Media Happily Lends Republicans Its Megaphone to Sell Out Gun Owners

[ad_1]

Why would any gun owner who cares about the correct to hold and bear arms stand with preemptive surrender infringements that will only place Democrats 1 step closer to their target of confiscation? (Marco Rubio/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A red flag law will lessen bloodshed and respect the rights of gun owners,” Florida “Republican” Senator Marco Rubio disingenuously promises in a Thursday promo piece for universal harassment of the “law-abiding,” happily hosted by The New York Occasions.

“The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Rubio lies.

Positive they will. American citizens will have their guns taken away without the need of getting convicted of something or diagnosed beyond any affordable doubt as a danger to themselves and other individuals. And if it turns out they seriously are harmful, they’ll nonetheless be out there posing a threat to themselves and other individuals.

But Rubio’s having cover from “red flag” supporters like fellow “Do Something” Republicans and supposedly “staunch Second Amendment supporters” Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn. He’s also having it from so-named “conservative” influencers like Heritage Foundation and National Evaluation, and, disappointingly, from the National Rifle Association itself, all repeating the “due process” mantra. The repair, it would appear, is in for “Take the guns initial, due approach second” President Trump to sign a “bipartisan compromise” and get away with it.

Even the “libertarian assume tank” Independence Institute’s resident study director, lawyer David Kopel, is defending “kinder, gentler” ERPOs, Denver’s Westwood tells us. The presumption is they will pass “legal” muster (and with the composition of the courts right now, that is a offered), if not alleviate our due approach issues.

“Senator Graham’s proposal was to give funding for states that adopt red flag guidelines,” Kopel explains of his part in advising the work co-led by avowed Democrat gun-grabber Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “My point of view is that the funding must encourage greatest practices and not subsidize the worst.”

Some may well substitute “infringements” for “practices,” but let’s hear the man out. What may well “best” confiscations appear like?

“I assume anyone must be in a position to express their issues to law enforcement officers. But it must be law enforcement officers only who must initiate a petition,” Kopel advises. That and he recommends a “middle ground,” exactly where no ex parte orders can be issued without the need of the particular person getting disarmed present to defend himself. That is unless the petitioner can present “good reason” why that would be harmful.

What sort of “good reason”?

“Nancy VanDeMark, then the interim president and CEO of Mental Well being Colorado, argued that letting suicidal people know in advance that their firearms may well be confiscated can essentially trigger tragedy,” the Westwood report notes.

Does Nancy not assume they’re going to have a meltdown when SWAT shows up to take the guns by surprise? If a person is demonstrably suicidal, it is inhumane to do something other than take them in for observation and essential remedy.  And ditto, if they have engaged in behavior threatening other individuals, that as well is actionable.

We’ve observed time and once more, any person who cannot be trusted with a gun cannot be trusted without the need of a custodian. If you take the guns but leave the threat, what tends to make any person assume they cannot get other guns (just appear at your typical weekend in Chicago), or use a thing else to do in themselves or a person else?

On top rated of that, as soon as you are demanding a burden of proof essential to take in and hold a human getting, there’s now a vested interest all through all of society, rather than just an increasingly marginalized, disfavored subset of “gun extremists” that some in energy are equating with terrorists. Anticipate the ACLU, at that point, to get vigorous about providing a damn.

Apart from, to trust that what Republicans give up right now will define the extent of infringements tomorrow is not only foolish, it is a denial of reality and what has occurred just before — every single time concessions are created. What far more do the Democrats require to do to show us when it comes to guns, they want it all but they’ll take what they can get right now. Give it to them and they’ll be back tomorrow demanding far more, and accusing any person who balks of getting an extremist who refuses to “compromise” on “commonsense gun security.”

It is like, in lieu of repelling them, throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and considering that will make them go away happy. You know, as an alternative of taking that as a sign of weakness and an invitation to move in closer…

So Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham are going to place limitations on how the states can administer federally-funded “red flag” applications? See how lengthy that lasts if the Democrats take it all in 2020, as remains a distinct possibility thanks to GOP fecklessness and betrayals. What will they do if a state that has its funds withheld sues and an activist federal judge sides with them? Any person who tells you either of these likelihoods cannot or will not take place is a liar. And the perverse “win” for Republicans is they’ll get plausible deniability that must perform on the ill-informed, which means absolutely everyone who relies on the DSM for “news”:

“Hey, that is not what we voted for. The Democrats did it.”

We must see what “the plan” is when the White Home announces its “gun control” agenda later this week. In the meantime, just to soften everyone up and show us how “reasonable” such edicts are, we get a low-hanging fruit story about a New York man who “will give up his firearms in the initial case to be resolved via New York’s ‘red flag’ law, which took impact final month.”

Whew! No tragedy. The guy didn’t oppose the complaint.  The cop who created it was commended. All’s effectively that ends effectively. See? We told you. There’s no require for all this paranoid alarmism!

Except these guns will be gone for longer than the year the story says the law enables if that felony charge sticks. And come on, the guy is allegedly out there firing his pistol into a neighbor’s automobile and then threatening suicide?

Of course situations like that warrant taking in far more than just the guns and extending far more than “Due Method Lite.”


About David Codrea:David Codrea
David Codrea is the winner of many journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a lengthy-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a routinely featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.



[ad_2]

Latest posts