USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Gun-violence restraining orders (GVROs) make us all safer while empowering the individual and protecting liberty,” David French of National Review Online asserts in “A Gun-Control Measure Conservatives Should Consider.” That’s despite his admission later in the piece that “I don’t pretend that a GVRO is the solution to mass killings. There is no ‘solution.’”
Still, French insists — making the case that a piece of paper issued by a court actually offers protection against an obsessed sociopath with murder on his mind — “the GVRO is consistent with and recognizes both the inherent right of self-defense and the inherent right of due process. It is not collective punishment. It is precisely targeted.”
Uh…yeah. That’s why they’re called “individual rights.”
And to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends upon what the meaning of the term “due process” is. Without the equivalent civil liberties protections of a jury trial with guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the suspension of a fundamental right not only without a conviction, but without a charge. As for GVRO effectiveness, anecdotal as well as limited study evidence suggests “The answer isn’t clear.”
OK, but what about separating hotheads from their guns? Won’t that at least help tilt the odds in favor of increased safety for “victims”?
So “conservatives” are now claiming “gun control” works and keeps determined criminals from obtaining firearms? Based on what? Your average weekend in Chicago?
But let’s give French the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume all his due process assurances about ‘clear, convincing, admissible evidence that the respondent is a significant danger to himself or others” have been satisfied, and that “real evidence (e.g. sworn statements, screenshots of social-media posts, copies of journal entries) minimizes the chance of bad-faith claims.”
The anger management-challenged brute has been issued his orders and told to behave himself.
But why is he still free to move among us? We’re either serious about this or we’re not.
After all, we have “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” the “restrained” party is a danger. How is it responsible to allow a known danger access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat?
Why wouldn’t such a threat be separated from peaceable society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course. And taking things out of the realm of gun bans and into the realm of civil liberties can’t hurt.
“Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian” is a maxim I’ve been using for years because it’s true. Recalling that the three greatest mass murders in U.S. history were reportedly initiated with utility knives, fuel oil and fertilizer, and gasoline and a match, and how many homicides are committed with blunt or sharp objects or even with hands and feet, why would you want to give a “prohibited person” capable of using any of those the freedom to move at will among the rest of us?
If proven violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.
Gun owners are being besieged on all sides with a coordinated fury I’ve never seen before. Now is not the time for those defending the right to keep and bear arms to be ceding any ground, particularly since we know it will be relentlessly occupied and then used to launch the next incursion toward the goal of total citizen disarmament (with some expressing interest in going farther than that).
Yet despite that, we see “Republicans” offering “concessions,” with the blessings of the NRA on “FixNICS” and the proposed “bump stock” ban, as if the issue is not enough regulation. Those were all the signals President Trump needed to move forward on both. Further, we see “A”-rated turncoats like John Kasich setting the stage for a renewed semi-auto ban, asking like an idiot what we’d really lose. And again, we see Donald Trump now floating upping the age to buy guns and his spokesflack saying the “ban AR-15s” door hasn’t been closed.
I guess it’s no surprise to see NRO offering a sop, as if that will satisfy those who’ve made it clear they want it all. National Review founder William F. Buckley didn’t really get the “shall not be infringed” thing either, on either prior restraints or on militia-suitable arms. And sorry, but David French’s is not a “conservative” voice I want representing gun owner interests if the extent of his judgment is to throw the circling pack of Democrat jackals a scrap of flesh. Nor is Ben Shapiro’s.
If the object is to protect Americans from those who wish to do them harm, the “solution” will never be in a piece of paper with a disarmament order. We each of us need to understand that the police have no legal duty to protect us. Unless we are capable of protecting ourselves and those we love, “gun-free victims” will be as inviting to attackers as “gun-free zones.”
