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