Planned King County Gun Confiscations Foreshadow Larger, Wider Plans

Wider forcible gun confiscation is getting closer to becoming a reality based on the citizen disarmament advocates' own actions and words.

Ammoland Shooting SportsUSA – -(Ammoland.com)- “King County Councilmembers have unanimously approved more than $600,000 to target accused domestic abusers who refuse to turn over their firearms to police, as required by law,” Seattle’s NBC affiliate  King 5 reports. “Federal law requires people served with domestic violence protection orders to surrender their firearms to police.”

The catalyst for the new-found emphasis is the Texas church massacre killer, whose domestic violence conviction was not entered by the Air Force into the National Criminal Information Center database.

“A King 5 investigation earlier this year showed how hundreds of domestic abusers in our area hold onto their guns, in spite of court orders,” anchor Lori Matsukawa assures viewers. “Now, there’s a new development, as Chris Ingalls is here to explain in our news room. Chris.”

True to form and to agenda, Ingalls repeats the conflation.

Conflation?

A court order does not always a domestic abuser make, despite what King 5 wants its viewers to believe. We’re supposed to have due process, requiring a trial, conviction and sentencing before penalties are imposed.  Like the Texas maniac had.

In many cases, we’ve seen restraining orders and firearm prohibitions based on considerably less than “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. It’s not like motives and incentives don’t exist, including revenge, or getting an upper hand in divorce settlements or custody proceedings.  And in many cases, those unfairly caught up in such orders lack the wherewithal to defend the rights they’re being deprived of.

“Washington enacted a law in 2014 that mirrors federal law by prohibiting gun possession by anyone subject to a protective order,” the Giffords Law Center confirms. “The 2014 law also requires the court issuing the protective order to prohibit the restrained individual from purchasing or possessing firearms or a concealed carry license and require the restrained person to surrender any firearms or concealed carry licenses in his or her possession.  The individual must file a proof of surrender with the court.”

“The court may require the party to surrender any firearm or dangerous weapon in his or her immediate possession or control or subject to his or her immediate possession or control to local law enforcement, his or her counsel, or to any person designated by the court,” the explanation continues. “These provisions apply to … Restraining orders issued upon filing of a complaint for dissolution of marriage, including ex parte orders [and] Restraining orders issued in cases where parental rights and child support issues are adjudicated, including ex parte orders…”

That’s quite different from being a “domestic abuser” and a menace equivalent to the Texas church shooter, is it not?

So how will authorities know how to match restraining orders with noncompliant gun owners?

Initiative i-594 is a Gun Ban
Now that it's been passed, it's being used to advance citizen disarmament.

For older private purchases, they might not, unless someone telling on them results in a warrant. But there’s always a trail when “universal background checks” are required, as per Washington State’s Initiative 594, which also “required that dealers who are facilitating gun transfers — whether they are through the licensed dealer or a private seller — receive confirmation in writing from the chief of police or sheriff that the purchaser in question ‘is eligible to possess a pistol […] and that the application to purchase is approved by the chief of police or sheriff.’”

And the reason that’s a universal gun-grabber goal is because, as a National Institute of Justice “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” noted, “Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

If they know who’s got ‘em, they know where to look.

And the goal, of course is to go national, including with confiscation.

Pelosi knows each increment brings gun-grabbers one step close to their goal.

For once in her life, Nancy Pelosi actually told the truth about guns, admitting to the “slippery slope” that gun prohibitionists used to ridicule as paranoid. The other thing they ridicule as paranoid is warning against gun confiscation. But we see the King County effort writ large in The Boston Globe’s latest “Ideas” submission by insulated editorialist David Scharfenberg in his plainly-stated “solution” ambitiously titled “Hand over your weapons.”

“Assault weapon” bans won’t be sufficient because “they account for just a tiny sliver” of deaths, he admits. And neither will background checks, because those “will do nothing to cut down on the 310 million guns already in circulation.”

One way to make inroads could be with mandatory Australia-style “buy backs” (a fake term if ever there was one) like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama floated trial balloons over. Another is by doing the same thing as King County, via “restraining orders and other measures designed to deprive the most dangerous people of guns — like background checks and tighter restrictions on domestic abusers.

Some of the Guns Confiscated and Destroyed in Australia
If this is achieved, expect to see the collectivists start controlling in earnest.

“Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem,” Scharfenberg proclaims. “The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach.

“Is there any conceivable turn of events in our politics that could make confiscation happen?” he asks. “And what would a mass seizure look like?”

A political turn that might give some the inclination that it’s safe to try would be the aging of the existing population, reducing the numbers of activist gun owners.  Add to that the takeover of the electorate via a “pathway to citizenship” for foreigners overwhelmingly sympathetic — by all objective measures — to Democrats and to citizen disarmament.  Give it time and the confiscators might work up the confidence to try.

What would it look like?

Kind of like this for a hard and not insubstantial core:

“The only way you're going to get those people's firearms is to murder them first.”

You’ll forgive us is we don’t just wait our turn.

Expect some not to go quietly.

In the mean time, some understand that the old paradigm of lobbying and campaigning for politicians and measures no longer works in safely and irrevocably “progressive” states. That means gun owners are faced with the choice of surrender or defy, which in itself is a time-honored American tradition. And while groups vested in political access may call on the state to enforce existing Intolerable Acts, and advocate that the duty of “good, honest, law-abiding Americans” is to obey them, some of us have adopted a different philosophy, one that reflects the greatest schism in the “gun rights” movement:

We will not comply.

And we will not disarm.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 90 thoughts on “Planned King County Gun Confiscations Foreshadow Larger, Wider Plans

    1. With all the back and forth found in posts here, mention of one aspect appears conspicuous by it’s absence. I will briefly address it here, partly in the form of a question.

      Some claims of abuse brought by women, perhaps most, I don’t know, might be legitimate, but there are I expect some that are phony as a summers day is long. Respecting this group of abuse claims, however few or many there are, the complainant makes a sworn statement, inherent in the filing of a claim or charges. On investigation, the complaining party’s claims of abuse are found to be false, one assumes that such claims are investigated. Assuming, as above referenced, that the filing of such complaint includes a sworn statement, it appears that perjury has been committed by the complaining party. Perjury is, or can be a FELONY, right? So given that perjury has been committed, there is documentary evidence as to this, the complaint that was filed, is the complaining party, a perjurer then charged and prosecuted? If not, why?

      1. @Alan, The sworn statement would probably only be a false police report, and not become perjury until the false report contents were testified to in court. So after the falseness becomes known, does the prosecutor’s office want to spend attorney time on multiple count felony cases, violent crime cases, or one count false police report cases?

    2. My mosin nagant 7.62x 54 round goes right thru 5/8” steel at 50 yds….. should go right thru any “bullet proof” vest.
      Side shots under the arm pit are your best bet.
      “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.”

    3. Well I’m going to say this first and foremost upfront I will be tracking if you share my information with anybody if this gets routed anywhere I will bring the house down on you this provider but I want to make it clear the way the Constitution of the United States of America works if any person says it’s okay to violate another person’s rights then the person who made the accusation that it’s okay to violate someone else’s rights they have just forfeited their own so if you’ve ever said something stupid like it’s okay to take his rights for whatever reason you have just given up your own rights all of them so if you’re one of those not so bright individuals that said oh I don’t think he should have a gun but don’t touch my gun you have just forfeited all your rights and you didn’t even realize it I have never said something that ignorant in my life but then again I do my own research and don’t just take what I hear as the truth you come for my guns you get the bullets first point period The end.

        1. @ Briley, He is my worst punctuation nightmare, that is for sure,and I swear not to share his anything with anyone. On my word of honor. I think that we should back out quietly and close the door behind us.

    4. We now have a similar illegal and unconstitutional law on the books here in Oregon as many of you know. All of the cops I know here have sworn to NOT comply with any orders to attempt to confiscate any weapons from innocent citizens. They know how wrong this idea is and are not willing to risk their lives to help our tyrannical state government push their agenda. As far as I know, there have not been any confiscation attempts so far under these new laws. I am very curious to see what happens when the first one is attempted. I can foresee unnecessary gun violence happening here, pitting innocent civilians against the cops. And there will lawsuits filed against the state governments, where civil rights were clearly violated. Noth8ng would make me happier than to see our disgusting and pathetic governor Kate Brown in handcuffs and a jumpsuit.

      1. It’s already begun in CA. The powers that be have rejected the input of the people and the input of the law enforcement organizations NOT to add more gun controls. Sheriffs have vowed not to support confiscations.

        Seems the gun controllers forgot history. On 18 April 1775, British troops were dispatched across MA to confiscate the firearms and powder of the colonists. The following day they were met by armed colonists and the shot heard ’round the world began what we call the Revolutionary War.

        The first shots, in my opinion, have been fired at Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc. With an estimated 310 million guns in private hands, the government may be able to go after a few abusers, but they don’t have the ability to go house to house across a state, let alone the nation.

    5. Restraining orders are almost standard procedures in any divorce. Federal law does say [ or it did a few years ago when I looked] that a person subject to an RO had to be in court and able to contest such an order or it wasn’t a confiscation trigger.
      But IF you’re involved in a divorce, be prepared to have a lawyer hold your collection because a lawyer will protect the arms from damage.
      Police will typically remove guns from cases, record serial numbers and fire a few test rounds so they can test bullets for criminal databases.
      Then the guns will be piled in a damp basement for a period until after the divorce is settled and your lawyer has brought a law suit to force the return of your property. You will need proof that you actually own the guns, scopes, and ammo including serial numbers, photographs and the documents from te court that show the RO has been cancelled and that another court has issued an order for te police to return your property. Good luck, some PD don’t care.
      BTW, broken stocks, bent barrels and rust are to be expected.

    6. “The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake free people get to make only once.”
      –Justice Alex Kozinski, 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals

    7. This is why you DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE TO ORGANIZE. Militia, a LIFE STYLE AND PART OF OUR AMERICAN FOUNDATION, not a hobby. Organize, arm, equip and train as Militia for mutual defense. Set up a 5/10 program in your AO. Logistics. The key to victory. The Militia started the war on APRIL 19, 1775. The shot heard round the world. The Militia is the property of the people from day one. NO ONE VOTED TO GO TO WAR EXCEPT WITH A 70 caliber ROUND BALL PUT INTO A REGULAR ARMY GUN GRABBER BALLOT BOX. Aim for the groin. Buy more ammo. Liberty1775

    8. King County AKA Seattle is the land of illegal elections. In that county the counting of votes continue until the democrat wins. The extra votes are alway “found” in a misplaced box in some forgotten closet.
      The local crooks, I mean government officials, are used to violating civil rights of their citizens. Their laws, policies and regulations have one objective and that is “the ANTI AMERICAN DEMOCRATS WINS” regardless of the facts.

    9. Commenter Clark Kent simply needs to get banned by the editorial staff like I did. This way David Codrea won’t feel the need to offer up any challenges.

      We will not comply.
      And we will not disarm.

      These are strong words from an author that begs “mother may I” when it comes to silencers.

      When will people grasp the simple fact that what The State enacts isn’t law but arbitrary legislation, that is upheld by their monopoly of judgement?

          1. One thing I have long been curious about. If silencers, supressors or mufflers all pretty much the same thing, as with the one on your car are such terrible devices, how come you will get ticketed or your vehicle will not pass inspection with a “faulty muffler” or “silencer”?

          1. Wix work pretty well, too. Mine is nothing more than a ‘solvent trap’ and the hole in the end is only to let the solvent out when it gets full…

    10. “Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms…”
      I’m trying to think of a word as fancy as “stanch” that means its exact opposite. I foresee needing it.

