Far-Left gun control will use red flag laws to promote CRT, LGBT agendas

Far-Left gun control red flag laws CRT LGBT

Far-Left gun control bills will use red flag laws to promote CRT, LGBT agendas

By now you’re probably aware that extreme risk protection orders, aka red flag laws, are foundational to the Far-Left gun control agenda to destroy the Second Amendment, but did you know that they plan to use red flag laws to promote the Critical Race Theory (CRT) and the LGBT agendas?

Included in a pair of gun control bills passed in the House last week are least four provisions that insert CRT and LGBT issues into an unconstitutional and unrelated bill restricting gun ownership that could allow law enforcement to decide which gun owners to flag as potentially dangerous based on principles of equity drawn from critical race theory. The bills also require the collection of data based on “sex” and “gender,” and would redefine the family to include unmarried and unrelated persons.

Here’s a breakdown of the provisions (via The Washington Stand):

Federal officers must receive diversity training on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Controversial diversity training, which President Donald Trump eliminated from the federal workforce, would be legally required by the “Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order” Act (H.R. 2377). The law mandates that every federal law enforcement agency “shall require each [f]ederal law enforcement officer employed by the agency to complete training” about “bias based on race and racism, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, language proficiency, mental health condition, disability, and classism.”

This could mean the return of federal agents being subjected to such radical notions as critical race theory and transgender ideology.

2. Injecting equity into red flag laws

H.R. 2377 also states: “The head of each [f]ederal law enforcement agency shall require each [f]ederal law enforcement officer employed by the agency to complete training” in the “equitable use and administration of [f]ederal extreme risk protection orders.”

As Vice President Kamala Harris has said, “There’s a big difference between equality and equity.” In CRT, equity means equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity.

Equity would imply that the percentage of red flags deputies impose on members of any group should be no greater than its share of the population. For instance, individuals who identify as transgender make up less than 1% of the U.S. population. But one would expect LGBT-identifying people to be disproportionately represented in red flag orders since, according to the National Alliance of Mental Health, “LGB adults are more than twice as likely as heterosexual adults to experience a mental health condition.

Untreated mental illness is a major factor in mass shootings and suicides [but] equity principles might cause a sheriff’s deputy to think twice before imposing a red flag on a member of the LGBT community, or to impose additional red flags on heterosexuals to avoid charges of “homophobia” or “discrimination.”

3. Collecting gender data to precipitate the next round of SOGI/LGBTQIA+ “equity” legislation

The “Protecting Our Kids” act (H.R. 7910) requires the U.S. attorney general to issue a report next year on “the demographic data of persons who were determined to be ineligible to purchase a firearm based on a background check,” including “race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, average annual income, and English language proficiency, if available.” Federal authorities may separate “sex” from “gender” to further transgender ideology.

The administration highlights the importance of such data for launching new federal programs: “Without this information [on] lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients,” the Biden administration’s CDC states, “the health disparities they experience cannot be addressed.”

The “disparities” the Biden administration’s CDC aims to combat include conditions allegedly “related to experiences of anti-LGBT stigma,” implying that faith-based opposition to the sexual revolution constitutes a public health threat.

4. Redefining ‘family’ by statute

H.R. 7910 would also redefine the meaning of family to include unmarried, unrelated people living in the home. “The term ‘family members’ means spouses, domestic partners, parents, and their children, including step-parents and their step-children, siblings, aunts or uncles, and their nieces or nephews, or grandparents and their grandchildren,” the bill states. (Emphasis added.)

While the House-passed bill hasn’t been voted on in the Senate, we know that a gang of 20 senators (10 Democrats and 10 Republicans) struck a bipartisan gun control framework of their own earlier this week, marking the official arrival of the Republican Party’s cave to the Far-Left’s anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Once the Senate passes its version of gun control, the differences in the two bills are hammered out in committee. Needless to say, with the growing popularity and acceptance of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (aka ERPOs or red flag laws) by the tyrants in Washington, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that some, if not all, of the House provisions promoting the CRT and LGBT agendas will be in the bill sent to Joe Biden for his signature.

In a 9-0 decision last year, the Supreme Court ruled warrantless gun confiscation unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The case (Caniglia v Strom) involved a Rhode Island man whose firearms were taken by law enforcement without a warrant after his wife expressed concerns that he might hurt himself.

“The very core of the Fourth Amendment [is the] right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable search and seizure,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the unanimous opinion.

Though not directly related to red flag laws, the ruling was seen by some as an indicator that the Supreme Court would consider extreme risk protection orders to be unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito specifically addressed this likelihood:

This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called “red flag” laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons.

Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”

It remains to be seen, however, how SCOTUS will handle the red flag issue.

According to data obtained by anti-Second Amendment zealot Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety, 19 states and the District of Columbia have enacted various forms of red flag laws: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Not only do these red flag laws violate the Second Amendment — in addition to the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eleventh Amendments — the Far-Left wants to use radical gun control to promote the CRT and LGBT agendas.


David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of his daily two-minute radio feature: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS