The MSM Is Now Calling For Massive, Sweeping Gun Confiscation…
It is always very confusing to a lot of people when the MSM begins making calls for something because people will often think back to the old saying of not killing the messenger.
The saying comes from the fact that the opinion of the messenger has no bearing on what the message actually is and that they are an objective party. Imagine how that saying would have ended up if every time a message was delivered that messenger we keeps talking about told the recipient what they thought personally?
After virtually every high-profile mass shooting incident, Democrats will weep and wail about the prevalence of firearms and gun violence in our society, then propose ineffectual and unworkable gun control legislation that will go nowhere in Congress.
As such, citizen gun control advocacy groups have increasingly been bypassing Congress and going directly to the states in order to achieve their stated goal of reducing gun violence by diminishing the number of guns in possession of the citizenry — in other words, gun confiscation.
Obviously, the mass confiscation of firearms from the hands of American citizens would not only be unconstitutional, but would also likely spark a civil war. So, the anti-gun crowd has — for now — set their sights on limited confiscation of guns from certain individuals by the state, and they have a major mainstream media outlet backing them to the hilt in their efforts.
ABC News recently published a piece focused on a gun control tool known as an Extreme Risk Protection Order, essentially a restraining order between gun owners and their guns, that would allow for the confiscation of their lawful property on the mere say-so basis from others like family members, acquaintances or law enforcement officials — without the gun owner’s knowledge or input.
ERPO laws are already in effect in such places as California, Connecticut, Oregon and Washington state, with similar legislation being worked on in a multitude of other states and Washington, D.C., as well as — to a lesser and limited extent — Indiana and Texas.
The way these laws work is by allowing family members or the police to express their concern about the potential imminent danger of an individual in a petition to a judge, who could in turn order the individual to surrender their lawfully possessed weapons for a temporary period of time.
Unfortunately, Breitbart pointed out that these gun confiscation orders are made “ex parte” — on behalf of one party in the absence of, or without notice to, the other — meaning the first knowledge a targeted gun owner would have of an ERPO against them would be when police officers arrive at the door and demand the person’s weapons be handed over.
As an aside, Brietbart also noted how gun control advocates often use conflated and inflated numbers regarding “gun violence” to mislead legislators and the citizenry into supporting their confiscation measures.
This is done by lumping suicides and lawful defensive gun uses or police shootings in with actual gun crime, which is at historically low levels in most of the country, save large urban areas.
As for the ERPOs, the National Rifle Association has made it clear on multiple occasions that they do not support such gun confiscation measures.
In September of 2016, as Washington state voters were preparing to vote on a ballot initiative allowing for ERPOs, the NRA explained that people with no expertise in mental health or limited knowledge of the individual in question could usurp people’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.