In a letter to the Assistant Attorney General and Department of Justice, dated July 25, 2023, Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, and 32 other members of Congress claim, “The Department of Justice appears to have weaponized the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to illegally fund ineligible “red flag” laws and bribe pro-gun states into passing gun confiscation laws.”

Sound familiar? This seems to be a recurring theme with the current DOJ weaponizing their department for their political agenda, as we saw in situations such as election interference concerns, parents speaking to school boards, preferential treatment of their preferred political candidates and their families, and now maneuvering for illegal gun confiscation laws and violation of the Second Amendment.

The letter demands, “accountability for the Department of Justice’s willful violation of the plain text of the statute, Congressional intent, states’ rights, and the Bill of Rights. The Bureau of Justice Assistance must swiftly correct this gross misuse of Bipartisan Safer Communities Act grant programs and instead respect the Second Amendment and due process rights of American citizens.”

On one hand, constitutional rights advocates could say, “I told you so” when it comes to the very passing of the Safer Communities Act, because despite always being labeled as “extreme, misinformation, conspiracy theorists” they understand the importance of the Bill of Rights in protecting our God-given rights. They also see the dangers of government interference and the larger global agenda at play and have been conditioned to see past good intentions and how they quickly enter the territory of dangerous interference. Give the Federal government a budget of grant money, and they’ll use it for policy creation in the States where they otherwise would have no authority to interfere. This situation is no exception.

The letter goes on to state, “The legislation’s stated intent was to “force[] states who use grant funding for ‘red flag’ laws to comply with strict and comprehensive due process requirements.” This was the intent of the 117th Congress, given that every “red flag” gun confiscation law in this nation lacks sufficient and constitutional due process protections for gun owners.“

As Gun Owners of America stated, “Red flag gun confiscation orders (GCOs), also known as Extreme Risk Protection Orders, violate the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of gun owners – particularly their due process rights. There is no amount of fake “due process” that can be added to gun confiscation orders to reconcile them with the Second Amendment. All “red flag” laws require gun confiscation without sufficient due process.”

To read Texas Senator John Cornyn’s Myth vs Fact sheet regarding his support of the legislation, it would appear that the valid concerns that law-abiding gun owners had but were labeled as a “myth” are quickly becoming a “fact” as shown below:

Correcting the Record: Myth Vs. Fact

 MYTH: This measure creates a national, federal red flag law and forces states who don’t have them to adopt them.

THE FACTS

• This does not create a national, federal red flag law. 
• This legislation does not require or incentivize states to adopt red flag laws 
• This forces states who use grant funding for red flag laws to comply with strict and comprehensive due process requirements written into the bill,

 MYTH: This measure gives taxpayer dollars to liberal states to take Americans’ guns away without due process.

THE FACTS

• This bill would force states with red flag laws to adopt strict and comprehensive due process protections before they qualify for the grant funding.
• It does not require or incentivize any state to adopt red flag laws and does not penalize states for not having those laws. 

Yet, according to the letter, “Since the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, no states have revised their statutes to comply with the “due process” requirements imposed by the 117th Congress. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Justice Programs has funded every state that applied with a “red flag” gun confiscation law on the books without enforcing Congress’ “due process” requirements. The federal government should have no part in funding state level gun confiscation programs which violate the due process rights of gun owners.”

Why are the states receiving grant funding without complying with the requirements to protect due process? Where is the oversight? This is a direct violation of the Act, but we know the DOJ has no problem operating outside of the law because they believe themselves to be above the law. They are the law in their eyes.

What about the “myth” that the Act would give taxpayer dollars to liberal states to take Americans’ guns away? It appears that is exactly what is happening, right here in Kansas – our liberal Governor’s office applied for and received funding tied to red flag laws, and Senator Marshall wants to know the purpose of the funds. Per the letter:

Given that Kansas has no “Extreme Risk Protection Order” law, for what lawful purpose did
the Bureau of Justice Assistance award $2,698,339 to the Executive Office of the State of Kansas “to create and implement extreme risk protection order programs” in grant 15PBJA23-GG-00049-BSCI?

According to Bureau of Justice Assistance senior policy advisor Tammy Brown:

“if the state does not have [a “red flag”] law in place, it could be [used for] media campaigns or public service announcements that would encourage the state to incorporate that type of law. So it’s really assisting those grantees that are looking at either improving implementation of their existing law or educating to potentially create that law within their state.”

That sounds like incentivizing states to adopt red flag laws, and the signers of the letter agree.

The letter claimed, “Furthermore, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act’s intent was not to “require or incentivize states to adopt red flag laws.” It is also unlawful to use federal grants to pay for lobbying efforts to influence the adoption of any legislation or law.”

In addition to Kansas, other states without “red flag laws” on the books that received grant funding were Arizona, Arkansas, Minnesota, and West Virginia. In fact, within 100 days after receiving their $3,723,326 funding, Minnesota Governor Waltz signed a “red flag” gun confiscation order.

The letter cites that example and uses it to show that this Federal grant money is being used for exactly the DOJ’s intended purpose -to bribe states into enacting red flag laws.

“Minnesota’s example proves that this Bipartisan Safer Communities Act program is a federal bribe to influence state governments into enacting gun confiscation laws.

The very statutes enacted by Congress have been completely ignored by the Biden Administration. The Department of Justice appears to be willing to hand out grant money for gun confiscation to any state that applies—whether or not they have enacted “due process” protections or even have a “red flag” law in the first place!

We, the undersigned Members of Congress, demand transparency from the Department of Justice and Office of Justice Programs into how states, territories, and D.C. are receiving funds from this program without having qualifying laws on the books. Please respond to the following questions as soon as possible, but no later than August 18, 2023″

We, the citizens of Kansas, need to demand an investigation into Laura Kelly’s grant application for the Federal “red flag laws” funding and call on our legislators to recognize the dangers of these Federal funds being traded for policy creation in all areas of the State of Kansas.

Tell your Kansas Senators and Representatives to “Just say no” to bribes and yes to freedom and protection of our God-given rights!