RED FLAG ORDER FILED AGAINST SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER…….

In the wake of Senator Chuck Schumer’s threat against two Supreme Court Justices…

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you, if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Gun Owners of America have sent a letter and “red flag” order application to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo requesting a Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Order for the Senator.

It should be interesting to see if a judge will simply dismiss this as unfounded, ruling that Schumer’s public statement was mere political hyperbole. Even after the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has called Schumer’s statement was “threatening” and “dangerous.”

It might be hard for even a New York judge to conclude that Schumer’s tirade wasn’t an actual threat when the Chief Justice and a top lefty law prof have acknowledged that’s exactly what it was.

Naturally, a confiscation order will have to disarm Senator Schumer’s security detail as well, just because he might get access to those guns.

Of course, since this application is based on actual evidence — Schumer’s own recorded words — rather than unsubstantiated feelings, a red flag order isn’t really needed. His very public threat happens to be a violation of New York Consolidated Law § 240.30(1)(a).

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the second degree when:

1. With intent to harass another person, the actor either:

(a) communicates, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by computer or any other electronic means, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of communication, a threat to cause physical harm to, or unlawful harm to the property of, such person, or a member of such person’s same family or household as defined in subdivision one of section 530.11 of the criminal procedure law, and the actor knows or reasonably should know that such communication will cause such person to reasonably fear harm to such person’s physical safety or property, or to the physical safety or property of a member of such person’s same family or household; or

Threatening is a Class A misdemeanor good for 12 months in jail. Or, since this threat went out to the world — interstate — 18 U.S. Code § 875 could apply. That one is good for five years.

The other well known problem with red flag orders is that not only do they leave the dangerous person on the street to threaten more people, they don’t get the disturbed Senator the help he so clearly needs.

Hopefully, that state will also invoke § 9.39(a)(2) in order to take him into custody for mental health evaluation and treatment.

2. a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical harm.

Let’s sit back and watch the two-tier legal system at work. Will Schumer’s threat draw the same law enforcement attention you would attract if you tweeted that same statement about a couple of highly placed officials in the judicial branch (i.e., a guaranteed contact from the FBI)?

DAWG SAYS: PERSONALLY, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS WAY OUT OF LINE, I DO NOT THINK IT HAS A CHANCE, BUT IF WERE YOU OR ME WE WOULD HAVE OUR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED…….

NEW CAMBRIDGE, MASS. LAW: DON’T ARREST ILLEGALS FOR DRIVING WITHOUT A LICENSE…….

It’s the law that you need a license to drive.

But, if you’re undocumented and driving without a license in Cambridge, police have been advised not to arrest you for that.

It’s all part of a new law that passed unanimously in the city, which encourages police to summons unlicensed drivers instead of arresting them. The procedure has already been practiced for a while, but city leaders said they felt compelled to officially make it a law, in fear of what could happen to immigration laws should President Trump be re-elected.

“We need to protect our community members from a federal government that’s out of control,” said Cambridge City Councilor Quinton Zondervan. “There are no other reasons for the police to arrest someone, give them a court summons instead which keeps them out of the clutches of the Trump administration.”

Currently, Massachusetts requires drivers to show proof of legal status in order to obtain a driver’s license, a move that many have opposed saying it makes roads more dangerous.

However, for Zondervan, the move is more of an effort to shield undocumented immigrants from the current federal government.

Recently, immigration officials announced they were sending additional border agents to sanctuary cities in an effort to step up the current administration’s immigration enforcement.

In Cambridge, the efforts to protect undocumented immigrants doesn’t mean they won’t have to respond to legal consequences, but it means they won’t be subject to deportation or at risk of being flagged by ICE.

“We’ve got to stand up for the people who live here,” said Rona Fisherman.

“Targeting people for minor violations really sets them back,” said Alex King.

The overwhelming majority of people who spoke to Boston 25 News say they strongly support the new ordinance. Under the new law, officers will look for other ways to avoid impounding cars of unlicensed drivers.

However, some are questioning if this will encourage others to drive without a license.

“I don’t think they should be sent to ice just because they’re trying to live a life here, but I also don’t think you should have unlicensed people driving cars,” said Jessie.

From 2017 through 2019, there were 278 cases where Cambridge Police recommended the driver be charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, 201 were handled with a summons while only 77 were handled via arrest.

A police spokesperson says the arrests likely involved additional charges and possibly outstanding warrants. If the driver has other legal troubles, then officers may arrest them.

The new law does not protect people from being arrested for reasons beyond the lack of a valid driver’s license, including active or outstanding warrants, but it does, however, prohibit police from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.

DAWG SAYS: IF THE STATEMENT ABOUT THEM PRE EMPTING-TRUMP BEING ELECTED IS TRUE, THEN THEY ARE AIDING AND ABETTING KNOW CRIMINALS. AND DOES THAT MEAN ANYONE NOT ILLEGAL WILL BE ARRESTED?