What does “shall not be infringed” mean to you? Whatever it means to you is probably a long way off from what it means to the State of California.
As of January 1st, 2016, new legislation will take effect in California. It will empower law enforcement to confiscate guns. By itself, that’s nothing new. Cops take guns from criminals all the time.
Once this law takes force, however, we’ll see a new twist. They will be empowered by this law to take lawfully-obtained guns away from law-abiding citizens.
The implication of this is significant. If you are a gun owner, the government now has a shiny new mechanism of relieving you of it. They can do so without ever having charged you with a crime, much less convicting you.
Someone can simply claim a “potential for violence” exists and a sympathetic judge can authorize a 21 day seizure of your weapon. The owner is not entitled to notification, nor can he contest this.
This period, they argue, is “an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.”
Hear the language they use to defend it. As explained by LAPD Assistant Chief Michael Moore, “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will.”
To “Cause the Surrender”. “To have a time out”.
Isn’t that typical of the Government’s view of itself as the wise benefactor and guardian of foolish, wayward children? Not that our foolishness (developmental delay?) invalidates the election that got them their power.
Don’t worry, though. Due Process still protects you. Sort of. The “due process” they claim still exists comes AFTER the Government has material possession of the weapon.
What questions are NOT being asked here?
First, do they even have the right to enact such a law. Second Amendment advocates will say they absolutely do not.
Second, even if they had such a right, can these particular people be trusted to be wise, equitable, or just in their use of such power?
We already have evidence of judges more than willing to put political agendas ahead of the rule of law. That, by itself, should have been enough to derail this. But wait! There’s more! This is a political environment where government officials are actively cooking up ways of removing guns from the hands of lawful owners. They are also, in many ways, openly defiant of any legal restraints on their own official powers, doing things they were never granted authority to do.
Weigh this against real case histories in similar cultures. (A fairly recent flooding story from Canada, for instance, where police illegally removed guns from homes.)
Highly motivated partisans are granting themselves powers beyond their authority. They are doing so using vague language, under the pretext of the public good, and safety. No recourse is offered nor notification given. Remember: their stated goal is a disarmed public.
You have told them “Molon Labe”.
They have heard you. They gave themselves a legal pretext to do just that.
Gun owner: it’s your move.
