Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Jefe Joshua Horowitz is a Liar

After blogging hundreds, if not thousands of anti-gun rants I’m finally fed up. The CNN editorial This could have prevented Lafayette movie theater killings has brought me to the point of complete exasperation. In it, the Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Josh Horowitz [above] argues that better gun laws would have stopped John Hauser from opening fire at a cinema in Lafayette, LA. Specifically . . .

A policy recently enacted in California, the Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO, would seem to hold enormous promise for those looking to stop the next gunman before he can carry out his plans.

The GVRO is based on the same principle as a domestic violence restraining order. It would allow family members and/or law enforcement to go before a judge and request that guns be temporarily removed from an individual who is likely to be dangerous toward himself and/or others (while allowing for due process).

Am I the only one who reads that the GVRO “would seem to hold enormous promise” and wonders WTF? If one of the point men for civilian disarmament deploys such obvious qualifiers to sell support for a national gun control law, upon what factual foundation could this law rest?

I’ll tell you: none. There is no evidence whatsoever that GVROs would/could/can/will stop a mass shooter – compared to the fact that every mass shooter is stopped by a good guy with a gun be he a policeman, bystander or the (not so good) gunman himself.

Not to put too fine point on it, Josh pulls this stuff out of his posterior parts. But that’s how it is with these people. They justify their Constitutional corruption with nothing more than good intentions. And hope for change. It’s wing-and-a-prayer propaganda that the mainstream media regurgitates without once thinking to challenge its propagators to prove their point. Fact check much? No. Never.

Look at that last bit. Josh says GVROs are potentially awesome “while allowing for due process.” Absolute unmitigated horseshit. In California, where the Constitutional abomination known as AB 1014 was passed into law, family members and police can obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order without any representation from the gun owner. Here it friggin’ is:

This bill would additionally authorize a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified.

Click here for the law as enacted. But let’s be clear: ex parte means “a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties.” The GVRO specifically excludes the gun owner in question from the confiscation hearing. There is no due process, and Horowitz knows it. He’s lying. Because he knows it.

Horowitz knows that the GVRO’s lack of due process is an affront to Americans’ belief that citizens are innocent until proven guilty. He knows that the GVRO creates a situation that is, in fact, the exact opposite. He’s ready, willing and able, happy to piss on our entire system of justice to disarm Americans, to create a fascist state where secret hearings deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights. And Horowitz’s organization calls us insurrectionists.

The GVRO became law in California following the 2014 mass shooting at the University of California-Santa Barbara in Isla Vista. The gunman in that case, Elliot Rodger, had been subject to a welfare check, but law enforcement had no authority to remove his guns. California lawmakers, to their credit, acted quickly and decisively to prevent the next tragedy from happening.

More lies. The police who visited Elliot Rodger before his heinous crimes had every authority to remove his guns. They made the wrong call and chose not to. Like this [via time.com]:

On April 30, deputies from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, which has jurisdiction in Isla Vista, visited Rodgers at his home to assess his mental state. They had been indirectly summoned there by Rodger’s mother. Reportedly disturbed by videos her son had posted on YouTube, she called a therapist who had been treating him, who called a mental-health hotline, which contacted the authorities. The deputies interviewed Rodger and determined that he was shy, according to Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown — but polite and did not pose a risk to himself or others. Absent that, they had no legal right to take him into custody. They urged him to call his mother and they left.

Note: if the cops had determined that Rodger was a threat to himself and others, if they hadn’t been fooled by his act or actually watched the video he uploaded or talked to his mother directly, they could have removed his guns. Better yet, they could have taken Rodgers into protective custody, denying him access to knives (which he used to start his killing spree by stabbing his three roommates to death) and his car (he struck and injured five victims with his BMW).

Again, Horowitz knows these facts and chooses to lie about them. Why wouldn’t he? His campaign for civilian disarmament runs counter to everything that patriotic Americans hold dear. He has to lie about it, and divert attention away from its inherent, amoral failure.

A society whose citizens can no longer peaceably attend church, see a movie or study in school is a society that can no longer call itself free. To state the obvious, James Madison and our Founders did not ratify the Second Amendment so that men such as John Russell Houser could obtain guns, legally or otherwise. Preventing killers like this from arming to the teeth is imperative if we are to “insure domestic Tranquility” as envisioned by our Constitution.

As we say in these parts, look at that baby! Horowitz has to distract readers away from his tissue of lies by redefining freedom (obviously), putting words in the mouths of our Founding Fathers (that they would have spat out) and cherry picking the preamble of the United States Constitution to further his agenda. Here’s the entire text:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In Horowitz’s America, disarmed citizens sacrifice justice (e..g., the GVRO) for domestic tranquility. Two words for that: fascist state. To be fair, Horowitz isn’t lying about the end game. He’s just hiding it in the usual utopian vision of a world without [non-governmental] violence.

