Join CRA TODAY!
There is no “US” Without You!
Thank you for visiting us here at the online headquarters for THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY.
If you find value in the work we are doing to help fight for conservative values here in the Golden State, PLEASE BECOME A MEMBER TODAY!
OPINION – “Common Sense Gun Laws” is one of the greatest misnomers in American politics today. It is a phrase devised by those who have little to no understanding of firearms technology, firearms law or how the two intersect. These laws are proposed by those whose stated goal is to “put an end to gun violence.” Meanwhile, they are unable to draw any direct nexus between their legislation and the problem they want to address.
Let’s take a look at some of their most popular proposals:
Red Flag Laws
Otherwise known as Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) or Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs); these laws are growing in popularity among Democrat and Republican politicians alike. Support for them is based on the concept of “keeping firearms out of the hands of those who might be a danger to themselves or others”. But what most people miss are the many flaws in their actual implementation.
First, let’s understand what these laws do.
They allow someone you may or may not know, to go to a judge and have a hearing conducted, where you are declared to be a danger to yourself or others. These are mostly “Ex-Parte” hearings, where you not only are not allowed to attend; you don’t even know it is happening. At this hearing, you are declared to be a danger and have your right to own or possess a firearm taken away. You have committed no crime. You have undergone no professional mental health evaluation. And you were not even allowed to face your accuser to address the accusations made against you. You’ve lost your rights, your property and your presumption of innocence.
The legal and constitutional issues with Red Flag Laws are too numerous to provide an exhaustive list in this commentary. But you get the point.
It is also important to note that where these laws have been enacted, they have not reduced mass shootings or suicides; the specific type of events they were created to address. In fact, there have been hundreds of mass shootings in California since they adopted GVROs. The same can be said for New York State, where their infamous ‘Safe Act’ failed to stop a mass shooting in Buffalo.
Not only do these laws deprive law abiding gun owners their fundamental rights; they simply don’t work.
Assault Weapons Bans
The goal of gun bans is supposedly to ban firearms that are used to harm people. That is not what assault weapons bans do. They actually ban firearms that are used in less that 3% of all homicides. Rifles make up 2.6% and assault weapons make up only a fraction of those rifles. Data shows that almost twice as many people are killed with bare hands and five times as many are killed with blunt force objects or other implements, than are killed with all rifles. They are trying to ban guns that overwhelmingly are not used in crimes.
The media would have us believe that these rifles are “the weapon of choice” for mass shooters. But the data tells a very different story. Handguns are overwhelmingly used in mass casualty events involving firearms, not rifles in general or assault weapons specifically.
Top all of this off with the fact that despite having assault weapons bans, California, New York and several other states have experienced high profile shootings where these weapons were used; making it clear that these bans don’t work.
Universal Background Checks
Background checks are as “common sense” as these proposals get. Through these checks we are supposed to be able to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not legally allowed to own or possess them. But background checks have failed miserably when it comes to accomplishing their stated goal.
First of all, 98.7% criminals who used a firearm in the commission of a crime didn’t get it from a firearms retailer, where background checks are done. And 0.8% got it from a gun show, exposing the “Gun Show Loophole” to be a myth.
So, where do criminals get the guns they use? Almost half are bought off the streets, meaning they were likely stolen, imported and/or used in other crimes. The rest were stolen or obtained through straw-buyers (people who buy guns for others they know are prohibited from purchasing firearms.) In all of these cases, background checks are not conducted, rendering them useless in preventing gun crimes.
Add to these facts that most background check laws are designed to actually serve as firearms ownership registries instead of a way to prevent gun crimes, and it becomes clear that there is an ulterior motive behind these laws; to track gun ownership for future confiscation efforts.
Common Sense Is Not That Common
Common sense says that one should not be proposing laws governing an area one knows little or nothing about. Gun control activists know very little about firearms, firearms law and how the two intersect. Common sense would dictate that if we wanted to reduce violence in general and violence involving firearms specifically, we would engage the experts in these areas (violence and firearms) to see where we can find common ground.
But the current tactic is to focus on the tool used in these crimes, rather than those who are actually committing the crimes; to infringe on the rights of all citizens in hopes of preventing a very small percentage of those citizens from abusing their rights. That is not common sense. That is why it is better referred to as common nonsense.
Craig DeLuz is Director of Communications for CRA, President of 2A News Corp. and a director for the Frederick Douglass Foundation of California. You can follow him on Twitter @CraigDeLuz.
