The mainstream media has gone on a full-on "gun confiscation' push rather than their usual call for gun control, with outlets like ABC News pushing for " Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)" which would "empowers family members and police to take guns away from a person who may pose a danger to themselves or others. The person's access to firearms is blocked until they can demonstrate that the risk is over," dressing up the direct violation of the Fifth Amendment by using terminology like "ERPOs are a temporary restraining order for guns."
As of now, only Washington, California, Connecticut and most recently Oregon have ERPO laws (while Indiana and Texas have modified risk warrant statutes). Over the past year, however, spurred by a string of mass shootings beginning with the Pulse Nightclub attack that killed 49 in June 2016, legislatures in 19 states and Washington, D.C., have taken up 32 separate ERPO bills for consideration, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization that advocates for gun control.
Everytown’s deputy legal director, William Rosen, told ABC News that list will grow. “We expect to see at least as much interest in 2018,” he said.
“There is a growing consensus,” added Lauren Alfred of the gun violence prevention group Sandy Hook Promise, “that this is the first step we should be taking when we are talking about people who are at risk of hurting themselves or others.”
States enacting these types of orders are "empowering" family members and law enforcement to strip a persons Second Amendment right to bear arms by violating their Fifth Amendment which states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," from nothing more than an accusation that the person is a danger to themselves or others.
Advocates claim that the guns would be confiscated after an order from a judge, claiming that implies "due process" to get around the Fifth Amendment, but as Breitbart points out by using Washington state as an example, "Such orders allow a judge to issue an ex parte order for the confiscation of an American’s firearms. This means the order can be issued without the firearm owner even being present for the process. His or her first knowledge of the order would come when police knocked on their door to sweep the house for firearms."
That same article admits these types of orders, which are generally pushed the hardest after a mass shooting occurs, the same as the howling for gun control after any tragedies, is most often effective is in stemming suicides, not mass shootings, but the fact is gun control and confiscation advocates are using these types of ERPOs as just the first step and back door, in their long term plan to confiscate all guns from Americans.
California outlet Lacrosse Tribune shows us exactly how these types of orders can be used as a back door to total gun confiscation. In CA it is called Armed and Prohibited Persons System, or APPS program, described as "an automated system for tracking firearm owners and to provide the legal authority to proactively disarm convicted criminals, people with certain mental illnesses, and others deemed dangerous."
The article states the names on their list grew by 14 percent in 2016 because "the state expanded its data-collection beyond handguns to include long guns like shotguns and rifles."
The headline on the piece makes it clear that this is being reported on because of the tragic events in Texas, and it is titled "California’s unique gun-confiscation program in spotlight after Texas church massacre," yet within the article itself it explains why this type of order would not have made a difference in the case of the Texas shooter even had he lived in CA, because the military admitted it had "failed to submit his domestic-violence conviction into a federal database after he was discharged from the military", allowing the shooter to pass several background checks and buy the firearms.
This is the type of rhetoric being seen across the mainstream media, but perhaps the most egregious comes from the Boston Globe which headlines with "Hand Over Your Weapons," where they encourage gun control advocates to start with something "smaller" and "more targeted" such as the the ERPO and APPS laws, because they are "more politically viable, and legally defensible, than gun confiscation."
The writer makes his stance clear by referring to the "gun culture" describing it as "fanaticism," but pushes for the idea of starting out by confiscating some of the guns, via the types of orders listed above, because, in his words, "sending government agents to claim them could end very, very badly."
Could? Could end very, very badly? Massive understatement. As the NRA stated in 2015, when Obama and liberals were constantly hammering gun control and using Australia's mandatory "buyback" (RE: gun confiscation) program as an example, "there will be blood."
The writer of the Boston Globe piece makes the ultimate goal clear at the end of the article though, with the following concluding paragraph:
Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem.
I disagree, attempting to confiscate American's guns, rather than acknowledging it is the person pulling the trigger that is the problem because triggers do not pull themselves, nor do they target victims, is a guaranteed way to bring more blood to the streets .
Let me put this in caps and bold print.... AMERICAN GUNS OWNERS WILL NOT HAND OVER THEIR WEAPONS AND IF YOU TRY TO TAKE THEM BY FORCE 'THERE WILL BE BLOOD.'
Any person, writer, publication or politician that suggests or attempts to enact any type of gun confiscation, is inciting violence and attempting to incite a second civil war in America.
I want to highlight two clips of interviews, both shown in the 1st video below, because we often see members of Hollywood hailed by the mainstream media for pontificating on gun control, attempting to use their dwindling "fame" to influence the masses, but when you have an American actor that actually argues for the Second Amendment, they tune out, ignore them, refuse to catapult them into the spotlight because their message doesn't fit the preferred narrative.
Kurt Russell, one of the few celebrities that doesn't think members of Hollywood should be pushing their politics on others, but is willing to respond if he is put on the spot on an issue, literally makes mincemeat of "gun control" arguments. In the first segment he is on The View back in 2015, and he politely makes his point, but it is the second clip where Russell crushes the "gun control" proponent's arguments, then highlights how many attacks with knives and cars are being conducted and asking if everything should be "banned" as the gun control advocate is suggesting for weapons.
While the clips are older, his arguments and points are just as relevant today.
The second video below is newer, covers a whole host of different moving parts in this whole conversation about weapons, from RINOs in Congress more than willing to sacrifice Americans' rights in the name of compromise, to biblical scripture showing Christians have the right and obligation to protect themselves and their families, and on the history of what happens to the masses when their government disarms them.