What if South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana had put a GVRO policy in place? Family and law enforcement in each of these cases saw the red flags, and in Houser’s case they had taken some steps. What if state legislators had provided them with a new means to intervene and disarm their loved ones before the shooting ever started?

They would have found another way to kill. It’s as simple as that. Besides, we already have commitment procedures for people who are seriously mentally ill; a process that lowers their chance of harming others to near zero. The idea that taking guns away from dangerously mentally ill people –  and leaving them in society – will prevent spree killing is dangerously naive.

I bet Josh Horowitz isn’t that stupid. I bet he’s just a liar, doing his damnedest to mislead Americans into surrendering their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Not that he’d admit it. What liar would?

comments

  1. avatar DaveL says:

    Wouldn’t have helped in Houser’s case. He already HAD a restraining order and HAD his guns taken away. But by the time of the shooting it had long since expired and everybody in his life who might have been in a position to request such a GVRO had already lost contact with him.

  2. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    When you have to habitually lie in order to gain any ground that’s called “losing”. You have no other choice but to present a false narrative because your argument cannot stand on it’s own merits.

    1. avatar Alex Peterson says:

      This.

      *Drops the mic*

      1. avatar AndyNC says:

        Hey, man, you dropped your mic.

      2. avatar Tim Going says:

        Dangit Alex! These mics are expensive! This one’s coming out of your pocket mister!

  3. avatar DoomGuy says:

    I wish these jerks would just up and leave already. And for as much as they proclaim to deplore violence (especially “gun violence”) they sure do love having jackbooted thugs detain, confiscate and even kill law abiding gun owners and make laws that in effect make them second class citizens with no rights to due process, speedy trials, trials by jury, legal representation, the right to face your accuser, cruel and unusual punishments, and the right against self incrimination.

  4. avatar Removed_californian says:

    CSGV = Lies?

    This parallel, this epiphany: when was it made clear to you?! When did you become enlightened?!?! WHO HAS TAUGHT YOU TEH TROOF

    /sarc

    Csgv should be an Instant connection to bullshit.

  5. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    What if South Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana had put a GVRO policy in place? Family and law enforcement in each of these cases saw the red flags, and in Houser’s case they had taken some steps. What if state legislators had provided them with a new means to intervene and disarm their loved ones before the shooting ever started?

    What if purple was green and what if Josh was a potato?

    1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

      Don’t insult potatoes. Let’s keep our comments civil.

  6. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    Wouldn’t it nice if restraining orders worked? Experts and scholarly articles say that it’s not effective against those that present the greatest threat. It can actually precipitate a violent response too – see https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-act-violence/201207/do-domestic-violence-restraining-orders-ever-really-work & DOJ report https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/225722.pdf

    Two years ago a neighbor was murdered by her ex around noon in full view of many at an outdoor restaurant 3 blocks from PD HQ. He eluded PD and remains at large. The restraining order didn’t prevent her death, nor countless other domestic violence homicides and injuries.

    CSGV and others of their ilk will distort facts to suit their agenda. Liars lie – that’s the reality of the situation. Where I believe we CAN make an impact is to complain to CNN and their advertisers when patently false claims are not rebutted.

    FWIW, it can effective to point out that claims like GSGV’s harms women because it promotes feckless recommendations instead of those that work. Don’t let your opponents define the battleground.

    1. avatar Coffee Addict says:

      if restraining orders worked, cops would carry them in their holsters instead of guns.

      1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

        +1: LOL

      2. avatar Aaron says:

        restraining orders remind me of the old quote about when French foreign minister Laval asked Stalin to improve the condition of Russian Catholics to avoid provoking the Pope:

        “Oho, the pope? How many battalions does HE have?”

        “Oh, you have a restraining order? Well then, I’ll immediately stop stabbing you”

  7. avatar thewiz says:

    Just another LIGGL. lying ignorant gungrabbing liberal .

  8. avatar JoshinGA says:

    “The idea that taking guns away from dangerously mentally ill people – and leaving them in society – will prevent spree killing is dangerously naive.” This. So many times this. If you are too dangerous to society to be allowed to own firearms, you shouldnt be allowed to be among the free people.

    1. avatar Jason says:

      Same way I feel for all crime, personally. Once time is served the person should be given a chance to reinsert themselves into society with a clean record. For those who would say some crimes are just too horrendous to erase its history then don’t let the perp out. How can a person ever right their course if the only job they can get after prison is flipping burgers. Of course they will return to crime, it pays better.

