U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Ohio Attorney General says more than 100 people deemed mentally unfit have concealed carry permits,” ABC’s News 5 Cleveland reported Saturday. “To decrease gun violence, Attorney General Yost said officials need to start enforcing the laws that already exist.”
Further down in the piece we’re told: “Yost said more than one hundred people who were ruled incompetent might still have their concealed carry permits.”
“Might” adds a very different perspective on things. It’s hardly a legal standard to justify gun confiscation, which is where you know demands over this will ultimately lead, whether admitted to or not.
First of all, how do they prove beyond a reasonable doubt such people are too dangerous to have a permit? All 100 of them? If they are, what “good” does revoking a permit do without seizing guns? They know who has them, of course, thanks in large part to the Faustian bargain of “permitting” rights. What “good” does taking the guns do anyway when a person determined to be a danger to himself and others is not kept physically separated from those deemed at risk?
But that would mean full due process would be required. Why go through an expensive effort you might otherwise lose when you can just issue edicts assigning yourself the power to bypass rights? The object here is not to protect us from those who are threats, it’s to remove one of the weapon options they might choose, assuming others aren’t available and that prohibited persons are incapable of obtaining guns.
Such assumptions lead to people being killed.
It’s also a disappointment to hear the Ohio AG, who has been pretty good on guns, call for enforcing existing Intolerable Acts, which is what “enforce existing gun laws” really means. In light of “shall not be infringed, that is the last thing gun owner rights supporter should be calling for and that’s what Yost, endorsed by NRA and state gun groups, has presented himself as.
“It’s still unclear who was supposed to be following up to make sure those permits were revoked, but according to an agreement signed Friday, the Ohio Department of Public Safety will now be responsible for those checks,” News 5 continues. “Governor Mike DeWine has already proposed a 17-point plan to address gun violence—one of them is a red flag law.”
DeWine, formerly endorsed by the Brady Campaign and then by NRA, caving and betraying when the going gets tough, should surprise absolutely no one who has watched this principle-shifting creature of political opportunity slither into office over the years—as I have. And the other Republicans must be noticing that there is very little desperate, “lesser of two evils”-voters won’t swallow. Otherwise, gun owners would be melting down the switchboards when Lt. Gov. John Husted makes absurd claims about “red flag laws” like:
“It's not seizing somebody's property without due process. That was the stick, that was the issue that couldn't get resolved in the past. We've worked with voices across the broad array of concerned, we believe we have those sorted out.”
Flesh that out for us, Mr. Lt. Gov. Because some of us don't believe that.
“[T]hey’re all fundamentally flawed,” California attorney Donald Kilmer warns, relating how the “law” has been abused there and the burdens it places on the innocent. “The enforcement problems with gun-grabbing ‘red flag’ laws are even worse than you think.”
What every one of the “top” Republicans—not just in Ohio but lining up to cave and betray core constituents throughout the land—keep failing to address are the “baby steps” leading to the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s “slippery slope.” Anyone who maintains you can throw a scrap of flesh to a pack of hungry jackals and it won’t encourage them to circle in closer for more is a liar, a fool or both.
Who thinks, once in place throughout the land, that those in power won’t throw “red flags” for other reasons, that is, to maintain their monopoly of violence?
“Bernie Sanders says ‘We will go to war against white nationalism and racism',” WND.com reports. Don’t assume hyperbole. If they’re going to go to war, they don’t want those they attack to be able to fight back. The only “weapons of war” they want “on the streets” are theirs.
“Kamala Harris is proposing a new kind of ‘red flag' law to take guns away from racists,” The Blaze adds. And guess who gets to determine who those are, and what level of “due process” they’ll be afforded.
This is what we’re up against and what Republicans dumb or corrupt enough to think they can make concessions and still not be smeared as uncompromising pawns of the “gun lobby” need to have screamed in their faces.
How about if instead of folding, those we entrusted with power use their positions of privilege and influence to explain to the public what the right to keep and bear arms is about? How about if they use their bully pulpits to explain why it’s of paramount importance, and how those who want to swindle that right away from them are liars with an agenda to control all that will stop at nothing to disarm them?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
The post Republicans Need to Be Reminded Where Surrendering on Guns Leads appeared first on AmmoLand.com.