    11. So in the Constitution where it reads something like innocent until proven guilty no longer applies…

      Where is all the gun advocates on this? Are they too broke with not enough donations to fight these obvious unconstitutional laws all the way to the Supreme Court?

      The Communists are winning…

    12. I highly doubt that most people know that any misdemeanor Domestic conviction, permanently infringes on a persons unalienable right to bear arms. And even less know that domestic violence covers anyone that you live under the same roof with, anyone that you have a blood relation, anyone you have ever had sex with. And that convictable offenses consist of slamming doors, squealing your tire as you leave your residence, snooping, and making someone “fear for their safety”.

      Most people convicted of domestic violence never laid a hand on anyone, and chances are that if they did and it was the man that was convicted, and he was more than likely forced to defend himself. It is a fact that women are more likely to hit during an argument and are almost always are the instigator

      1. This isn’t talking about CONVICTED violators, just the ones that have an order served on them. It’s the same as getting a summons to court except the judge has decided to grant DISTANCE from one individual to another…no trial, no conviction, no due process in taking that served person’s right to bear arms away. Only, “he/she filed a complaint & now you have no right to own or posses a gun…end of story, no reason other than they don’t like you enough for you to be suspect & treated like a felon…even though you’ve had no adjudication to deem it so.” Only in ‘Merca.
        MOLAN LABE

    13. Oh no officer, I don’t have any guns. I “sold” them all. That crazy bitch is mistaken again. Maybe you should check her purse for prescription meds not legally prescribed and other drugs. Better go quickly before my new girlfriend accuses you of attempted rape and demands you be denied your Rights without trial.

    14. Government plans confiscation without conviction or a due process hearing. Can you say, “Tyranny”? Divorce lawyers representing women love to make a preemptive hit on a fella and get him where it hurts, his tools(Yes, guns are tools). I suppose it is all OK because no man has ever been falsely accused by a vindictive woman.

    15. Domestic Abuse and accompanying violence is a serious problem in this country. I would rather see the existing law be followed and all convicted persons be required to surrender any firearms as a condition of their sentence. I would have a problem carrying out a blanket order to seize forearms without a court order. Such direction from Police Management could be considered to be an Unlawful Order.”

      1. Yeah there is a problem with false allegations and a insanely broad interpretation of what domestic violence is. The fact of the matter is that there is almost zero threat from so called domestic abusers. And a far greater threat to the people having their unalienable right to bear arms infringed, because of insane laws that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

      2. those who dont use guns in any crime should not have their gun rights taken …everyone loses their temper at one time or another but having the control to not grab a gun should be considered in the courts …losejng your gun rights because you lost your temper and struck someone is not a reason to take your rights away!

      3. Where does the Second Amendment state “The right of the people, except those convicted of domestic violence, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?” Why not make it a crime for anyone convicted of domestic violence to speak out against the Government? Why not make it legal for the Police to search the home and belongings (without a warrant) of anyone convicted of domestic violence? Why not make it a crime for anyone convicted of domestic violence to have a driver license? Why not make it legal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to be thrown in jail and left in jail indefinately without a trial just on the SUSPICION they have committed a crime? Why not make it a crime for anyone convicted of domestic violence to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages?

    16. I wrote and posted a few minutes ago, a comment on the above article. Same does not appear. Is it being held for some reason? Please advise.

        1. Posting of comments here, while apparently entirely automated, is always relatively slow compared to, you know, other blogs that use computers ’n’ stuff.

    17. “To target accused abusers” strikes a most interesting bell. When last I looked, there was a hellish large difference between being “accused” of something and being proved guilty of whatever the charge might be. Has this minor difference in situation been done away with? One wonders.

      Setting aside the above, we come to an even more interesting aspect of the thing. Let’s say the accused was forcibly separated from their possessions, firearms in this case. In the process the property, those firearms, and or their owner suffered injury. The accusations, being the basis of police action were, in due course, shown to be false. The police and possibly the courts, putting it perhaps more politely than is warranted, WENT OFF HALF-COCKED.

