Have you ever heard the one about the politician offering assurances that no one is out to take away your guns? Well, a handful of Democrats from California can’t make that claim any longer. Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein are leading a new charge.
In true political anti Second Amendment fashion, and not wishing to waste the opportunity to capitalize on a tragedy, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced the “The Pause for Safety Act.” According to Boxer, The Pause for Safety Act would help ensure that families “and others” can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone close to them who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm.
It would also help ensure that families and others can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant allowing law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that have already been purchased if a court determines that the individual poses a threat to themselves or others.
Last, but not least, it would help ensure that law enforcement makes full use of all existing gun registries when assessing a tip, warning or request from a concerned family member or other close associate. National gun registry? The shortsighted Democrat’s proposed legislation misses the mark on several levels. First, she recently said the following when discussing The Pause for Safety Act.
“It is haunting that the family of the gunman who committed this massacre in Isla Vista was desperate to stop a tragedy, and yet they lacked the tools to do so,” Senator Boxer said. “My bill would give families and associates who fear someone close to them could commit violence new tools to help prevent these tragedies.”
The speech sounds fine… if you do not care about the facts. First, the family did contact law enforcement. Law enforcement did contact the subject and determined he was a well-spoken young man and not a danger—just acting out. The family did not take away the car he later used to maim over a dozen people! Second, of the six people the suspected murder killed (not including himself), the first three were stabbed to death. Why doesn’t the Left want to take away sharp objects or find a way to regulate knives? The murderer used his BMW to hit and injure 13 people; Boxer does not have a provision for family members to engage the police to confiscate an individual’s motor vehicle. Why? The answer is simple. As we all know, it is not about saving lives, it is about an agenda bent on taking away our Second Amendment rights.
According to Boxer’s website, the Act would allow family members “or close associates” to obtain the emergency restraining order and then seek law enforcement confiscation. Does this mean one abusive spouse could claim the other was unstable and likely to hurt someone in an effort to nefariously eliminate the tools of self-defense? Can a nosey neighbor claim they heard you say something that leads them to believe you are a danger to yourself or others and thus the police need to collect data about the firearms you own in preparation for confiscation. How would that be accomplished? Would beat cops be expected to knock on the suspected dangerous person’s door and ask for all of their guns? Or would a SWAT team be kicking in the door with flashbangs, potentially terrorizing anyone in the house in the name of safety? What exactly is a “close associate?” How qualified are these “close associates” and what qualifies them to call in law enforcement to confiscate legally owned items without due process. What is the burden of proof? After all, the California murderer’s videos and subsequent interview was not enough for law enforcement to act or determine him to be a threat. For this Act to be effective, the burden of proof would have to be extremely low and firearms would be confiscated at the slightest accusation.
How far will this proposed legislation go? It is hard to say. The NRA is under fire as always, and the President is showing a willingness to subvert the law by acting unilaterally. He has also threatened to act through Executive Order in cases where he cannot get legislation passed. The danger is real, and the midterm election critical to our future Second Amendment rights.
Of course, it is unlikely the mainstream media will report on this without a heavy anti-gun spin. The responsibility is ours. Please take a few seconds and share this article as widely as possible through email and social media. It is our responsibility to spread the warning and hold any politician endorsing this legislation accountable.
On a related note, Senator Boxer is pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in California by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), Assemblyman Das Williams (D-Santa Barbara) as well as state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara).
What will you do to help spread this message? Tell us in the comment section.