Gun Prohibitionists Hacks Going All-In to Disarm the Legally Innocent ~ VIDEO

Guilty until proven innocent? Really?

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Fairfax County wants people to know they can prevent gun violence through its red-flag law,” a free advertisement opinion piece for a wannabe gun-grab group presented “courtesy” of The Washington Post claims.

The article is written by “Paul A. Friedman … the founder and executive director of Safer Country, an Alexandria-based gun-violence prevention nonprofit working to keep guns out of unsafe hands.” If your response was “Who? And “What?” you are not alone. At this writing, Friedman, who joined Twitter in 2009, has 13 followers. His organization’s account, which joined after his “group” was started in 2019, has 11, and has amassed 438 Facebook followers in that time. And his Guidestar nonprofit profile is equally unimpressive – for now (IRS filings have not been posted yet so we can’t tell how much money is being pumped into it). With WaPo exposure, those numbers could all change, particularly if someone in power finds it useful.

It might be relevant to ask why such an obscure effort rates major national exposure in a premier, nationally-heeded newspaper, but anyone who has followed the symbiotic suckfest between oath-breaking politicians, the DSM, and the violence monopoly cultists sees this happen daily. Plus, we’ve all been exposed over the years to plenty of Astroturf presenting itself as popular grassroots demand.

Friedman emphasizes two premises, and we’ll start with the most obnoxiously detached from reality one first:

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) announced a bill that would “codify Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law at the federal level, abolishing the ‘duty of retreat’ when attacked.” In other words, if you want to battle it out with a gun, it’s legally okay to do so.

Gun owners are spoiling for trouble as evidenced by the millions of rights advocates out there looking for a fight every day and filling the streets with blood. What does Violence Policy Center call us? “Concealed Carry Killers”?

No? Maybe that’s why Friedman doesn’t name one person who “wants” that out of all the estimated Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs).

This looks like a classic case of an apparatchik using character smears to swindle his countrymen out of their rights. Feel free to refute his insult with the facts about how peaceable gun owners actually conduct themselves but understand that most people influenced by “the mainstream media” will never see them.

Red Flag Laws Are Just What We Need To Stop “Gun Violence”…NOT

So, let’s go to his central contention, that red flag laws are just what we need to stop the “gun violence” in its tracks (and I have that in quotes so give me a break). Let’s look at what Friedman’s (registered by proxy) Safer Country has to say about those:

“These laws are intended to prevent gun homicides and suicides while protecting the individual right to due process.”

And how does the representative “Emergency Substantial Risk Order” edict he’s asking WaPo readers to template off of do that?

Under “Who Can Request/Seek an ESRO,” in addition to family members and “Only Ones,” the list of who can turn you in includes “romantic partners or dates.” That could even mean those you quickly found, on say a single date, were bad news and now want nothing to do with!

Then we have “What Happens When You Request an ESRO,” which again promises that it “provides necessary procedural safeguards to ensure that no firearm is removed without due process.”

Cops and judges, especially in urban settings, can have biases against guns as well as personal and professional incentives to first get the guns away from those accused of threats and violence. As for the promised “due process,” the process they follow “allows for the subject of an order to file an appeal to dissolve the order, no earlier than 30 days from the date the order was issued.”

Citizens are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty!

ATF and DOJ include boilerplate language to that effect on press releases announcing arrests to remind people of that. That’s why the title of this piece ends the way it does.

And this assumes a legally innocent suspect who has not been convicted of anything has the wherewithal, the presence of mind, and the will to focus on an extended legal process that could take years to get through a lengthy system process that could include appeals to higher courts. In the meantime, rights are being withheld and the accused is being rendered vulnerable under the force of law.

What was it the insane, totalitarian Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland said?

“Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”

Time was, even children understood that to be tyrannical and mad.

So what do “we” do if the person we presume innocent is actually guilty of something that makes him a danger to himself and others?

Prove it. With real due process.  Sure, that’s a lot harder, but that’s the way it’s supposed to work in a Bill of Rights culture. And then restrain and treat him or keep him away from people he wants to hurt.

Nobody except a disarmament cultist believes taking guns away from a dangerous character and then leaving him free to stalk among us will neutralize the threat he poses, do they?  Not only are there plenty of other ways to attack someone, but a look at major Democrat city homicide reports on any given weekend ought to dispel the notion that so-called “commonsense gun safety laws” keep the determined from getting guns.

It’s all theater because “progressive” policies and edicts have guaranteed things will remain out of control and authorities need to make it look like they’re “doing something.” But the indisputable truth is, anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian of some kind.

Just because that’s not the way the system works does not negate the truth. Until people who prey on others are kept away from the potential victim pool, or those intent on self-harm are restrained and treated, destructive behaviors WILL continue. And laws designed to disarm those who don’t prey on others will give aggressors who disregard such laws the advantage.

It would be ironic if “wokeness” ended up being the major hurdle red flag laws needed to clear.

A recent study, “The color of risk protection orders: gun violence, gun laws, and racial justice,” raises the contention that such laws could result in systemic injustice, particularly in the way they are “served and enforced.”

Have a couple of high-profile blow-ups resulting in new martyrs, get the “community leaders” to start screaming “Overrepresentation!” and watch how fast Soros DAs start looking for “outs.”


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


Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *