified out of sight.

Replying to

@SaysSimonson

Right......”white nationalists”

7

28

First, let's shoot all the gun owners

How many Americans is Beto (and the other Dems who privately agree with him) willing to kill to take away our AR-15s?

Both Left and Right agree that there will be active, armed resistance to confiscation. So how many otherwise innocent, law-abiding Americans must be shot to death by law enforcement to make our country safe from gun violence? I would like him to state an actual number. But of course, the only honest answer he can give is, "As many as it takes."

For that matter, how many law-enforcement officers is Beto willing to sacrifice to complete the confiscation? I am sure federal, state, and local officers would like to know just how expendable they are.

It's worth remembering that when Beto was running for a Texas US Senate seat, he was asked directly by an on-air interviewer,  "I own an AR-15. A lot of our listeners out there own AR-15s. Why should they not have one?" O'Rourke responded:

"To be clear, they should have them. If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly." And later on, he said, "If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that.”

What changed? Nothing except the political winds. But as CNN observed, "Beto O'Rourke just did Republicans a massive favor on guns," for from from now until November 2020, whenever a Democrat says, "We are not coming for your guns," all gun owners know there is no reason at all to believe them. (And CNN is also extremely skeptical that the confiscation Beto urges would be possible at all.)

But my question remains: How many Americans is Beto willing to see killed to get his way? 

Related: 

Reason: The "assault weapons" that the presidential contender wants to confiscate are not especially deadly, but the symbolism of that policy is poisonous.

Also Reason: There is in fact no such thing as an "assault rifle."  In 1993, when the first "assault rifle" ban was being debated in Congress, I was a major in the US Army, serving on the Army staff at the Pentagon. I had never heard the term "assault rifle" before so I went to the Pentagon library and looked it up in the DOD official dictionary of military terms.

It was not there. The US military has never characterized any of its firearms as "assault" weapons. It is a political term, not a military one, and literally means nothing except, "looks scary." None of the characteristics that politicians think make a rifle an "assault" rifle make it deadlier or increase its rate of fire. See here:


Are AR-15 Rifles a Public Safety Threat? Here's What the Data Say

According to a New York Times analysis, since 2007, at least “173 people have been killed in mass shootings in the United States involving AR-15s.”

That’s 173 over a span of a decade, with an average of 17 homicides per year. To put this in perspective, consider that at this rate it would take almost one-hundred years of mass shootings with AR-15s to produce the same number of homicide victims that knives and sharp objects produce in one year.

With an average of 13,657 homicides per year during the 2007-2017 timeframe, about one-tenth of one percent of homicides were produced by mass shootings involving AR-15s.

But the facts are irrelevant to Beto and the rest of the Left. They do not argue from facts but from anger -- anger that untold numbers of Americans are doing things or owning things that they do not like.

Ban on cell phone use while driving - just a cash cow?

Last July 1, a law went into effect here in Tennessee that makes it illegal for anyone driving a car to hold a cellular phone in his or her hand. Reports the Knoxville News Sentinel,

The Tennessee law banning hand-held cell phones went into effect July 1. Drivers can eat, drink, converse, sing, look at roadside sights, talk to their kids in the back seat, and it’s all perfectly legal. Pick up a cell phone, however, and you’re a distracted-driving lawbreaker. Law enforcement and first responders, however, are exempt from the safety measure that the legislature and governor determined is required for Tennessee drivers.

The Sentinel is not a fan of the law, mainly because such bans, in effect in some other states for many years, have not once been shown to affect the accident rate at all. They cite a number of such studies.

But it does roll cash into county and state coffers.

At $50 per ticket, the Tennessee Highway Patrol’s cell phone ban enforcement netted, it would appear, a minimum of $21,200 for the 424 tickets the THP wrote in July, Knox News reported. Tickets increase up to $200 depending on the situation.

And yet . . .

Yes, the ban here in Tennessee is really just another way to tax people. OTOH, the worst accident scene I ever got called by the sheriff's dept. to go work was directly caused by a young woman driving on a two-lane state highway in Franklin, Tenn. It was before smart phones were invented. She was trying to punch a number into her cell phone and wandered into the other lane. An oncoming 18-wheeler swerved to miss her, bounced back onto the road and went head on into a Chevy pickup behind the woman's car.

The impact was so violent that it completely separated the truck's body from its frame, knocking the truck body 20 or more feet away from the frame assembly, which was solely occupied by the driver, married only three weeks, on his way home from work. He had been ripped into three separate pieces. The 18-wheeler's driver was injured.

The woman phone caller was wholly uninjured but when I spoke with her she was not very coherent. She was still holding the phone in her hand, up next to her head, though of course there was no call connected, and basically just walking in a small circle at the rear of her car.

A highway patrol trooper told me that in his 26 years in the THP, this was the most violent accident he had seen. After seeing the truck driver's remains, I could see why. Before the medical examiner's team went to retrieve the remains, I held a time of prayer and Holy Communion for them (I always took my Communion kit responding to sheriff's department calls).

So I cannot argue with Tennessee's law.

