Last Updated on January 29, 2020
Michelle Malkin tweet is in reference to the recent Virginia gun rally, and the recent approval of “red flag” laws. Malkin remarks that there will be very little effect in rallying for Second Amendment right when mass migration brings in upwards of thousands of “pro-gun control future democrats.”
“Demographics is destiny,” wrote Malkin. “Rallying for #2A will do little good when mass migration of millions of pro-gun control future Democrats is turning once-red state legislatures blue.”
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) January 22, 2020
Malkin is not alone when it comes to her concerns about the rates of illegal immigration, and its effects on the laws in the country as voter fraud is being taught to those who immigrate here illegally as exposed by Project Veritas.
In an article written for AP News, Ann Coulter emphasized the dramatic impact of immigration on our country.
“It’s sweet of Americans to be so concerned about Europe, but maybe they should look at their own country. On account of a mass immigration policy imposed on us by our government, the United States has undergone a transformation unprecedented in all of world history. From 1620 to 1970, the U.S. was demographically stable — not to be confused with “a nation of immigrants.”
Last Wednesday, Virginia State Senate approved the red flag legislation allowing law enforcement permissions to take away the guns of law abiding American citizens based on what is often criticized as arbitrary circumstances and often having to do with petty squabbles between spouses or coworkers.
Here is the full summary of Senate Bill 240, according to the General Assembly’s legislature website:
Creates a procedure by which any attorney for the Commonwealth or any law-enforcement officer may apply to a general district court, circuit court, or juvenile and domestic relations district court judge or magistrate for an emergency substantial risk order to prohibit a person who poses a substantial risk of injury to himself or others from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm. If an emergency substantial risk order is issued, a judge or magistrate may issue a search warrant to remove firearms from such person. An emergency substantial risk order shall expire on the fourteenth day following issuance of the order. The bill requires a court hearing in the circuit court for the jurisdiction where the order was issued within 14 days from issuance of an emergency substantial risk order to determine whether a substantial risk order should be issued. Seized firearms shall be retained by a law-enforcement agency for the duration of an emergency substantial risk order or a substantial risk order or, for a substantial risk order and with court approval, may be transferred to a third party 21 years of age or older chosen by the person from whom they were seized. The bill allows the complainant of the original warrant to file a motion for a hearing to extend the substantial risk order prior to its expiration. The court may extend the substantial risk order for a period not longer than 180 days. The bill provides that persons who are subject to a substantial risk order, until such order has been dissolved by a court, are guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor for purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm; are disqualified from having a concealed handgun permit; and may not be employed by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill also provides that a person who transfers a firearm to a person he knows has been served with a warrant or who is the subject of a substantial risk order is guilty of a Class 4 felony. The bill creates a computerized substantial risk order registry for the entry of orders issued pursuant to provisions in the bill.