The Massholes who run Massachusetts never seem to get tired of trying to stick it to the state’s gun owners. Just think about Attorney General Maura Healey. As the chief law enforcement officer, she has made it her personal mission to chill gun rights in every possible way, from freezing sales on black rifles to handing out fines to mom and pop gun dealers to launching “consumer safety” investigations into major gun manufacturers.
But she’s not alone. Enter Democratic state Rep. David Linsky. This
clown lawmaker recently introduced a bill (H.3081) that would allow people to petition judges to confiscate one’s firearms under an “extreme risk protective order.”
Say you’re going through a nasty divorce and your ex wants to hit you where it hurts. All she has to do is tell a judge that you are “experiencing a personal crisis” and are at “risk of dangerous behavior” and in comes the nanny-state jackboots to snatch up your guns for at least 10 days! Now, a judge can prolong the order for up to a year if he or she wishes. Needless to say, if you get an anti-gun judge, you’re screwed!
“If someone is having a temporary mental health problem but is a firearms owner, this will be a mechanism for mental health providers to temporarily get those guns out of their hands,” Linsky told The Associated Press.
Linsky’s bill, which currently has 32 co-sponsors is nothing more than a way to circumvent Due Process. Instead of abiding by the U.S. Constitution that requires one to have a fair shake in court before their lawfully owned property is apprehended, lawmakers want to confiscate today and litigate tomorrow. That’s not the way the system works nor the way the system is designed to work.
“We’re actually pretty concerned about the bill. I think it’s an extraordinarily dangerous bill in terms of civil rights and public safety,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts. “It’s a sound bite.”
Indeed, it is a sound bite. The reality is that if someone is a real danger to themselves or others there is a way to deal with that individual. Notify law enforcement! If that individual has committed a crime or if there is a preponderance of the evidence that the individual intends to commit a crime then law enforcement will make an arrest and place that individual in jail. If that individual is on the verge of mental collapse with suicidal ideations, law enforcement will likely remand that individual to a mental health facility for psychiatric evaluation. Or, as a concerned family member or friend, you can talk to that individual (there’s a novel idea, actually communicating with someone) and assist them in getting them the help that they need. Point is, there are already many paths to helping individuals in need.
What we can’t do is order law enforcement to lock someone away or take someone’s property on an unsubstantiated hunch or spite-filled accusation from a relative or friend or ex-spouse. Linsky’s bill would, in effect, create a system where that is possible under the “extreme risk protective order.”
There’s also another flaw with the bill, that is even if it does what it’s supposed to do, it doesn’t guarantee that the individual receives help or treatment.
“We’re labeling someone an extreme risk and taking their civil rights away and letting them walk away? That’s a horrific situation,” said Wallace. “We’re ignoring the human element. We’re ignoring the situation. There are a lot of other ways they can hurt themselves and others.”
Right, just because you’ve confiscated one’s firearms doesn’t mean the individual won’t jump off a bridge or steal a truck and run over a crowd of teens outside a shopping mall. The end goal ought to be getting those struggling with mental health issues the help that they need and putting bad guys behind bars yet Linsky’s bill is less concerned about that than it is focused on confiscating firearms. We need to get the guns, we need to get the guns, we need to get the guns!
What this all boils down to is a nanny-state gun grab. Dangerous people have guns, aahhhhhh! What can we do to stop them? I know, let’s shred the Constitution and lower the evidentiary bar for what constitutes a dangerous person and start grabbing guns from everyone! If we’re wrong, who cares, those dreaded gun owners can always get their firearms back after a lengthy and costly appeal in court.
Yeah, that’s the mindset we’re dealing with. The government is always looking for ways to maximize “public safety” at the cost of individual freedoms. For politicians, anyone with a gun is a threat. Therefore, everyone with a gun is a target. Which is why they keep dreaming up new ways to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.
We’ll keep you posted on the status of Linsky’s bill.