Bipartisan Gun Confiscation Support Continues

By Tyler Durden. December 26th, 2018
(Authored by José Niüo via The Mises Institute)

The 2018 midterm elections produced a split Congress with Democrats gaining control of the House and Republicans gaining seats in the Senate.

The Guardian detailed House Democrats' desire to pass gun control legislation in the upcoming Congress:

"Ted Deutch, a Democratic congressman from Florida who represents Parkland, where a February school shooting left 17 dead, said this week that he expected House Democrats to focus on bills with more bipartisan support. Those measures included bump stock bans and "extreme risk protection orders", also known as red flag laws, which give law enforcement and family members a way to petition a court to temporarily bar an unstable person from buying or owning guns."

What Are Red Flag Laws?

Red flag laws or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are the euphemistic label for a variety of new proposed gun-control laws. Under red flag laws, law enforcement has the ability to confiscate an individual's firearms who is deemed a threat to themselves or others. A simple accusation from a family member, friend, or associate will suffice to seize someone's firearms.

These laws, mind you, operate in the absence of normal due process. The accused in these cases could have their weapons confiscated without even so much as a hearing a before a judge. It could take months before a gun owner could appear in court to win back his gun rights.

Thirteen states currently have red flag laws on the books. What started out as a state-level movement may have some legs at the federal level. Although it's true that Congressional Democrats are making gun control a major theme of their legislative agenda, it's naive to think red flag laws are only relevant because of "gun-grabbing" Democrats have taken power.

As we'll see below, red flag laws have a history of bipartisan support. And when any piece of legislation has Democrats and Republicans locking arms in agreement, you know trouble lies ahead. .......

While this has been discussed before it is too important not to highlight again. It would appear that proponents of this unconstitutional scheme have either not thought it through with regard to the potential for abuse, or (just as likely) seen it as having strong potential for more 'gun control'. It has to be the worst and most dangerous idea ever devised. It's one thing to want to spot dangerous people and mitigate an armed attack - but quite another when, without due process, a malicious neighbor report can lead to an innocent gun owner being villified.


Back to Top