‘Roadmap’ Latest ‘Commonsense’ Ploy to Advance Citizen Disarmament

Because how can all the demands for the government to disarm Americans that Moore has made over the years possibly threaten gun owners? (97percent/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- A relatively new bankrolled “gun safety” organization purports to have a plan to reduce “gun violence” that can bring people on both sides of the issue together. In Part One, AmmoLand looked at a so-called “Policy Roadmap” put out by 97percent, a group purporting to find “common ground” between gun owners and “gun safety advocates.”  We examined the three “core principles” they say their plan is built upon and follows:

  1. To focus on the core principle shared by gun owners and non-gun owners: Gun policies should ensure that people who are at high risk for violence cannot access guns.
  2. To identify a limited set of policies, that when combined, were demonstrated to have the greatest impact on reducing gun violence.
  3. To respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase and possess guns.

Let’s now look at the four “policy” infringements the 97percent group wants to see imposed under the force of law.

“Set violent misdemeanor crimes as the threshold for exclusion from gun purchase and possession,” Policy 1 would mandate. “The current felony threshold for excluding someone from gun ownership does not capture many violent crimes including, but not limited to, assault, battery, stalking, cyberstalking, and threats of violence – whether in-person or on social media.”

If that means I can sic the cops on the anti-gun loon on Twitter who wanted my children to be shot to death, the part of me interested in schadenfreude for those who deserve it is tempted.  But also caught up in this tyrannical expansion will be those Gun Owners of America documented in its “Lautenberg Horror Stories” back in 2008, with minor altercations and plea bargains resulting in lifetime gun bans. Take a moment and read (and share) that.

“Implement gun permit laws at the state level, in conjunction with background checks,” Policy 2 demands. You’ll need a state permit to BUY a gun, with additional prior restraints requiring two levels of training, and a verification burden on gun dealers. That, and the permit would expire in five years (along with recognition of your rights).

But wait, they say, there are “benefits”! It “would eliminate the need for background checks with valid permits …  eliminate the need for potentially discriminatory ‘may issue” laws” [and] would open the door to concealed carry permit reciprocity between states that have permitting systems in place.”

Note they say “would eliminate the need,” with no guarantee that it would eliminate the REQUIREMENT. With the creative contortions that we see happening in the states to sabotage the Supreme Court’s recent Bruen decision, it’s not hard to imagine New York or California using this as an opportunity to add a whole slew of new hurdles to deny the right. And as long as they’re getting the hopes of the ignorant up, there’s nothing saying states that don’t want to have to reciprocate.

Compromising rights in exchange for false promises is a fool’s game they hope plenty who don’t listen too closely to the professionally crafted slick talking will play.

Policy 3 may as well have been issued by the Department of Redundancy Department (h/t The Firesign Theater):

“Ensure background checks, at the state and federal level, are part of the gun permitting process.”

Evidently, if one prior restraint infringement is good, two are even better. Disregard that the aforementioned gangbangers causing most of the urban Democrat angst will now have two laws to break without batting an eye instead of one.

Oh, but you get “benefits” here, too, we are promised:

“Gun owners would not need a new background check each time they purchased a gun, provided they held a valid gun permit. [and] Gun sales or transfers between family members would not require a NICS check or a state background check, as long as the person receiving the gun has a valid gun permit.”

Yeah? Are they going to make New Jersey play? And who can’t get a permit “thanks” to closing up that “misdemeanor loophole”? And not to beat a dead horse, but what kind of guns will those not culled through the new restrictions be eligible to buy again?

There are two other things 97percent “forgot” to mention with all those promises about reducing “gun violence,” a little-regarded admission from a 2019 Bureau of Justice Statistics report documenting:

“An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

And a 2013 National Institute of Justice “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” concluded this about “Universal Background Checks”:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

Who knows what registration leads to? Anyone?

It’s almost like the real goal here isn’t to reduce “gun violence” at all…

Policy 4 will surprise no one but the willfully self-deluded.

“Implement red flag laws at the state level.”

Time was, even children recognized the absurd tyranny of Lewis Carroll’s Queen of Hearts proclaiming “Sentence first — verdict afterward.” That should tell us something about the level of intellectual maturity those who actually believe gun-grabber promises have attained.

“Family members or law enforcement officials can petition a court to remove firearms from a person who is a threat to themselves or others,” we are told. What we’re not told is, never satisfied with what’s surrendered to them, the prohibitionists then invent new categories like the “boyfriend loophole.” And the “terror loophole.” And the “hater loophole.” And, if we’re to believe the prevailing “progressive” sentiment, don’t be surprised to see a “Trump supporter loophole” followed by a “Republican loophole”…

“How does it respect rights of law-abiding gun owners?” the roadmap disingenuously asks.  “[It] establishes a procedure that ensures lawful gun owners aren’t deprived of their due process,” it answers itself.


If you have done something to prove you’re a threat, just taking guns away will do nothing to stop you from being a continued danger to specific victims and/or to everyone around you. And if you are accused, that means authorities need to arrest, charge, and try you, and if you’re found guilty, separate you from society. It also means you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that you have a right to confront your accusers.

That’s real “due process.” (Yes, “restraining orders” are recognized as “settled law,” and that’s not going to change. But that doesn’t mean they’re worth the paper they’re written on to those who violate them.)

Without that, gun owners are subject to the prejudices and biases of Democrat-sympathizing judges and clinical evaluators. And good luck ever getting evaluated “safe again” by psychiatric assessors, their lawyers, risk management administrators, and their insurers, who won’t be universally willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a “disabled” person they later proclaim “fit” to once more own a gun be misdiagnosed. The default bias – not to mention their financial and licensing incentives – will be to “err on the side of caution.”

But don’t worry, we’re assured, the policy “would penalize people for vindictively using red flag laws against a gun owner.”

How? Would they be penalized before or after a trial (with appeals) where they are afforded real due process?

Would Democrat prosecutors use their discretion to allow a lesser plea, or not to pursue charges at all? And what happens if the hapless victim of their vindictiveness does not have the resources/wherewithal/knowledge and support to challenge charges in the first place, or is “persuaded” not to file a cross-complaint lest new “legal” complications are added to his life?

Presenting “red flags” as anything other than ways for the state to deny rights without going through the rigors of providing a burden of proof is at best dishonest, and at worst a mask for un-American tyranny.

We’ll look at some of those “bipartisan” gun owners joining with 97percent to “find common ground” in Part Three.

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.

David Codrea