This Doesn’t Look Good For The Future

Yesterday One America News posted an article about what has happened since Colorado implemented red flag laws a year ago.

The article reports:

According to the report released on Thursday, over 100 red flag protection orders were filed in 2020.

Police reportedly removed firearms from the homes of 66 people who were flagged by family members, legal guardians or law enforcement officers. Under the new law, a judge can approve firearm confiscation if there is a belief a person could be a threat to themselves or others.

One of the most recent instances of the order in action is in the case of Bryce Shelby, a man accused of making threats against the state’s attorney general and several other government officials.

Denver Police alleged Shelby’s behavior was escalating and through the red flag laws, they forced him to surrender his two rifles. Though the state’s attorney general chose not to press charges against Shelby, he will not regain possession of his firearms for a total of 364 days.

Several of the year’s emergency Extreme Risk Protection Orders were placed against law enforcement, but were shut down by the courts.

For example, early on in 2020, an inmate tried to claim Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams was a threat. The order request was sent to a judge who quickly threw it out for lack of evidence, which allowed some to say the law worked. However, Reams argues it showed the law can be used frivolously.

The article concludes:

Reams is among those who are the most skeptical of the new law due to its vague guidelines, which allow weapons to be confiscated even without criminal charges.

“But to go in and conduct a search warrant on someone’s home based on the word of a third party, I think that’s a huge overreach of the Constitution,” Reams stated. “And that’s where I’d have to draw the line.”

There has been a lot of debate over the constitutionality of red flag laws. The President has said he supports them at the federal level, but gun advocates argue the orders contradict the Second Amendment.

Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge from 1987 to 1995,  said: “The concept of a red flag law violates both the presumption of innocence and the due process requirement of proof of criminal behavior before liberty can be infringed.”

Heading into the New Year with an incoming Democrat majority in the new Congress, many proponents of the right to bear arms worry about future restrictive gun laws.

Losing the Second Amendment while the First Amendment is on life support does not portend good things for the future of America.

Part Of The Democrat Party Platform

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Kamala Harris’ views on guns.

The article reports:

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has done something unprecedented with his pick of Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) as his running mate: put a candidate on the presidential ticket who publicly supports gun confiscation.

During her failed primary campaign, Harris was one of only a handful of candidates to explicitly advocate for the confiscation of what she estimated to be tens of millions of legally owned firearms.

“We have to have a buyback program and I support a mandatory gun buyback program,” she said during an October policy forum hosted by the gun-control group March for Our Lives. “It’s got to be smart. We’ve got to do it the right way but there are five million [assault weapons] at least, some estimate as many as 10 million, and we’re going to have to have smart public policy that’s about taking those off the streets but doing it the right way.”

First of all, those who call for the ban on assault weapons never quite define what an assault weapon is. In the past, some Congressmen have added guns to that list simply because they were ‘scary-looking.’ Second of all, there is a reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to protect Americans from a tyrannical government. It seems to me that one of the indications of a tyrannical government might be that they want to take your guns away. The Second Amendment is there to secure the rights of the First Amendment.

The article reports:

“During her short-lived presidential campaign, she demanded gun-control legislation within 100 days and threatened executive action if Congress didn’t deliver,” Oliva (Mark Oliva, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation) told the Free Beacon. “Senator Harris was clear when she said gun control would be an administration priority. Her platform included entertaining forced confiscation of lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles, redefining ‘sporting purpose’ for lawful firearm possession, criminalizing private firearm transfers and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In fact, she supports politicizing the Department of Justice and using the weight of the federal government to harass a constitutionally protected industry in a series of frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt manufacturers.”

Oliva called the pick a danger to gun owners.

“Joe Biden’s selection of Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate makes this ticket the most serious threat to American Second Amendment rights ever faced in a presidential election,” he said.

Gun-control groups, on the other hand, cheered Biden’s decision to name Harris his vice-presidential nominee. Giffords, the gun-control group headed by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, emphasized Harris’s support for expanding background checks to private sales in a celebratory email to its donors and didn’t mention her support for confiscation.

“Joe Biden just announced his pick for Vice President and we are so thrilled to have Senator Kamala Harris join the fight to defeat Trump in November,” the group said in an email to supporters. “Like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris is a gun safety champion with a proven record of fighting the NRA and standing up for common sense. They will work tirelessly together to pass universal background checks and make every community safer from gun violence.”

Gun violence will not stop when you take guns away from law-abiding gun owners; it will only stop when you take guns away from criminals. We already have laws that do that. Those laws don’t work because criminals do not obey laws.Taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners will not cause criminals to give up their guns–it will simply result in more unarmed victims of those criminals (or a tyrannical government that cannot be stopped). Neither is a positive step forward.