Gun Control Supporters Now Using the “C” Word

Advocates of gun control always talk about “reasonable” and “common sense” proposals to stop crime.

The latest? “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” proposed for Washington state; these would be similar to California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders.

These orders would allow “family or household members” to petition a judge to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from another family member or person living in the household.

Note that these are not laws, passed by a state legislature. They are edicts, or orders, coming from the Governor of a state, carried out by judges. This will be the model for Hillary Clinton or any other advocate of gun control’s next phase.

Up to now, you have not heard advocates of gun control using the “C” word. The “C” word is confiscation. But that’s clearly where they’re headed.

Gun control advocate Gaby Giffords’ husband Mark Kelly traveled with her to Washington state, and he explained that he and his wife support the initiative over legislation because it allows them to get around the opposition to confiscatory orders that currently prevails in the U.S. Congress as well as the Washington state legislature.

Seattlepi.com reported on Gifford’s’ visit to support the confiscatory orders contained in Initiative 1491. The outlet quoted Giffords urging a crowd of about 1,500 to support I-1491, saying, “We must never stop fighting! Fight, fight, fight. Be bold, be courageous. The nation is counting on you.”

The implications here are massive. It’s not only about guns and the Second Amendment. It’s a new precedent. If people permit illegal gun confiscation to happen, regardless of how they feel about gun control, they’re sending their governors – and ultimately the President – the message that, “If the legislature won’t pass a law that I want, then simply issue an edict making what I want into the law.”

Advocates of gun control and gun bans love this approach on now, because it promotes legislation they want but cannot pass (and a court would not likely uphold). But will they love it when a conservative Governor or President uses this same method to stop abortions, to stop gay couples from getting married, or to disregard laws legalizing marijuana?

Judges and courts are being used here, not to uphold already existing laws, but to fill in where there are no laws, or at least not laws that can pass the legislature.

This is a recipe for chaos and dictatorship. In fact, it’s the very definition of dictatorship. Laws have to be passed before they can be enforced. It’s not the role of the executive branch (Governor or President) to make up laws and then implement them. It’s up to the president to see that the laws passed by Congress are executed and upheld. It’s up to the courts to strike them down if they’re unconstitutional. This is how our government was set up, and it’s one reason it lasted so long.

Advocates of gun confiscation will argue that it’s a national emergency. So long as gun violence continues, we have to do something, they’ll say. But can’t you say that about anything?

By the way, there are excellent reasons to oppose gun control. Gun control impairs or eliminates the right of peaceful citizens to protect themselves. It does nothing to stop people determined to harm others. Criminals will always find guns on the black market, which does not bother them because they are, after all, criminals. The Second Amendment upholds the right to bear arms, which means the right to possess weapons for purposes of self-protection.

The issue has gone way beyond gun control. It’s now about the very survival of individual rights and liberty itself. It’s about whether we will continue to live in even a semi-free country, or whether presidents and governors may now issue edicts about whatever they wish, whenever they wish, simply because they declare it a national crisis. Americans have no clue what’s in store for them, because so many are ignorant of what it’s like to live outside of a free country. They will applaud Hillary Clinton, because she’s a powerful politician, and Gaby Giffords, because she was shot and, after all, you cannot question somebody about guns if they’ve been shot. None of this is reason or justice.

I want to see how this works out in practice. What will happen when state and even federal authorities start knocking on doors and demanding your weapons? That’s what gun confiscation means, in principle and practice. This, like the elimination of free speech, seems to me the point where the American system is officially over. What happens next is not pretty to contemplate, and will not be pretty when it happens. If we don’t fight government tyranny in this area, then we’re giving the green light for everything else.