IS USA TODAY Writing Content Marketing for Anti-Gun Groups Pushing “Red Flag” Laws?

USA Today‘s Nicole Gaudiano has written an article reporting on the rise of ‘Red Flag” laws in multiple state legislatures.  She does this reporting in the same “agit prop disguised as straight news” way typical of gun grabbers that do the bidding of their progressive state masters.  She does it so well that one has to at least ask the question, a question I do not presume to definitively answer here, is this a paid advertisement for anti-gun groups pushing for Red Flag Laws?

Were she an honest reporter, she would reveal that “Red Flag” laws are essentially laws that allow the state to seize guns from people whose family, even neighbors, report them for being a potential danger with a gun, with little to no due process.

The laws are broadly written and, in varying degrees, offer little as far as due process is concerned.  The laws are, by the letter, a violation of the fourth amendment, but thanks to the inherent ghosts in language, I have little doubt there are “Constitutional” Judges that will form some clever linguistic gymnastics to assure that these blatant violations of due process will continue, unabated.

The writer, Nicole Gaudiano, trots out the dead from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School as a way to set you up to support these ‘Red Flag” laws, without question.  Note how she describes the laws as simply laws that ‘allow family members or law enforcement to seek a court order to temporarily restrict people’s access to firearms when they show “red flags” that they are a danger to themselves or others.’

After this sanitized version of what these Red Flag laws actually are, a confiscation of guns from people based on the testimony of a family member, law enforcement ‘official,’ or neighbor (she left that part out, of course), with a very low burden of proof on the part of the claimant, our gun-grabbing progressive state reporter brings it right back to the dead, coupling the Florida shooting with the Red Flag gun laws.

As agit prop goes, Nicole’s piece is not as overt and inflammatory as other “agit prop disguised as straight news” pieces have been.  But, in some ways, this makes articles like this even more dangerous.

The subtle coupling of the deaths of teens to the sanitized presentation of “Red Flag” laws has a powerful subliminal effect on the reader, normalizing Red Flag laws, even making them socially desired.  The implication here, without ever having to say it, is that to go against Red Flag laws is to be in favor of seeing more kids dead (a favorite narrative overall for the gun grabbers).

Nicole Gaudiano does offer more explanation of what Red Flag laws are further into the article.  At one point, she describes one aspect of Red Flag Laws:
“The judge can issue an emergency, temporary order — without the gun owner being present —  to prevent immediate danger. But a full hearing must be scheduled quickly, offering the gun owner the ability to respond.”

Nicole glosses over the part where the guns can be taken from you, with no due process, based on the word alone of an individual.  She immediately follows it up with a claim that there must be a “full hearing.”  She does not describe exactly what this full hearing entails or the level of proof that must be met in order for the state to either continue to hold on to property it confiscated from you or to now decide to confiscate your property.

The burden of proof, by the way, is not placed on the state to PROVE the person is a danger and should not have guns, the burden of proof is placed on the person. If the person hopes to have a good chance of getting their guns back, they must hire a good lawyer, because public defenders will mostly do a piss-poor job at actually defending you.  It also requires time by the defendant, who must PROVE their innocence, rather than simply defending the evidence against them.

So far, six states have some form of Red Flag Laws.  These states are Connecticut, Indiana, Florida, California, Washington and Oregon, with more states considering similar non-due-process legislation.

While the article gives space to the anti-gun, anti-human, anti-liberty, Billionaire-funded “Everytown For Gun Safety,” and quotes from a representative of another anti-gun, anti-human, anti-liberty, Billionaire-funded group, “Giffords,” this agit-prop progressive state reporter fails to include any counter views to these non-due-process laws.  Instead, she chooses (or is just following orders, and thus not actually reporting, but merely creating party press advertising) to only focus on the ‘pros’ of these Red Flag laws, without offering any objections that many have voiced.

One wonders if USA Today was simply paid to write content marketing for Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords.  There would be no way of telling if this were the case, but, if you were going to write content marketing for these hate groups, this would be the kind of content you would write.

About Paul Gordon 3009 Articles
Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines. He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at