Red Flag laws and public safety

Two authors address the only pertinent questions about "red flag" laws, by which the states indicated below enable the government to remove firearms, forcefully if necessary, from the possession by their owners.

First up, John Yoo, law professor at UC-Berkeley and Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, during the George W. Bush administration, "A Universal-Background-Check Law Would Not Violate the Second Amendment."

In Yoo's opinion, there is only the question, "Do red flag laws actually work?" That question he does not address, but the Crime Prevention Research Center does:

Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.

As someone else pointed out, there is no discernible difference in suicide or homicide rates of the states with red flag laws, before and after.

Last November, Maryland police officers shot to death a man whose firearms they came to confiscate under a "red flag" order. They killed a man who had committed no crime, was not a suspect and was literally in his home at the time, minding his own business. He did not want police to take his guns. So they shot him dead.

But they did successfully execute the court order, so they had that going for them. Welcome to The Democratic People's Republic of America.

Update: USA Today - Kafkaesque 'red flag laws' strip gun owners of their constitutional rights

After a fixed period of time — say, 21 days — the gun owner can ask for a court hearing to restore his or her constitutional rights. But guess what? Few gun owners have the sophistication or the thousands of dollars it would take to hire a lawyer and expert witnesses. And few courts are willing to second-guess themselves and reverse the Gun Confiscation Order which has been issued.  

In fact, hundreds of thousands of veterans have lost their gun rights without due process pursuant to a comparable procedure. And recent revelations from the VA suggest that fewer than 50 have successfully invoked this "process" to get their rights back.  

But there's a larger issue: If the Constitution can be suspended in a secret hearing, where does this lead?  

What if this newspaper could be shut down for 21 days without due process — based on a secret complaint? Or an individual could be arrested or imprisoned for 21 days? Or tortured?  

Far from being a "consensus proposal," the suspension of the Constitution in a secret hearing is a constitutional Rubicon from which there is no return. 

"No return" is the whole point.

Also, 7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws; I will excerpt only the seven reasons, read the article for the explanations.

1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence

2. Congress Lacks the Authority

3. We Have Federalism

5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged -- one is so severe that even the ACLU has protested red flag laws

7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime

Here is how the Left would respond to each of the seven reasons, if the Left was ever to be honest:

1. There’s No Evidence Red Flag Laws Reduce Gun Violence. Does not matter: it reduces the number of guns in private ownership and that is the real point.

2. Congress Lacks the Authority. Congress can regulate anything it wants to for any reason it wants to. Save the tired argument about "delegated powers" because frankly, we do not care. 

3. We Have Federalism. Federalism is valid only when it can be used to buttress Leftist objectives, such as sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants, Federalism is an outdated, abrogated concept of government when conservatives use it. 

5. Red Flag Laws Could Lead to More Violence. No, it won't. One-off events like described here cannot be used to set public policy, especially when the policy concerned is one Leftists want. 

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged (this one is so severe that even the ACLU has protested red flag laws -- DS.) It does not matter because RFLs take guns away from private ownership. The broader the scope the better.  

7. They’re Basically Pre-Crime. So what? Yes, we will take guns away, by force if necessary, from people who might, maybe, possibly commit gun violence against themselves or others. Or might not. But "if it saves one life," et cetera. And again, a foundational premise of Leftism in America today is that no private citizen should own a firearm without very strict regulations by the federal government, and really, not even then.  

Update: I see I left out No. 6. Which actually works out amazingly well and here is why, just breaking today:

6. It’s Not Just the “Mentally Ill” and Grave Threats Who Are Flagged.

A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm.

But it will go way beyond that kind of thing. This week, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo was captured on video going bats in a profanity-filled, shouting rant against a man who called him, "Fredo" in a restaurant. Yes, that's right. Fredo, which Cuomo said was just as bad to call an Italian-American as "N-word" would be to call a black American. "Sure Chris, a weak insult based on a 47-year-old movie is totally the same as what black people in America go through. You are so down with the struggle."

But the real threat inherent in RFL? Like everything else today, they will almost immediately become politicized and used against political opponents. After all, when to oppose Democrats on any issue is to prove yourself a Nazi, why on earth would you let a Nazi retain the right to buy or possess a gun?

Who better to illustrate this point than everyone's favorite tweeter, President Donald Trump?

The argument against red-flag laws is that they’ll be abused to justify confiscating weapons on flimsy pretexts from people who aren’t dangerous to others. Now here’s the president validating that concern before Lindsey Graham’s bill has even received a vote in Congress. Are you worried that the government might exploit the new legal regime to punish its political and media enemies who own guns? Well, per Trump, apparently you should be.

So how would a honest Leftist respond to such an objection? Well: Using Red Flag Laws to save lives is actually secondary to their primary purpose of enabling the government to skirt due process to take guns away from private citizens. If RFLs aree sometimes used to disarm political opponents, then that is desirable only as long those subjected are opponents of the Left. When we use RFLs to disarm our opponents, for any reason, then it is justice. When used to disarm us, it is an outrage that calls for resistance to such an abuse of power.

Update: Law professor and practicing attorney Donald Kilmer writes that problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think - worse, that is, for the poor schmuck who is the subject of the order.