With midterms coming up and raging “progressives” on the warpath, there doesn’t appear to be steeled political resolve from the GOP to enforce the right of the people to keep and bear arms throughout the Republic any time soon. Too bad, as that’s what’s really needed. But at the very least gun owner rights advocates should be pinning the ears back of any “conservatives” out there “helpfully” offering “reasonable concessions.”
They sure don’t speak for me.
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
Some, sad to note, are of the opinion that “we need to give the anti gunners something”, as though giving them this unspecified “something” will forever satisfy them. I cannot think of anything more divorced from reality than this foolishness. That said, rgarding “giving the antis something”, as some Irish acquaintances were want to note, “the back o’ me hand to you”.
Yep, and they’vedone it to the tune of 220,000 gun laws and COUNTING. if that isn’t enough to convince ANYONE that the dems plan is to ban guns by doing it one law at a time…I don’t know what will…..
Just like paying blackmail serves to encourage demands for “more”, giving the antis anything is to walk willing down a one way street, one with no return, not something sensible people should do.
Restraining Orders are Just a Piece of Paper Telling the Creep not to Get Caught ! They Do Nothing But Give People a way to get Back at an Ex or Someone they’ve had an issue with . It Will NOT Stop a Criminal . It WILL Make a lot of Grief for Good People Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Spot ! Your dog makes on the guy’s Lawn, He goes to a Judge claims threats where made. You have a CCW permit for work, It’s no good Now, You get FIRED ! Over Dog $#!t. Ex gets… Read more »
‘SEEN IT Happen Lots of times’? I call Blarney on that BS. Nice try; no cigar.
Go Back Under Your Bridge !
ANY binding paper or order disarming any individual MUST be based upon the same set of requirements needed for any warrant: sworn to on oath or affirmation, based upon probable cause, supported by credible witnesses facing full penalties for perjury if found swearing falsely. THEN, since this action effectively curtails an individual right, a hearing MUST be held in open court where the subject of the order had, as desired, legal representation, opportunity to question and examine those testifying against him, and a qualified magistrate presiding, and if desired by the respondent, a jury of his peers. It is HIS… Read more »
French also equated “assault weapons” with “assault rifles” yesterday, something I’d expect of SPLC or any random gun-ignoramus, but not someone with his background.
The main problem is when Democrats get their way PEOPLE DIE. And they don’t care about peoples rights or who dies in the long run. The ares in this country that have the most killings are run by Democrats they and the MSM don’t care.
For whatever reason, liberals cannot wrap their head around the fact there are some seriously bad and evil people out there who enjoy bringing you harm. When an evil person brings harm, since they cannot figure out what to do, they blame the weapon used. Since all weapons are evil, all of us must be evil as well, and we get more regulations. The real end game is to do exactly what the sheep in Australia have done, confiscate all semi-auto firearms – ALL. We need to stop accepting restrictions on firearms and work on hardening our schools just like… Read more »
Someone needs to tell Trump this..
AS of late, that’s about all I’ve been hearing out of him. One concession after another.
@Pat, You are the someone. You can tell Trump in your own diplomatic words at whitehouse.gov/contact
https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
The sign above the door at the Marine Sniper School reads, “Compromise is Failure”. If you are in the right and/or correct or standing up for what is right and you compromise; you have lost/failed.
“Compromise is usually a sign of weakness, or an admission of defeat. Strong men don’t compromise, it is said, and principles should never be compromised.” – Andrew Carnegie
You’re correct. Instead they should propose TRADES. Ex. 1) You can ban non-regulated mail-order bump stocks IF you also repeal the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA1986 and again allow the sale of new machine guns with an ATF approved tax stamp.
Ah, you’ve made a slight technical error. I believe what you really meant was “repeal the NFA, period”. Fixed it for you and everyone else! 🙂
Excellent. That is a proper compromise.
and add this: remove all restrictions on interstate sale of firearms through FFL’s. WHY can’t I fly to Texas, leaving my handguns home to save the TSA mandatory participation charade, and just buy one there?
@Lowell, What you suggest may be political, but it is not Constitutional.