Red Flag legislation: A comprehensive review for NY and nation – part 1

Anti-Extreme Risk Protection Orders
Meme on proposed NY State Red Flag legislation

August 20, 2018 – Vestal, NY – The following is the full transcript of a speech, made by M V Consulting Inc and Liberty First Foundation NY Chapter president Michael “Vass” Vasquez to the members of the Americans for Restoring the Constitution (AFRTC) and the general public at the Vestal Public Library. The speech is an in-depth review of Red Flag legislation in New York State and across the nation. Due to the length of the details and data, compiled from over 50 sources and growing in an on-going investigation, the speech is being split into 8 parts. Due to time constraints, the actual live presentation truncated portions of the original documentation, without alteration of the data, details, or context.

Any news media organization that wishes to receive this presentation in its original form or reprint these articles, including all public sources, in order to address this growing trend of legislation and inform the public of all aspects of this legislation, is given full rights to do so. To receive a copy of the original form, please contact us.

Amended (due to time constraints) speech at Vestal Public Library:

Q & A with audience after the presentation:

Michael "Vass" Vasquez in Vestal, NY discussing Red Flag legislation with AFRTC

Hello everyone and thank you for joining me today. I’m Michael “Vass” Vasquez, a political commentator for the past decade. In that time I have published literally thousands of articles on dozens of issues, laws and legislative proposals; interviewed candidates and elected officials; all at every level of Government, in total equating to some 5,000 hours of material. I say that not to boast but to say that I believe this may be one of the most critical subjects I have ever covered. That is the subject of Red Flag legislation.

Let me start with something that shouldn’t need to be said. Everyone in America wants to be safe. There is no one in their right mind that is not in favor of ending mass shootings and their subset school shootings. Politics should have nothing to do with this process, and it has nothing to do with my presentation today. While we may disagree with the process to get there, that is the end goal we all want to achieve. A safer, better America.

But the path we take to that end goal is important. The consequences to the route to a safer America must be considered. We cannot recklessly, or emotionally, rush forward out of a need to “do something” that ultimately is either ineffective, or worse causes even greater damage to our nation and society in the long run.

Now before I can go farther, I want to ensure the terms in this presentation are clear. Far too often in modern politics terms and phrases and soundbites are used for a short-hand discussion. The problem is that not everyone is familiar with this or that short-hand, nor the original base of information being used for that short-hand. Because of that we often are talking at one another rather than with each other. Thus I want to make sure you understand my short-hand.

So let’s start with an understanding of how we arrived at this point. Where the terms we will be discussing came from, and the intent of those terms. Please bear with me, I’m sure much of this will already be familiar to those here, but for those that see or read this at some other point, or in some other nation, it may well be the first time they have encountered this. Because this is the backdrop of all to be discussed.

Society is an agreement of the citizens in that society to live together. This only works when all the citizens in that society agree on the core rules of that society. Because of this, normally all the citizens are from a single homogenous group. But America is not an example of this.

America is a unique nation in the world because it was started not by 1 group of people, but by several groups of people with different histories, cultures, beliefs, and language. Therefore the core commonalities of all these groups were combined to create our Constitution. Somewhat of an over-simplification, but accurate all the same.

One of the core, and universal, understandings held at the start of America is that individual freedom is inalienable, and not originated by a ruler nor government. Thus we have, the Preamble in the Declaration of Independence,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, … Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I have emphasized this portion of the Preamble as it is important to understand in this discussion is that the founding of this nation is based in whole on the condition that freedom is the first and foremost state of humanity. Government, and therefore law, is only a function to promote and maintain the ability of each individual to have an equal and unhindered access to individual freedom. That was the original intent as I understand it, and was meant to not change due to transitory fears, jealousy, ambition, or other fads as they may come.

This was further enhanced by the Constitution. In its first words we’re given the cornerstone by which every other law must (or in modern days, should) adhere to. This is the guideline of government, and law, in America,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

We are individually free, with inherent Rights, and create government by our will. Government therefore is limited, both in what it can do and what it can affect. In understanding this definition of freedom, life and government we can understand the rest of the discussion. Because only the people can ask for, or allow, our freedoms to be exchanged for greater power of Government and/or restrictions by law.

That brings me to the Amendments. The First is needed, not least of which, for the purpose of open communication. If there is no communication, nor understanding, then government will devolve from individual freedom to one of those who oppressively govern and those who are governed.

The Second provides the defense of the First. It denies any government, or individual, the ability to remove the individual freedom, by force or by law – unless the governed actively choose to rescind their freedom. And only to the degree that the governed allow.

The Fourth in the simplest shorthand protects the ability to have the firearms described in the Second, and reinforces the fact that government is limited. It further ensures that individual freedom can only be affected in the most imperative situations, even with the understanding that the governed may choose to reduce their freedoms. Inalienable Rights cannot be destroyed, and even when voluntarily diminished, they still exist in full force.

About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: