Let's pass some more laws that criminals refuse to follow just like our criminal politicians who refuse to enforce our border laws.

This is one more massive leftist effort to gain more control over law abiding citizens, it is that simple.

It's CREEPY, is what it is: that two people hang out together, are now considered 'in a relationship' etc, without any formal recognition, etc. They don't even cohabitate, so there's no danger, etc.

Yet the government(?) still wants to define them as being 'in a relationship' so it can assert control over them on that basis.

Every divorce lawyer in America uses this tactic: they counsel future ex-wives to call the police when future ex-husband comes to house and say "He has guns and I am afraid."

The cops come, arrest future ex-husband for doing nothing wrong and the arrest will be used against him in divorce court for custody and money.

Except in extreme cases, the charges against the accused need to be adjudicated (i.e. due process) before the accused is denied their Constitutional rights (i.e. loss of freedom, right to bear arms, right to vote, etc.).

This legislation turns the Constitution and the presumption of innocence on their heads.

No one is safe if you turn the police loose with no due process.

The Constitutionality of this Bill needs to be challenged in court.

The Congress is tasked with making sure their bills are Constitutionally sound.
Apparently they no longer care.

We no longer live in a Constitutional Republic.
Biden has already proven that.

Yes we do, just a lot of treason going on

BINGO!

I agree tho Joe has all ready said no article under the Bill of Rights is absolute. According to many philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, Natural Rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken away yet that is exactly what the democrats plan to do. Their democracy (the Democrats not the Republics) has become the same type of democracy that gave hemlock to Socrates who pointed out the corruption of government officials.

A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true. - Socrates

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. - Vladimir Lenin

Who cares what these people will say. They will say anything. They think they are Jedi mind controllers.

Exactly my point.
Biden (actually his handlers) are just the most recent violators. Each generation becomes more blatant because nobody stopped their predecessors.

Yup, the day we stand up is the day it’s over

States frequently pass blatantly un-Constitutional laws and they stand until challenged in court. These cases can take years to wind through the system and most are never heard by USSC.

But in many of the cases the lower courts can grant injunctions and stays that can last years before the new law can be enforced. Maybe by then it can be repealed.

True, but in places like MA/NY/CT/CA/MD/IL you can't expect a fair review by the judiciary, especially if related to gun laws.

As I said...they no longer care.

The reason it takes so long to get a Constitution challenge "through the courts" and may not even get a hearing is because there is really no Constitutional (and therefore binding on the courts) power known as "judicial review"

Judicial review isn't in the Constitution because it is the responsibility of Congress to craft law and to ensure that those laws are in pursuance (and not in conflict) with the Constitution. Judicial review as the court practices it is simply, as cases are brought before it, to ALSO determine if the law that the defendant in the case is accused of violating is actually constitutional and therefore binding or unconstitutional and not binding.

The state legislatures are also bound by the Constitution under the Supremacy Clause AND their oath of office to uphold the Constitution, part of Article VI of the Constitution.

When there are rules, and the parties involved are NOT abiding by the rules... this is what you get.

Like Nazi Piglosi said, "Is it Constitutional?!!?? Oh puhleaze!"

Completely violating her oath of office, as Article VI Section II requires all laws to comply with the Constitution and Article VI Section III requires that everyone in government (federal AND state) sweat to and affirm to abide by the Constitution.

They are emboldened because nobody seems to understand THEY CAN BE STOPPED and kicked out of office for violating their oath of office...(but who will do it?)

Not as long as they know which judges are in their corner.

No money for the grifters if they do what they are supposed to

You are correct, and you are correct.

Imagine if I weren't.

The RINOs who helped all know but don’t care the Pedo Puppet In Chief is an illegitimate president but don’t care. As I say in all these cases, follow the money.

Which is why these "Red Flag Laws" need to be challenged in every State and even the Supreme Court. These "laws" clearly infringe on personal freedoms defined by the U. S. Constitution.

Yes, they do.
And they will be challenged.
The question is, will the SCOTUS take up the challenge(s)?
Or wait 50 years +/- and hundreds of stare decisis decisions resulting in the harm or death of countless innocents before finally deciding "oh yeah, it's not really constitutional" like they did with Roe v Wade and the 63 million innocent babies MURDERED by those exercising a FAKE "right" to kill babies without repercussion.

Ok…devils advocate…what language in the founding docs, or any later interpretation, leads you to that conclusion? Again, being devils advocate.

