Ridge Affiliation Warrants Heightened Skepticism over Gun Detection System

So what safeguards are in place to protect your privacy and ensure you’re not erroneously turned into a target?

“Patriot One Technologies, Inc. is about to kick off an experiment of its new detection system,” Concealed Nation reports. “They’ve partnered with Westgate Las Vegas Resort & Casino to implement the system in public for the first time.”

“Detection system”?

So much for “concealed” carry — and for being secure in your person and effects…

“[T]he system uses ‘Cognitive Microwave Radar’ to detect any unwanted items, and ‘related hardware can be installed in hallways and doorways to covertly identify weapons and to alert security of an active threat entering the premises,’” the report elaborates. “If this test proves to be successful in their eyes, it could open the flood gates for companies looking to use this technology in their own locations.”

And not just companies. If it actually works, this could be installed in public places to flag down any and everyone carrying a gun. And that should raise all kinds of civil liberties concerns, including the way it could “mine” a patchwork of public and private zones that becomes impossible to navigate, and make invasive privacy intrusions the norm every time you step out of the house. Add in a rapidly expanding presence of “security” cameras, an increased use of facial recognition technology for everything from airport security to dispensing toilet paper (!), and it’s clear we’re living in a culture with citizen surveillance capabilities Orwell’s Big Brother nightmare couldn’t even come close to approximating.

Perhaps instead of being deemed an anxiety disorder, agoraphobia should be viewed as a healthy and rational reaction.

Then consider there have been no long-term studies on regular and prolonged exposure to what “Low-power impulse radar… from 500 MHz to 5 GHz” might do after a few decades. It is interesting to note that while they were intially presumed “safe” enough to subject the public to, the European Union banned backscatter X-ray scanners from airports over “citizen’s health and safety” concerns. And while we’re told alternative millimeter-wave systems “do not expose passengers to ionizing radiation,” it’s undeniable that technologies presented as benign can merit a second look when several years of field experiences yield new information. Case in point, cell phones and potential cancer risks

Employees who need to be scanned every day, possibly several times as they leave and then reenter “secured” areas, may be serving as unwitting guinea pigs. Will OSHA take an interest?

Still, that’s all theoretical at this point.  But the liberty concerns are undeniable, particularly with the potential to infringe on the Second and Fourth Amendments. So it’s curious the outfit behind the surveillance devices calls itself “Patriot One.”

Hey, what could be more patriotic than defending lives and property, providing freedom is also being protected? Will trust in benevolent and protective intentions be well placed?

So what’s “necessary to the security of a free State” is … this?

I’d feel better about it, first of all if they weren’t Canadian, but also if they hadn’t issued a press release praising and welcoming former Congressman, Pennsylvania Governor ,and Homeland Security “czar” (how come they never say “führer”?) Tom Ridge to their advisory board.

That would be “Oathbreak Ridge.” He voted to ban semi-autos demonized as “assault weapons.”  He opposed arming pilots after 9/11.  And he thumbed his nose at those who asked about the Second Amendment by essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted because “Those people aren’t registered. Nor do they vote.”

As an establishment RINO, he has since attempted to torpedo conservative political candidates. And he’s still out there in the media trying to push gun and magazine bans, and showing that privacy concerns over his new venture are not unfounded:

“And it’s a little more complicated than just bans and background checks,” he added. “People talk about the 2nd Amendment, but they ought to start talking about privacy and whether individuals have a right to keep their own medical history to themselves, or under certain circumstances are obliged to provide it.”

With this guy’s track record, can anyone be sure those “certain circumstances” he’s talking about do not result in prior restraints and denial of due process? Or that his new associates aren’t as enthusiastic about his views on guns and privacy as they are about welcoming him on board?


If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.