      Who, pray tell, is responsible for the above referenced property damage and or physical injury, the false flag of “qualified immunity” aside. Seems like someone or some people sure as hell are or should be, but that said, I wonder as to how the cookie would actually crumble. Another blow struck for or to Law and Order?

      The police and or perhaps the courts, if they were involved, putting it politely, perhaps with unwarranted charity, WENT OFF HALF-COCKED?

    18. Umm, where is my comment? It contained nothing offensive, rude or profane. It cited the viewpoint of an American Marine warfighter, a wounded warrior, one who has sacrificed in body and blood for the right to speak up and convey the concerns many of us have about a federal system gone awry, begun largely during the Obama regime of fear mongering about “white men with guns”. If we don’t speak, we are condemned by our silence to becoming victims of this insanity.

      So, where is my comment? If you’re who and what you say you are here, you’ll show respect for the thoughts of one who actually did what a lot say they would for this country, but didn’t. Talk is one thing; putting it on the line is entirely another. Got it?

    19. This Marine warfighter will NOT surrender my Constitutionally guaranteed rights, nor the firearms. I am and have been a lawful citizen my entire life, and swore an oath twice in that lifetime to defend the nation and Constitution that once bound us together as a people called Americans. Nothing has changed within me, but much has changed in this nation, little of it towards the betterment of its citizens due to nefarious, dishonest and evil intentions among some who occupy space here. You may quote me on this.

      Now, for those who wish to get the informationinthe author’s article into the common domain, share it, on Facebook or any other sites using the domain. It is our best chance of informing the sheep there are packs of jackals among them.

      1. We should all be grateful for your service. You have every right to keep and bear arms – until you commit a felony or engage in other activities (such as spousal abuse) which puts your family and the rest of us at much higher risk of becoming a victim.

        1. I’m sorry to break it to you but “The Right to Bear Arms Shall not be Infringed” has no qualifiers and as part of the Bill of Rights is outside of the legislative, judicial or executive branches authority to change. If you want to ignore that fact and use force to impose your will on the people as a tyrant expect war. Our founding document is the Declaration of Independence, not the Comstitution and it clearly states it’s our duty to throw off any and all tyranny.
          Make all the sweet smelling arguments you like, it’s a gun grab. The first step in oppressing a free people is to disarm them.

          1. So in your world convicted felons, convicted spousal abusers, and persons with serious mental disorders such as paranoid schizophrenics should be allowed to possess weapons because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not prohibit them from doing so? This entire thread is full of opinions that cause me to wonder if someone is spiking the Koolaid! Especially the stories about domestic violence restraining orders – “I was just minding my own business when, for no reason a judge issues a DVRO against me, my friend, some guy I heard about without a Due Process hearing. . . . ” No one seems to even know the difference between a TRO and Permanent Injunction. Is the “fake news” (or for that matter any news) just not reporting on this rash of clear violations of civil rights/loss of due process apparently (if all here are to be believed) occurring all over the country? In response to Russell Kepler: NO. If there is sufficient cause to charge (following a preliminary hearing) or other good cause you should be denied your right to own a firearm even before conviction. Sorry. If you get caught with a pound of Meth, and charged, you can live without your guns until you are cleared. If you are a member of MS13 and are charged with a drive by – sorry. No guns. Legit question – where do you draw the line? Can everyone who wants a gun get one regardless of his or her mental state or criminal past? How about a real thoughtful response rather than a bunch of insults or chest pounding.
            .

    20. Having trained both SWAT and domestic and foreign counter terrorist units I have always been concerned about the militarization of our “civilian police.” Best example is to research Einstatzkommando – regular German police officers, mostly out of Berlin, in WWII who made up nearly 50% of the direct gun to head SS executioners in Poland. Things and people can, if given the right conditions and circumstances go crazy ANYWHERE!

    21. As Sheriff David Clarke has said, “If the government starts going door to door to confiscate guns, good people are going to die on both sides.” While I, personally, don’t consider agents of government tyranny to be “good people”, it is probable that, in their own weak minds, they are only doing their job. Of course, the “I was only following orders” defense didn’t work at Nuremberg and it shouldn’t excuse unlawful actions in the USA either.