The members of Congress each take an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

The Constitution vests all the power to create legislation in a bicameral Legislative body consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate (Article I, Section I)
The Constitution limits the federal law of the land to be "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties...made under the Authority of the United States" (Article VI, Section II)
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" (Article VI Section 3)
So:
Since laws MUST be pursuant to the Constitution (Article VI) AND Congress is given the power to create law (Article I) all laws they craft must be pursuant to the Constitution. And they are bound to perform their duty as such by their oath of office/affirmation to support the Constitution (Article VI). It is their responsibility to ensure that all their bills/acts/laws are Constitutionally sound.

(Note: The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of "judicial review" because there should be no need for it as Congress shouldn't even be passing laws that are not in accordance with, or that violate, the Constitution. As Justice Marshall declared in an 1803 decision (Marbury vs Madison) castigating Congress for the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court an extension (beyond what the Constitution granted) of judiciary power "acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts". The concept of judicial review should NEVER have been necessary. But since Congress, even early in our country's history, showed itself willing to ignore its responsibility to the Constitution, the Marshall court acted under the guidelines of the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are inherent there laid out in Article I and "judicial review" became a function of how the court decided cases brought before it)

I really hope that is yours and not cut and pasted. Great post

Thanks. It's not a copy-paste.

Shall not be infringed—Mike drop. Thank you—all be in town all week.

They'll just call it a 'tax' and say it is legal. Has nothing to do with a tax, but that's how the Obamas pushed their Obama-care through.

And don't forget it was the R's the opened the door to that whole mess - Susan Collins to be specific.

Collins has been "centrist" in the COUNT of her votes, but if you examine the scope and impact of each bill, she's SOLIDLY LEFT in all the harmful ones.
She is NO friend of Maine (but friend to the MA spillovers in Cumberland, York, Knox counties. They say Maine is "purple" but it's CLEARLY split Blue (lack of oxygen to the brain) in the south and Red (full of lifeblood) in the north.)

The other Senator from Maine is no better. King, formerly a fiscally disastrous (democrat) governor of Maine (followed by equally disastrous democrat Baldacci) who is now an "Independent who caucuses with democrats". Which means he meets with, discusses with and votes with democrats. That is NOT "independent".

Another pile that needs to be taken off the books too! We all need to realize that these "laws" are only pushing us towards a totalitarian state, where we are all under the complete control of the Federal Government. They just keep chipping away, piece by piece, brick by brick. It's time to say NO!

Civil forfeiture is unconstitutional and they have been doing it for a long time.

Yup, it stops when we stop it.

And it still isn't legal or right.

It's already been deemed unconstitutional. There was a case that occurred last year that the Supreme Court ruled against, stating it violated the Constitution. I don't understand what gives them the authority to pass this soon-to-be-law.

Their authority comes from the apathy of the new "subjects" they rule over who are too afraid and too ignorant to challenge them or resist. They, the corporate controlled RINOs, know they can get away with anything after the Covid 19 scamdemic, Russia collusion hoax, Hunter's laptop, J6 peaceful protest persecution, Clinton emails, and most of all the Big Steal.

I hope the lawsuits start the minute this bill is passed or America as we knew it is gone:

"Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. -Ronald Wilson Reagan

I'm with you 100%. This Bill should be blown to smithereens in the courts!

Yes. If anyone can be forced into a presumptive 'relationship', etc, then that can be used as a means of forcing insane State policies (like forced disarmament) under the pretext of 'protecting'.

Well...just like the indoctrination system(public schools) teach that we have a democracy....except of course when the majority do not agree with the politicians....and a whole lotta people believe the Minority Report was a real life documentary...

Red flags have no due recourse. You are guilty by hearsay of an angry individual who is lashing out and they are not prosecuted about the lie of creating the red flag out of thin air. This is how most people end up six feet under when cop’s barge thru a door of an innocent person.

This will be just like civil forfeiture.

Due process violations abound and they will only get worse.

Civil forfeiture is simply a fine issued by an administrative law court which has no Article 3 authority to issue or collect a fine by constitutional means.

I once read a document that reported on the fact that people who had their drivers licenses revoked tended to just drive illegally.

People who do drugs tend to do them illegally.

People who have their guns removed... whelp, maybe certain examples were just meant to be followed then.

The anti-gun laws are made to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding hard-working citizens.....the left want the thugs to have weapons...Obambis civilian army...look at the violence committed by the blm/antifa p'0s....and they were protected...1984 was not a work of fiction.