Dianne Feinstein is not a defender of gun control.She has never seen a war that did not vote


National Review

Rahm Emanuel: Hey, let’s strip the gun owner of due process rights

In another case of poll bias, the Democratic Party overestimates the popularity of gun control efforts, as another bill is reported to be “dead on arrival” in the Senate. Unfortunately, the bill did not stall due to the infamous filibuster — it is perfectly legal to require a 60-vote threshold for legislation primarily targeting the Red States, but Joe Manchin. And moderate Democrats like John Tester can have a hard time supporting the efforts of the House of Representatives. Manchin, who wrote a more modest “identification bill” a few years ago, represents a state where an estimated 54% of households have guns. In Montana, that number is over 52 percent. But Democrat Rahm Emanuel has an idea. He argued that the only way his party could pass gun control legislation was to focus on people rather than firearms this week on Sunday at ABC. He speculates that Democrats should compromise with Republicans by focusing on “criminals,” “mental health,” and no-fly zones. It is of all kinds that the former mayor of Chicago, who suffers from crime, disregards the rights of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments of the gun owner and deprives them of the first amendment. The reason for believing that it is a compromise is still a big mystery. First, Emmanuel says that anyone with a “record of domestic violence” should “ban the purchase of guns.” This is a great idea. Also, it’s already a law. Owning a gun after being convicted of domestic violence is illegal under federal law and under many state laws. It is legal for police to bring a gun if a partner or child has a “reasonable risk of personal injury”. These regulations can be abused by law enforcement agencies, but at least there are basic due processes, not arbitrary confiscation of guns. Therefore, Emmanuel can only speculate that it means that guns need to be confiscated from guns that have only been accused of domestic violence by other parties. Emmanuel’s second idea is to ban people with “mental health issues, and relationships and everything about mental health violence” from buying guns. Another good idea. And again, already the law. It is illegal to sell firearms or ammunition to anyone you know or have a good reason to believe that you have been “arbitrated as a mentally ill person or engaged in a mental hospital.” Emmanuel may be talking about a danger signal law that authorizes police to confiscate guns from Americans with the strength of third-party accusations. For example, California already has a law prohibiting anyone who checks in to a mental hospital, for example, having a problem with nervous fatigue or addiction, from owning the rest of the gun (very unconstitutional). I think). It is alive. He can never buy a gun, even if he shows the predominance of evidence that a person uses the gun in a safe and legitimate way. Such laws not only unfairly deprive Americans of their rights, but also condemn mental illness that has nothing to do with potential violence or crime. It’s also a good way to discourage gun owners suffering from depression or suicidal ideation from seeking the help they need. Still, Emmanuel’s worst suggestion is “no fly, no buy”. The idea here is to confiscate the guns of American citizens arbitrarily placed on various secret government no-fly zones and surveillance lists without possible causes, innocent assumptions, or due process. Clarify how Democrats, who believe the National Rifle Association is a “terrorist organization” and most conservatives are “white supremacists,” could abuse such a list. I can imagine. For example, Emmanuel said the law “Proud Boys is a domestic terrorist group.” Whatever you think of the members of Proud Boys and Antifa, or the groups you think you hate most, they are made up of individuals. Emmanuel wants to sell his supporters of the constitutional right to ideological crime. It’s not how this works. “No fly, no buy” is not a new idea. A few years ago, the Democratic Party tried to pass a similar bill. At that time, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut convicted an American on an opaque non-judiciary government list edited by numerous bureaucrats, saying he “decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” He accused the Republicans of being sneaky. These are not the “liberals” of your parents. Of course, it is true that the majority of people on these lists who are capriciously tagged by law enforcement agencies are Muslims. Most of the approximately 1 million people on the list do not even know that they are suspected of being terrorists, or how to present or even challenge the designation. Again, releasing yourself from the list is also exorbitantly expensive and often involves a complex process that is out of the reach of the average citizen. In 2014, Intercept reported a leak of “sources” that found 280,000 people on a government list that had nothing to do with potential terrorist organizations. No one knows today’s numbers. Consider this scenario. Civil rights hero John Lewis was once on the no-fly zone list. Does Emanuel believe that Lewis deserves to lose all his constitutional rights? Even ACLU, a former Constitutional friend, “strongly” insists that this step will undermine the freedom of its citizens. What Emmanuel doesn’t seem to understand is that guns have no rights. People do so. And depriving them of their rights is not a compromise.

Posted on