Media Happily Lends Republicans Its Megaphone to Sell Out Gun Owners
by David Codrea
Ammoland.com
September 16, 2019
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “A red flag law will reduce 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 Times.
“The laws do not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners,” Rubio lies.
Sure they will. American citizens will have their guns taken away without being convicted of anything or diagnosed beyond any reasonable doubt as a danger to themselves and others. And if it turns out they really are dangerous, they’ll still be out there posing a threat to themselves and others.
But Rubio’s getting cover from “red flag” supporters like fellow “Do Something” Republicans and supposedly “staunch Second Amendment supporters” Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn. He’s also getting it from so-called “conservative” influencers like Heritage Foundation and National Review, and, disappointingly, from the National Rifle Association itself, all repeating the “due process” mantra. The fix, it would seem, is in for “Take the guns first, due process second” President Trump to sign a “bipartisan compromise” and get away with it.
Even the “libertarian think tank” Independence Institute’s resident research director, attorney 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 today, that’s a given), if not alleviate our due process concerns.
“Senator Graham’s proposal was to provide funding for states that adopt red flag rules,” Kopel explains of his role in advising the effort co-led by avowed Democrat gun-grabber Sen. Richard Blumenthal. “My point of view is that the funding should encourage best practices and not subsidize the worst.”
Some might substitute “infringements” for “practices,” but let’s hear the man out. What might “best” confiscations look like?
“I think anybody should be able to express their concerns to law enforcement officers. But it should be law enforcement officers only who should initiate a petition,” Kopel advises. That and he recommends a “middle ground,” where no ex parte orders can be issued without the person being disarmed present to defend himself. That is unless the petitioner can present “good reason” why that would be dangerous.
What kind of “good reason”?
“Nancy VanDeMark, then the interim president and CEO of Mental Health Colorado, argued that letting suicidal individuals know in advance that their firearms might be confiscated can actually trigger tragedy,” the Westwood article notes.
The Rest…HERE
