David French penned an article over at National Review advocating for what is known as gun-violence restraining orders. The name sounds good and the piece is getting a lot of positive reviews from some Second Amendment and limited government supporters. Predictably, large swaths of the left and gun-control advocates are cheerleading for the legislation nationwide. For many of them though, this kind of legislation represents merely a starting point for much more regulation.
Gun-violence restraining orders essentially give individuals (family, friends, co-workers) connected to a gun-owner the ability to have firearms seized by law enforcement. Temporarily, at least. The thinking is that for a number of reasons that person may pose a clear and present danger to themselves or the public. The gun owner or the accused would then receive a hearing before a judge, ideally in ten days to a few weeks to show that they are fit for ownership and not a public threat.
To his credit at least, French argues for a more narrow and defined bill than what a few states currently have. Washington state is one example of a wider interpretation of the law that lends itself to a long list of abuses. It expands the list of people who can report a firearm owner and only requires a simple preponderance of the evidence (50+1) for a judge to seize the firearms beyond the court date or hearing.
North Carolina’s Marcia Morey (D-Durham) wants to introduce a gun-violence restraining order bill in North Carolina. Her bill looks much more like the Washington state model than the model put forward by French. This from the N&O:
Under her proposal, anyone such as a teacher, co-worker or acquaintance who has first-hand knowledge of someone in possession of or with access to a firearm behaving in a threatening manner could petition a district court judge for a gun violence restraining order.
That word “acquaintance” jumps off the page and is hard to ignore. It could certainly lend itself to a lot of false reporting or even make the potential law suspectable to revenge reporting. Morey says her proposal is not about taking gun rights away, yet the same article notes her support for federal legislation to ban “all AR-15s” and “semi-automatic military guns.” Given that information, her motives are at the very least questionable. For anybody that knows anything about guns, that’s an extremely large and diverse class of firearms.
After reading French’s more reasonable piece, while well-intentioned, I still wouldn’t support this legislation. While it sounds good in theory, in the end, it lends itself to too many potential abuses and acts of tyranny. Will a former spouse report somebody because of jealousy or grievances? What is the opinion on firearms or judicial philosophy of the judge somebody might appear before? Of course, the list of “what ifs?” could go on and on. That has to be a concern for North Carolinians.
And given all the mistakes made by federal and local law enforcement in regards to the shooting in South Florida, there is not much credibility to giving even more power to government over an inherent right. The American Founders believed the right to bear arms predates government for a reason and is posited in the people first.
I do agree, however, with the premise of French’s piece, that more local vigilance and involvement is needed to protect our communities. Citizens did the right thing in Florida, the government did not. While gun violence is down overall, it’s important to remind ourselves that self-government requires responsibility and virtue and that is something many of us need to relearn if freedoms are ultimately going to survive.
Is this the best NCCvitas can drum up on the issue?
Only cowards hide behind the 2nd Amendment.
Those claiming to be ‘conservative’ have distorted and perverted the 2nd Amendment. They are beholden to NRA money. The are supporters of the murders of our children.
Interesting how some people read stuff INTO the Constitution that they like while choosing to ignore what’s actually there. Guns come to mind, cuz they are specifically listed in the Constitution. Abortion is the other topic that comes immediately to mind. Regardless of whether you support uncontrolled/unrestricted abortion, as the demoncrat party does, or you believe that life is sacred and the unborn need to be protected, the important part for this ‘discussion’ is that the right to an abortion DOES NOT exist in the US Constitution. That’s simply a fact. And appears to be one that slips past libs/socialists/big government lovers. Why is it considered a good thing that babies can be sacrificed on the alter of selfishness, big government, ‘freedom’, yet a specifically listed right is wrong, should be ignored, and only ‘haters’ support the 2nd Amendment. (it’s called the 2nd amendment because it IS IN the U S Constitution! Which amendment is it that permits sacrificing babies? Can any abortion supporter point it out? Oh, and by the way, please don’t whine at me for using the correct term ‘sacrificing’. You can use pretty terms if you want, but mine is accurate.)
As for the NRA, I am not now nor have I ever been a member or supporter of the NRA. I’ve considered becoming a member just because it irritates libs so much, but I’ve chosen to keep that money in MY pocket. I’m not beholden to anyone when it comes to gun rights. Again, rights. See above comments about rights that truly exist versus rights that are made up. The 2nd amendment exists! Whether libs like it or not, it’s there! (and if I were ever crazy enough to want to run for elected office, I would definitely accept donations from the NRA and NRA members!)
As for supporter of murderers, this is perhaps the most outrageous, ridiculous, out-of-touch comment I’ve seen this month. I know the month ain’t over yet, so there’s still time to see a more outrageous comment, but this one tops the cake so far. Why is it that if I believe the 2nd amendment exists cuz I can read it, suddenly I’m a supporter of murder? How does that even make sense? This is the kind of crazy comment the senile Nancy P would make. Or even that other nutjob whats-her-name Waters! Both of them have completely lost their minds, yet libs keep electing them. Even when they say the most ridiculous outrageous non-sensical things, not only do libs continue to support/vote for them, but media outlets put them on the air as if they are serious intelligent sane people with something worthwhile to say. The comment about supporting murderers may not be as bad, but it’s pretty darn close.
Whether there should be additional restrictions on what is the appropriate age to purchase, whether a semi-automatic should be sold, appears to be for another discussion. But it’s a discussion that needs to be had at some point. In the case of Florida, the important question that libs/media allies are doing everything they can to ignore/gloss over, is why the ‘see something say something’ policy didn’t work. What is the lib/government response? Implement a ‘see something say something’ app! In other words, what didn’t work needs to be expanded and used more. So it can fail again? What’s going to change? What needs to change? Cuz something does! The system failed those 18 kids! Of course, the lib/big government response is that we need to rely EVEN MORE on government! (besides, schools are gun free zones, so what was a kid with a gun doing on school grounds? that’s another government policy that didn’t work! again. but the answer sure is another government policy!)