A Racial Exception To Bill of Rights: How Missouri Used A Race War To Confiscate Guns.

Our nation is in danger. The past six months have shown us that Americans are becoming more and more willing to tolerate lying and agenda-pushing governments  who trample all over their civil liberties in the name of “protecting the public.” We are now at the point where these governments have been so emboldened that they can manufacture excuses to trample on enumerated rights such as the Second Amendment with impunity.

Tonight, multiple media sources confirmed that the state of Missouri served search warrants on the St. Louis couple who confronted a mob of race agitators who broke through the gate to their property and were yelling at them.  The fruit of the search warrants? According to the couple, their firearms were confiscated.

Rumors had swirled since the confrontation that Missouri prosecutors were exploring pursuing charges against the couple despite video evidence showing the broken gate to their property and the mob of racial jihadists on their property. Indeed, the rumors and an investigation were ultimately the outcry of the mob itself, which found itself unable to physically bully people who were willing to defend their lives and their property with lethal force. So the mob turned to spineless public officials who have caved to their demands. The couple are now unarmed and sitting ducks for the next time the race-agitating mob comes calling.

The one question that stood out to me immediately on seeing the story was: Why the confiscation of the firearms without an arrest? I understand that they could have been looking for video surveillance and other evidence to show whether the show of force was justified, but they certainly did not need the couple’s firearms to find probable cause for an arrest warrant.

The bottom line is that the state made a unilateral determination that the couple is too dangerous to own firearms. They received no due process and no presumption of innocence. Instead, the state confiscated their firearms ostensibly for investigative purposes, but, in reality, to avoid a public relations disaster the next time the mob came calling and they actually needed to sling lead.

There’s no indication that the firearms were illegal. There’s no indication that they had been used to commit a crime apart from prosecutors’ and a race mob’s aggrieved beliefs, which have been squarely contradicted by the evidence turned up. In other words, I would make the argument all day that there is no probable cause that supports the seizure of the couple’s firearms and that the seizure is a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.

That raises yet another point. Why the broad scope of the search warrant itself? What did the state allege to get the sweeping scope of the search warrant that they appear to have gotten? At best, they were entitled to the video surveillance, if any, and nothing more at this stage.

The state of affairs as we know it tonight scares the daylights out of me. I knew that governments and the courts think that there is a public health exception to the Constitution, but I had only vaguely considered the possibility of other exceptions to the Constitution. It appears that we now have a racial exception to the Constitution. Display force to deter a mob of racial jihadists, say goodbye to what’s left of your constitutional rights.

I don’t know what happened for real during the confrontation. What I do know is that the information available does not support the actions that Missouri took tonight. Missouri’s actions do not just affect one couple who happened to make the news. They set a dangerous precedent for the rest of us regardless of our skin color or our views, and they only reaffirmed that governments have no respect for constitutional rights when it becomes politically inconvenient for them to respect them.

I hope this couple fights Missouri’s actions very publicly and very hard. I would. More than their firearms are at stake.

Cameron L. Atkinson

Cameron Atkinson is a Christian, a published constitutional scholar, a trial and appellate lawyer, and a general hell-raiser. He has received national recognition for his victories in civil rights cases, especially in First Amendment cases. Attorney Atkinson stands out for his written advocacy, and he has taken the lead role in briefing cases to the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Connecticut Supreme Court, the Connecticut Appellate Court, and multiple New York appellate courts. Attorney Atkinson has successfully represented clients facing criminal charges, including successfully arguing for the reversal of a sexual assault conviction before the Connecticut Supreme Court. He will accept requests for public speaking engagements on a case-by-case basis.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: