OPINION:
When there’s a mass casualty event — like the horrific shooting in Uvalde, Texas, its natural lawmakers want to act.
The gun-control framework unveiled by Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has been hailed as the biggest breakthrough agreement on gun violence in 30 years — “that will save lives.”
The proposal includes increasing funding for mental health resources and school security, additional vetting for potential gun owners between the ages of 18 to 21, preventing convicted domestic abusers from buying a gun and encouraging states to enact so-called red-flag laws that would take away guns from people who might pose a threat to themselves or others.
These measures have been touted as “commonsense” by the mainstream media; however, we must ensure that when the government steps in to solve a problem, they don’t create larger ones — ones that could erode the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding citizens.
It’s notable that of the 10 Republican senators who signed onto this agreement — which is necessary to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster — four are retiring, and the other six are not up for reelection this year. Lisa Murkowski, who is facing a primary in Alaska, was notably left off the list.
It seems Republicans are aware this compromise could offend their base — and don’t want to be held accountable by the people who gave them their jobs, and who they’re supposed to represent.
Red-flag laws are particularly offensive, and a violation of due-process rights. Giving government bureaucrats the right to determine who is and isn’t fit to own a gun is a slippery slope to total gun confiscation.
Don’t believe us?
In a podcast, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro railed against politicians trying to mandate “LGBTQ indoctrination” in schools, saying “Beto O’Rourke does not get to raise my child. And if he tries, I will meet him at the door with a gun.”
The clip was put on Twitter where California Rep. Eric Swalwell commented, “Please tell me this lunatic doesn’t own a gun. Reason 1,578 America needs red flag laws.”
So here you have a Democratic lawmaker explicitly saying red-flag laws could be used to punish peaceful citizens he personally dislikes and disagrees with. After the draconian COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates issued by Democrats in power — which eroded our rights based on an “emergency” — why should we trust these government overlords not to abuse red-flag laws?
Red-flag laws are a violation of due process in that the government doesn’t have to prove an individual committed any crime, it merely can strip one of their second amendment rights based on a complaint from another individual. It doesn’t matter if that individual opposes your politics or lifestyle.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled last year in Caniglia v. Strom that law enforcement cannot take away your guns based on a mere “community caretaking” exception — it’s a violation of the Fourth Amendment. While it didn’t strike down red-flag laws specifically, it did open the door to have them challenged in court.
The Republican lawmakers who signed on to Mr. Murphy’s agreement are being cowered by the left to “take action” on gun violence. It’s a noble cause and one many Americans support.
However, this action should not and must not further erode our other constitutional rights. As Ronald Reagan surmised in 1975, the government has failed over and over to control crime and violence by the means given to it by the Constitution, we cannot afford to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution.
“In their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government,” he rightly said.
Congress would be better off reallocating the $122 billion it sent to schools as COVID-relief funds — that have yet to be spent — to increase school security.
A simple constitutional action.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.