      1. The sheer number of Coal Mine canaries makes it clear that a civil war is definitely coming. When is hard to predict, but I suppose the sooner the better. The conflict between freedom and tyranny needs to be resolved and soon.

    22. THANKS Dave for your wise thoughts and clear writings…… NOW …. if we could just get this across to all the public and not just the Ammoland readers we might just be able to hold the tide of repression back a bit longer if not reverse it and set some new standards…. how can we just get the D.C. bunch to read and understand that Constitution and tell the states to fall in line !…… might not happen in my life (what little is left), but I do like Freewills thought,… be peaceful ’til the enemy comes……. I AM , and I WILL !

    23. I found an interesting comment by Adam Smith, the economist, who saw the state as arising “for the defense of the rich against the poor.” If you take an honest look at our State, it is obvious we live in a Plutocracy, so his words take on even more meaning. The police are simply the agents of the State and will do as they are instructed (with perhaps the exception of the few “Oath Takers” out there.)

    24. We all see what’s coming here. The Demos, and now some Repubs, have joined forces to keep “chipping away” at our 2A rights. I hate to say it, but the NRA is also involved by their recent statements and actions. The time is coming when the govt. will decide to test gunowners by an attempt somewhere to confiscate guns to measure citizen reaction and resistance. Remember New Orleans after the hurricane, the Boston marathon bombing, and just recently, the Puerto Rico storm…..gun confiscation was implemented. There’s another reason to protect our 2A rights. Look at the societal upheaval right now. NFL is a good example of disrespect by a bunch of degenerates, deviants, women beaters….real tough guys aren’t they? Be aware of your surroundings and be alert!

    25. The section on the Federal Firearms form that includes the Domestic Violence/Restraining order is totally Unconstitutional and should be challenged in court and thrown out as it lacks due process. A vicious, lying, vindictive ex-wife with a crooked attorney (common as fleas) can obtain a restraining order based upon nothing but her word (lie) and you lose your guns and rights. No trial, no hearing, no defense; you’re screwed. I have seen it happen and it is wrong. Yes there are abusers who should be arrested and lose their access to guns, but even they deserve under the Constitution, the right to face their accusers in open court (the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment).

      1. And I understand that many divorce lawyers simply include a restrainign order in thepile of the rest of the docs for her to sign, as a matter of course. Few such women will even question the signficance of that piece of paper they sign along with the rest of them. No biggie for the lawyer, one mroe document, one more fee. He don’t care a whit aobut HIM.
        Then, few of the guys served with such a stack of papers will immediatly take the time and presence of mind to filter through the lot of them and see that restrainign order. Thus the time passes for them to contest that one and the order sticks.. NO DUE PROCSS whatever.

        THIS needs to change It is a constitutional issue, the abrogation of one’s clearly stated right with NO due process.

      2. As an attorney of 30 years, I can state that you are absolutely incorrect when you claim that a domestic violence restraining order is “thrown in with the rest of the paperwork” by some slippery attorney. In California (and in all other states as far as I know), a domestic violence restraining order requires a Due Process hearing. This is a hearing which requires admissible evidence and a high burden of proof. I have defended and prosecuted both and they are not easy to win. It is never enough for the spouse to simply claim domestic abuse without more – corroborating evidence, witnesses, medical records, etc. DVROs do much more than require one to turn in firearms. They frequently bar a person from going to the spouses home or place or work, etc. Courts do not hand them out easily and there is the right to appeal/file a writ of one disagrees with the order. Sounds like both you and Joe Martin are just spouting BS (or perhaps have been on the wrong end of a DVRO)?

        1. @daves, It is pretty hard to speak for all of the various jurisdictions and time periods. I don’t think that the previous commenting gentlemen are in your jurisdiction. Perhaps that is why their view point is different.

