Gun control advocates have a lot to say about gun violence, but even more so following the Parkland massacre. Over the last year, many states have passed laws designed to empower civilians and law enforcement to seize guns from “threatening” gun owners. According to Gregg Re of a Chicago news station:
Nine states have passed laws over the past year allowing police or household members to seek court orders requiring people deemed threatening to temporarily surrender their guns, bringing the total to 14.
Tom Knighton asserts in an article for Bearing Arms that the Parkland shooting is no basis for new laws:
For better or worse, people saw all the warning signs that the killer was showing before committing that atrocity and, through the lens of hindsight, decided that we needed to do something to prevent such a mass shooting from happening again.
Nevermind that there were already rules in place that could have kept this individual from owning a firearm had the Broward County Sheriff’s Office had competent leadership. Nope. We needed a new law.
His sarcasm alludes to the ineffectiveness and unfairness innate in the subjective label of “threatening.” These lawmakers need to reevaluate the meaning of due process. Compounding the problem is the fact that people in high crime areas are less likely to have resources to object. Knighton:
While these seizures can be fought, not everyone can afford to do so, making them especially burdensome for the poor who often live in high-crime areas and often rely on their firearms for personal protection.
Now we have the potential to increase death rates with legislation aiming to do just the opposite by removing guns that could have been used for self-defense.