Dianne Feinstein Introduces Gun Confiscation Bill

08 Jun, 2014 by Ashley Herzog

Print this article Font size -16+

After Elliot Roger’s murder spree in Santa Barbara, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill allowing for “firearms restraining orders.” The bill would prevent an individual from purchasing new guns and give law enforcement the right to confiscate existing guns if the individual is determined to be a threat.

It might sound good on the surface. But why single out guns? If someone is dangerous, they can certainly use other weapons not addressed by this bill. True, guns are used in about 65 percent of murders. But that means a full third of the time, they’re not–and there’s no proof that potential killers will just give up if they can’t buy a gun. Just ask OJ Simpson…or Elliot Roger, who used a knife to kill half his victims.

The scariest part of this proposed legislation is the idea that anyone can ask for one of these restraining orders. So, for example, if a gun control activist got ahold of a sign-in sheet from a local gun range, they could start spamming the judicial system with these “gun violence prevention warrants,” claiming that they believe these individuals to be about to commit a crime, and send a squad of police officers to their doorstep to confiscate their firearms. For their own good, of course.

This is legislation we should all keep an eye on. For starters, it’s redundant–if you’re being threatened, you can take out a restraining order or have the person arrested. Also, if law enforcement believes someone is dangerous, in most states they have a right to hold them against their will for a psychiatric evaluation. (In my state, people considered a threat to themselves or others are automatically detained for 72 hours.) There’s a good chance that this bill could be used to harass gun owners who otherwise haven’t done anything illegal or threatening.

Also see: A Real Man’s Responsibilities