          1. OR they are just yammering with no basis in fact to support their opinions. I see a lot of hate and vitriol for the government here. Frankly, I don’t want to live anywhere else. We have differences of opinion but we can freely express them. I have no fear of the government throwing me in jail without a trial or taking my belongings without due process. Certainly our government is far from perfect but many who comment here are also fond of pointing out that they have served in the armed forces with pride. I am mostly pro gun. I am not as far to the right as many on this web site and get shit for it. Courts simply do not issue DVRO or order turning in guns following a conviction of a crime without a due process hearing. Can mistakes be made? yes. We are not perfect. But suggesting that we toss the baby with the bath water and allow spousal abusers/felons/those on the no-fly list, etc. to keep and bear arms is just stupid. To suggest that any reasonable “regulation” is a slippery slope created by liberals to take our guns away is not supported by the majority of NRA members and gun owners (as well as others).

            1. @daves, “Yammering” and “getting shit” and “is just stupid” are not terms that I ever heard in law school. If you are still practicing, why are you wasting you valuable time here? Let them think what ever they want.
              What I did learn in law school is that when a person’s constitutional rights are at stake, we as members of the legal profession must be extraordinarily careful to insure that due process is followed and the truth of any given matter is attained.
              As to persons on the no fly list, what are their due process protections and what is the nature of the forum available to them?

            2. I would love to meet this ‘majority’ of NRA members who do not support the slippery slope idea… I have been a member for years and have yet to meet one that is in favor of any further gun control.

            3. Tony York: I said that “the majority of gun owners including NRA members support treasonable regulations” which I would include things such as universal background checks. You misinterpreted what I said and suggested that I said “any reasonable regulation CREATED BY LIBERALS TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY. . . .” Not what I said and not what I meant.

            4. no you did not you said quote ”

              To suggest that any reasonable “regulation” is a slippery slope created by liberals to take our guns away is not supported by the majority of NRA members”
              unquote.

            5. Tony York – My bad. You are correct. I should not try to work and comment at the same time. Wild Bill “reasonable” not “treasonable.” Again my mistake. No more comments (for now) after a long day.

          2. @daves, No, actually we don’t support gun control, but only the Second Amendmend. Now daves. Now, as to persons on the no fly list, what are their due process protections and what is the nature of the forum available to them?

        2. I was on the wrong end of a restraining order. I was working doing repairs for a condo association in Florida when a female resident who was fighting eviction came by the unit and stuck her head and shoulders in a window opening and started snapping pictures. I had been warned about this luny and told to keep her away.. Long story short I made her leave with-out touching her and a week later was served with a domestic abuse restraining order. When asked for my guns I lied and said I had none. This order was signed by a judge (female) with zero hearings or imput from me. I had no relationship with this women whatsoever mr lawyer yet some judge took the word of this lunytoon and denied me my rights. Due to this I was unable to work there because she lived there. It took 3 weeks to get in front of a judge and get it thrown out so don’t tell me they are not gotten easily.

        3. You are badly, badly mistaken. Years ago, I was on the receiving end of a DVRO, and I was not amused.

          [At a dinner party, a young woman became inebriated, and physically attacked the host (I was in another room entirely). When two other attendees stepped between the attacker and the host, the attacker quickly backed away from the two interlopers, and struck her shoulder blade on a pantry door. I entered the room, and the inebriated woman yelled at me and – unescorted – she left the building.]

          Two days later, the DVRO was signed by a local judge, in her chambers, without a hearing (I later discovered that the woman had shown the judge photos of her bruised back). The reason that I was named (instead of the host) has never been explained. When I was finally served a copy – a complete surprise – the original judge refused to see me. My lawyer successfully petitioned another judge, and we produced witnesses who convinced that judge to cancel the DVRO. The second judge growled a little at the woman, but otherwise refused to punish her for filing false charges/statements to the police… or for perjury to the original judge. Do not try to convince me that DVRO’s are not handed out like candy at Halloween. I damned-well know better!

