Another sad wave of mass shootings has recently occurred in the United States. The radical left wants to repeal the Second Amendment right away. It's their go-to, knee-jerk reaction every time someone dies at the hands of a psychopath.
The gun is to blame. Nonetheless, Capitol Hill has put together legislation that appears to have a chance of becoming law for the first time in recent memory. But, in this new gun control plan, are all of the points raised for the best? In the end, the question is: will they work?
They will, according to ten Republican senators. These ten senators are part of a group of 20 senators from both parties that proposed a nine-point gun control plan. This number is crucial because it would exceed the 60 vote barrier that is needed to break a filibuster in the chance that Republicans filibuster to prevent the measure from moving forward.
Other prominent Republicans have also voiced their intention to support the plan. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated that he will likely vote for the gun control bill. McConnell spoke to reporters about the proposed plan.
The highest ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate said, “For myself, I’m comfortable with the framework and if the legislation ends up reflecting the framework, I’ll be supportive.” McConnell’s support brings the number of Republicans on board to eleven.
The bill is apparently going to get U.S. Senate approval with no problem. But are all the nine-points contained within this legislation a good thing? Most insist that better mental health services and increased security in our schools are obvious.
One of the most common points involved in gun control is “red flag laws.” Because of a lack of understanding, most people immediately insist that this is an essential part of any practical gun control legislation. But is it?
Many staunch Second Amendment supporters believe the so-called “red flag laws” are an open-ended path towards total gun confiscation. Some, like FOX News’ Tucker Carlson, do not believe they will have any effect on mass shootings. Carlson asks hard questions.
For his trouble, radical progressives insist he’s a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He’s not. Carlson simply presents questions that many are too afraid to ask. During a recent Primetime show, Carlson discussed what Democrats perceive as the all-important red flag laws.
Carlson began by insisting, “Who doesn't want to prevent mass shootings?” He shared how many Americans automatically assume they want red flag laws. Carlson wondered why red flag laws are suddenly something everyone should support, without even knowing what they are.
The wildly popular conservative voice wondered if people really understood what red flag laws could do. Are they critical to successful gun control measures? Or are they designed to do something else? Carlson believes they’re designed to do something else. Take away our guns.
He stressed that no one wants crazy people to have open access to firearms. That’s just common sense. But like many ardent supporters of the U.S. Constitution, Carlson said, “Red flag laws will not end mass shootings, but red flag laws will end due process.”
The enactment of such laws would strip one critical part of our justice system away. To be punished, U.S. citizens must be charged with a crime and convicted of the crime. It’s the bedrock of our rule of law. Anything otherwise is tyranny.
Carlson and other conservatives who question the validity of red flag laws insist they would remove this critical step in criminal prosecution. As the current red flag law provision is written, someone could be red-flagged for basically any reason. There would be no hearing, no justice.
Law enforcement could show up at the person’s home, armed, and forcibly take all their weapons. They could be completely innocent of any crime. If someone doesn’t like them, they could file a complaint and have their legal right to own a firearm erased.
There would be “no due process.” But this concept totally violates the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court said so. In Caniglia vs. Strom, the Court ruled unanimously that taking guns away from a 68-year-old man, without due process, was unconstitutional.
The man had never been convicted of a crime and was deemed sane by doctors. However, law enforcement seized his guns. The man sued under the Fourth Amendment, and his case made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
In a 9-0 verdict, the court said he was right. He got his guns back. However, imagine the hardship and aggravation this man endured just to get back something that should never have been taken away from him. Understandably, gun responsibility measures need to be passed.
However, too often, Americans are hoodwinked into believing essential parts of these packages are necessary. Once such things become law, they’re very difficult to reverse. We should be very wary of overreaching red flag laws. They may be like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.