A candidate for sheriff in North Carolina has said he would confiscate guns in his county by taking them from the “cold, dead hands” of the people he is supposed to protect. Now, he says he was only joking.
Joking or not, the attitude of gun confiscation is raising concern about the power of law enforcement in this country. And are newly enacted gun confiscation laws violating due process and civil liberties?
This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.
R. Daryl Fisher’s recent comments about gun confiscation are disturbing. In a video captured March 7, Fisher was speaking to the members of the local Moms Demand Action meeting when he said this:
“What about people that already have weapons? Well, I will tell you now, don’t buy into the scare tactics. Don’t believe the scare tactics. Because you’ve heard people say, ‘You’ll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.’ Okay.”
Now, since that video was released, Fisher has come forward saying he shouldn’t have joked.
Fisher supports tougher gun control. As we reported at TruthInMedia.com, Fisher, like many politicians, wants to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm, ban “high capacity” magazines and anything that increases a firearms rate of fire.
He also wants to outlaw military style weapons and require firearm qualifications before people can carry guns.
Fisher said it would be unconstitutional to take guns from people before a ban was in place, and that “Responsible gun owners have nothing to worry about.” And yet, the “joke” of killing gun owners for refusing to allow their guns to be confiscated, resonated with the audience. You hear it in their cheers.
That alone raises questions about the mentality about gun confiscation in this country.
Today, lawmakers across the U.S. are looking to implement so-called “red flag” gun laws in order to confiscate guns from owners who are deemed an “extreme risk.” Immediate family or law enforcement file a ERPO, or extreme risk petition order, on a gun owner to confiscate their weapons. A judge can swiftly approve the ERPO as an immediate temporary order or full order, according to TruthInMedia.com
And while the intent is to protect gun owners from harming themselves or others, civil liberties groups and Second Amendment advocates claim otherwise.
Let’s look at the State of Washington, which has a “red flag” law in place in its capital of Seattle. There, the law allows for gun confiscation before an arrest or charge of crime.
According to TruthInMedia.com, “While this has been championed as a valuable tool for law enforcement, due process procedures come into question; under the provisions of an ex parte ERPO, the accused respondent will not have the opportunity to face their accuser or challenge the claim until after a temporary order is already issued. This effectively allows law enforcement take a person’s firearms first, with due process occurring after firearms are removed.”
Yes, law enforcement can take guns away from people they deem “extreme risk” and hold those weapons until a judge decides the owner is not a threat to the public or themselves.
Five states including Washington allow guns to be confiscated before a crime has been committed. Similar measures have been proposed in 18 other states, including Florida, plus the District of Columbia, according to the Washington Post.
What you need to know is that while we can agree that we want to reduce threats of violence in this country, we must consider the rights of individuals and the authority we give those in power.
In the wake of mass shootings, lawmakers rush to push gun control legislation that often duplicates existing laws on the books or tramples our civil liberties.
Let’s take the politics out of it so that we can have a real discussion about whether these “red flag” gun confiscation laws are actually accomplishing what they are meant to do.