It wasn't even hours after the shooting that the anti-gun Left began their assault on America by going after one of the key freedoms we are guaranteed as people. And, earlier in the week, the President signaled he was willing to look at some these proposals.
And that is the last thing America needs right now; a knee jerk reaction to these horrors by surrendering more of our liberty to the government.
I'm sure we all remember after 9/11, and so many of the changes that happened afterwards pushed by the Bush Administration. Federalized TSA workers and creating a new bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security.
There was also various aspects of the Patriot Act. I supported much of this back then. But looking back almost 18 years later, I believe we rushed to implement a lot of things that basically just grew the size of government. I didn't have a problem with the NSA wiretaps on suspected terrorists; however, neither I or anyone else could imagine that we would one day elect a President who used these safeguards that were meant against foreign terrorist suspects to what we've learned was unconstitutional spying on an opposing Presidential campaign.
I'm not saying that there should not have been some changes in how the government protected Americans after 9/11; I am, however, questioning some aspects of the changes that allow for abuse of civil liberties and rogue elements of an administration.
But more background checks on guns? Don't we already have background checks? Why don't we do some kind of investigation into what went wrong and why any red flags about the shooter did not appear. We know that, after the Parkland, FL school shooting that there were a ton of signs that were missed or ignored.
So why would more laws stop that?
Speaking of Red Flags, the "Red Flag" proposal sounds good on paper, but based on what I'm seeing, there's a lot of civil liberties concerns, like a gun owner's lack of due process (Fourth Amendment).
Six states have enacted these laws. At their core, they allow the police to convene a Kafkaesque secret proceeding, in which an American can be stripped of his or her gun rights and Fourth Amendment rights, even though gun owners are barred from participating in the hearings or arguing their side of the dispute.
The first thing gun owners learn is when police knock on the door — ready to ransack their house and, if they resist, to arrest or even shoot them and their family.
The standard is not whether there is probable cause to believe that the gun owner has committed a crime, as the Constitution would seem to require. Rather, the standard is some subjective determination about whether the owner represents some "danger."
As in the film Minority Report, Americans are stripped of their fundamental constitutional rights based on the subjective possibility of a "future crime." And we know from our limited experience that many accusers lie or make mistakes — even more reach delusional conclusions — and the target is frequently an abused victim who is most in need of the wherewithal to protect against an abuser.
After a fixed period of time — say, 21 days — the gun owner can ask for a court hearing to restore his or her constitutional rights. But guess what? Few gun owners have the sophistication or the thousands of dollars it would take to hire a lawyer and expert witnesses. And few courts are willing to second-guess themselves and reverse the Gun Confiscation Order which has been issued.
In fact, hundreds of thousands of veterans have lost their gun rights without due process pursuant to a comparable procedure. And recent revelations from the VA suggest that fewer than 50 have successfully invoked this "process" to get their rights back.
But there's a larger issue: If the Constitution can be suspended in a secret hearing, where does this lead?
What if this newspaper could be shut down for 21 days without due process — based on a secret complaint? Or an individual could be arrested or imprisoned for 21 days? Or tortured?
Far from being a "consensus proposal," the suspension of the Constitution in a secret hearing is a constitutional Rubicon from which there is no return.The same goes with proposals with online media companies to police for possible shooters. The problem is, we've seen how tech companies like Twitter, Facebook and others have gone after accounts because of political content..
What I would tell President Trump and Congress is to take your time and act on this with prudence and good judgement, not out of haste and pressure from the Haters on the Left. Their goal, though they deny it, is eventual repeal and seizure of guns.
Don't think they can?
Remember how the pro-abortion crowd only wanted abortion up the first trimester, and only to save the life of a mother? Now, we have abortion activist cheer in one state as a law is approved that would allow abortions up to the time of birth!
Our Second Amendment is not an issue that can be compromised on. Plus, no matter how much you try to give them a little, it is never enough.
And they will still hate you anyway.