          Altogether an expensive and embarrassing experience…

    26. SOMEONE doesn’t understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. SOMEONE doesn’t understand what UNALIENABLE means. Someone needs to have their enforcers shot in the head. THAT my friends is what the 2nd amendment is FOR. To shoot TYRANTS and their ENFORCERS.

    27. Every time we have an event like Sutherland Springs, there will always be people yelling, “Do something!”, “Call, write your legislators!” The problem is that we’ve already had hundreds of different kinds of laws written and put on the books and unless the law enforcement data bases are kept up to date and current, no amount of new legislation, local and federal, will amount to a hill of beans. We already have good solid laws on the books. We the people have the right to possess firearms for our self protection of ourselves and our neighbors. No one will take that right from us. The regulation we now have, is as far as it needs to go.

      1. Yes; thank you David for making unsubstantiated predictions based upon no factual events and pulled from your imagination. Try predicting lottery numbers instead; you will have better luck.

          1. @DC, You are a terrific and well thought of author. No one likes KC very much. Why are you wasting your valuable time on him?
            PS I greatly enjoy your “Rights Watch” column in Guns magazine, and so… consequently, my subscription does not run out until 2020.

            1. Thanks for the kind support. And yeah, I generally let trolls pass, but assuming he’s not lying about having been a cop– and he probably is — the cowardly abuse he constantly spews around here makes it likely he was an abusive, bullying “Only One” on the job. So I make an exception to confront oath-breaker thugs and expose them for what they are. And I’ll bet I’m right about him, too, that he doesn’t have the sand to even confront me via email away from other eyes.

            2. @DC, The dude is just pushing your buttons. Don’t be his entertainment. We all know what is what and who is who. He probably types his crap just after waking up and just before going to the liquor store.

          2. Dave: Nice try at deflecting. Also nice temper tantrum. Grow up and attempt to provide some FACTS to back up you ASSumptions for a change. P.S. I don’t have to prove ANYTHING to you.

        1. @CK When you have no arguments to present there’s always Saul Alinsky’s rule #5
          “Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also
          it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

    28. Great article David. Now let’s connect all the dots. Confiscation, heck any gun control at all, is only possible if the govt has forces that can enforce it. John Trenchard & many of the Founders warned against having a standing army so the govt wouldn’t have the power to oppress. Today, the “standing army” that we have to worry about domestically is the huge law enforcement establishment. I’m talking about not only state and local police but also agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and ad nauseum. Rather than deploy troops on the streets they use law enforcement to control us. While these agencies exist our liberty will always be in danger. Gun owners today can’t stand up to the law enforcement establishment much less the military. People that advocate civilian guns to counter-balance the government’s weapons are engaging in a dangerous fantasy that is rightly ridiculed. In the US since the government can’t disarm us completely they have armed themselves to the hilt. This has a similar effect as disarming us. One only needs look at the militarization of the law enforcement establishment to see this. There is only one answer and that is institutional change shutting down those agencies while building up the private means of defending ourselves.

      “This subject is so self-evident, that I am almost ashamed to prove it: for if we look through the world, we shall find in no country, liberty and an army stand together; so that to know whether a people are free or slaves, it is necessary only to ask, whether there is an army kept amongst them?”

      Quote from “An Argument Shewing, that a Standing Army is inconsistent with a Free Government, and
      absolutely destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy”
      http://www.reformation.org/john-trenchard.pdf

      We have a “standing army” among us in the form of a militarized law enforcement establishment. We are slaves. Slaves have no rights to guns. This is what needs to change.

    29. Let me get this straight…

      Some Bureaucrats neglect to “report” a required ruling to “other” Bureaucrats…innocent people die as the result…the surviving victims and victim’s family’s can’t “sue” the first Bureaucrats due to “sovereign immunity laws”…so the answer is to send in “armed” bureaucrats to shoot others.

      Did I get that right…

      1. Silence, You have stated the clear truth. I fear and loathe our government. Try as we might to vote the snakes out, I fear there is to be a reckoning. Hold on to your weapons by any means available.

    Leave a Comment 90 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *