OPINION:
Self-defense advocates, like all Americans, are deeply saddened by the recent shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York — the senseless murders of elementary school children and people buying their groceries for the week are truly acts of unspeakable evil.
And while many of us would prefer a period of mourning and reflection, followed by a calm and rational discussion, that is never the case anymore.
Every tragedy is immediately politicized and exploited, in a disgustingly predictable way, by anti-gun activists and public officials seeking to further disarm and endanger peaceable Americans. These ideologues take advantage of tragedy to foster an atmosphere of moral panic, where the pressure to “do something” is aimed to force their political opponents to abandon reason and cave on principle.
But now is the moment when it’s most important to keep our heads. It is not the moment to accept bad policy, just for the sake of “doing something.”
We must all stand firm — knowing that both morality and principle are on our side.
Radio host Hugh Hewitt and Dispatch commentator David French both, unfortunately, responded to the Uvalde mass shooting by endorsing expanded “Red Flag” laws. And yet, these laws enable police to preemptively seize guns from an individual, based on a judge’s finding that a person may be a danger to himself or others.
These laws are immoral and unconstitutional, as well as ripe for serious abuse.
Contrary to due process protections, Red Flag laws allow for the seizure of your firearms after a hearing where you’re not present to defend yourself. Neither the federal nor state governments are able to bypass your rights in this way — especially when an even more fundamental right — your natural right to self-defense — is endangered.
Moreover, the entire process puts judges under constant pressure to authorize the seizure of guns — with the mindset of “better safe than sorry” effectively creating a presumption that the subject of the hearing is dangerous and must be disarmed. In essence, you’re guilty until proven innocent.
Especially today, Red Flag laws are liable for serious abuse and open the door to an outright persecution of gun owners merely for holding unpopular or “unapproved” opinions. Vice President Kamala Harris has advocated a federal Red Flag law that could be used against political opponents, by branding those opponents as “domestic terrorists and hate crime perpetrators.”
If such proposals become federal law, we can expect a time when our book purchases, political affiliations or television viewing habits may become the basis for a secret hearing, a life-threatening ATF raid, and the indefinite seizure of our guns as a punishment for no actual crime.
Another proposal garnering discussion in the wake of the Uvalde shooting is for expanded background checks. It’s another deeply flawed idea that gun rights advocates shouldn’t be pressured into supporting.
To his credit, Mr. French has previously pointed out major problems with a proposal for “universal background checks”; namely, it’s unconstitutional (Congress’ Commerce Clause power certainly doesn’t cover it), and wouldn’t stop criminals.
Mr. French is correct to note — while writing in his unfortunate Red Flag advocacy piece — that many mass shooters can pass background checks, as they are “frequently law-abiding, right up until the moment when they commit mass murder.”
This statement is borne out by reporting in The New York Times, which notes that most mass shooters bought their guns legally, often through federal licensees that conducted background checks.
While President Biden has made countless calls for universal background checks, he has also acknowledged that criminals can easily avoid them through illegal street purchases. In January, Mr. Biden made the embarrassing gaffe of calling background checks “critical,” only to note their futility in the very next sentence.
Given that universal background checks are unconstitutional and futile, and Red Flag laws are an outright threat to individual rights, how do gun rights advocates propose to address the problem of mass shootings?
The answer may not be popular, but it is simple — through the people’s exercise of their natural right of self-defense.
More armed teachers, more armed guards — and absolutely none of the repulsive “gun-free zones” that tell killers where to target. Empower peaceable citizens to fight back against violent criminals, wherever they may strike.
It is deeply immoral for politicians and the government to force peaceable Americans to disarm and leave themselves defenseless against senseless acts of violence. Gun-free zones and anti-carry laws are exactly what put people in danger in the first place. More of the same will leave even more people to the mercy of deranged killers.
For many, this answer won’t provide the immediate emotional satisfaction of calling for more gun control. But it is an answer that works.
When a shooter at a church is killed by armed security or a group of armed home invaders is repelled by a gun-wielding woman, reasonable people understand that self-defense works. Even the CDC, in a 2013 study, noted that there are already between 50,000 and 3 million defensive gun uses every year.
Our nation should act on this clear knowledge — not on the futile, utopian and ultimately tyrannical dreams of the gun controllers.
We must stop disarming people and leaving our communities defenseless. We must empower people — from school teachers to grocery shoppers — to be their own first responders and to protect their lives and the lives of their loved ones and communities.
• Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is the director of Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms. He primarily focuses on Second Amendment issues but is happy so long as he is reminding the government of its enumerated powers and constitutional restrictions.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.