Red Flag Laws Would Prevent Even Trump From Owning Firearm

As President Trump is toying around with the idea of signing a Red Flag law, he may not realize that the gun-grabbing gesture meant to appease the fascist left could actually keep him—the President of the United States—from owning a firearm.

Trump told the press, “I am directing the Department of Justice to work in partnership with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as social media companies, to develop tools that can detect mass shooters before they strike.”

He continued, “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms, and that, if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process. That is why I have called for red flag laws.”


A Red Flag law is a piece of legislation, passed into law, which is designed to make it easier for law-enforcement to seize firearms from individuals who are exhibiting certain “red flags,” regardless of whether or not due process is followed.

Many states already have Red Flag laws, also known as Extreme Protection Orders, which allow the confiscation of firearms from individuals with only the testimony of loved ones, enemies, or spurned lovers, regardless of whether or not a trial has been conducted to determine the accuracy of their complaints. Often, firearms are ordered confiscated without the accused being present in the court to defend themselves against accusations.

Seventeen states already have Red Flag laws, including Florida, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, and California.

In many of these states, a “concerned individual”—who rarely has to be a member of the accused’s immediate family or close friend—simply files a petition explaining why that individual shouldn’t own a gun. A judge then looks at the evidence provided (often without speaking to the accused individual or weighing the evidence in a trial) and then orders law enforcement to take their weapons.


The very same social media companies who have banned people like me for “hate speech” will be responsible, if Trump has his way, of reporting to law enforcement when they feel someone is a risk and should have their guns taken away. Does this scare anybody else, or is it just me?

Do we really want technocrats determining who is and who is not a risk to the community or who should and who should not own a firearm?


How many times has Trump been called “crazy” by respected, upstanding members of their communities? Sure, they might be crazy to us, but these are high-ranking public officials, respected celebrities, and public figures who have all said that Trump is mentally ill:

Representative Alan Green of Texas has put together legislation to impeach President Trump on the grounds of mental incompetence, under the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. After (reportedly) blowing up in a meeting with House and Senate Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi piously offered up prayers for Trump’s mental health.

According to a very respected presidential biographer, Bob Woodward, many of Trump’s own staffers believe he is mentally ill. Trump’s former chief of staff, John Kelly, questioned Trump’s mental health and referred to him as “Crazy Town.” Dan Drezner collected more than 250 stories of Trump staffers questioning his mental health.

If any average or ordinary Citizen of the United States had elected representatives, the Speaker of the House, a Presidential Chief of Staff, and 250 statements from co-workers that someone was crazy, the chance of a Red Flag law being enforced is near to 100%.

Of course, I don’t believe Trump is “crazy.” These accusations seem to stem from those who are grasping at straws to find an impeachable offense and see a clause in the 25th Amendment to be the closest they can get. At best, Trump is an ill-tempered and eccentric billionaire, and crazy shouldn’t be determined without due process.

And yet, that’s exactly what Trump is asking for in a federal Red Flag law. With it, only a single jilted former lover—a trailer park version of Stormy Daniels, for example—could get someone’s firearms confiscated without so much as a trial.

Think about the implications.