  9. avatar gsnyder says:

    You Robert are not alone. The lies are evident and gut wrenchingly sick. If articles such as your own became the media standard we’d be on the right track. Until we can expose these people as the liars they are, many average citizens will be led off the cliff toward the loss of liberty they enjoy, yet do not and will not fully comprehend until it has evaporated.

    The question is, how do we get the message out? How do we help the citizens understand it is wrongheaded to battle their Country’s own Constitution and why Rights are what they are.

  10. avatar neiowa says:

    Never trust a metro that spends more on a haircut that a woman.

  11. avatar Mad Max says:

    Is that restraining order printed on AR500 ASC Level III+ plates?

    It would be even better if the potential victims also packed heat behind it.

  12. avatar Dustin says:

    I ran out of patience with it waayyy many years ago… I don’t waste civility on their kind anymore. They know they’re lying. They know it results in more dead people. They like it this way because the bodies of dead people is what keeps them relevant. It’s what pumps their bank account.

    It’s easy to figure out. Does being pro-gun look good the way they paint it? No, hell no. Yet we still remain, do we not? If being pro-gun actually were bad, why would so many support the NRA and the GOA? If guns were bad and only bad, evil people have them, then why do they sell so well? Because over half the country is evil?

    Yes.

    But it’s not the half these bastards keep saying… They are the evil ones. Setting children up for slaughter so they can get votes from fools. Leading the gullible to toss themselves and their whole families to the lions, then pointing the finger at those who begged them not to do it.

    Anti-gun degenerates know full well that they are liars. They love the blood; it’s their paycheck.

    Anti-gunners are true, unforgivable evil.

  13. avatar Mark N. says:

    “The GVRO became law in California following the 2014 mass shooting at the University of California-Santa Barbara in Isla Vista. The gunman in that case, Elliot Rodger, had been subject to a welfare check, but law enforcement had no authority to remove his guns. California lawmakers, to their credit, acted quickly and decisively to prevent the next tragedy from happening.” Actually. this is ALL exactly true: the police had no authority to remove him or his guns without making a determination that he presented an immediate threat of harm to himself or others, which determination they did not make. Further, the Rodger incident WAS used as the excuse to enact the law, despite the fact that HIS PARENTS DID NOT KNOW HE OWNED GUNS! and that therefore the law wold have done nothing to stop his attack. Further, the GVRO does not include any restraint on personal liberty, so his attack with a knife and his car would not have been prevented. And finally, the proposed law had already been written but not proposed at the time of the Rodgers incident; the incident simply made it easy to sell the bill and get it passed.

    2. “A policy recently enacted in California, the Gun Violence Restraining Order, or GVRO, would seem to hold enormous promise…” This is an opinion, not a statement of fact, and therefore cannot be a lie, even if you disagree with it.

    3. “There is no evidence whatsoever that GVROs would/could/can/will stop a mass shooter – compared to the fact that every mass shooter is stopped by a good guy with a gun be he a policeman, bystander or the (not so good) gunman himself.” While literally true, without a law in existence for a period of time, there is no evidentiary basis to say that such orders don’t work, either. It’s like asking how many people have been deterred from committing suicide by an involuntary mental health commitment; some will be helped, others will not. So this is a nonsequitur.

    4. “But let’s be clear: ex parte means ‘a legal proceeding brought by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification of other parties.’ The GVRO specifically excludes the gun owner in question from the confiscation hearing.” False, unless you add in “may be brought”. The subject of the order is not excluded, rather it is permissible to proceed without him/her or his legal representative, unless good cause is shown that the order be issued without alerting the subject. I have been to innumerable ex parte hearings on motions brought by the other side of an action. In any event, and although you are entitled to your opinion, multiple Supreme Courts have held that such procedures comply with due process. Finally, and in a striking omission, you ignore that the temporary order is a) good for only 21 days (or less), and b) that the guns may be turned over to an FFL for safe keeping, not necessarily to the police. A longer ban (up to one year) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. By contrast, the mere fact of being involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 results in a TEN YEAR firearms prohibition, and there is only a single opportunity in that ten year period to petition for return of firearms. You want to talk about due process? The ban applies even if the subject of the order is released because he or she is NOT a danger to him/herself or others.

    The main fallacy of this idiot’s position is the fact that the Lafayette shooter was already a prohibited person, and it is obvious that the NICS system didn’t catch it. There is no reason to believe (absent a state with its own background check system like California has) that the restriction will be caught by NICS or for a purchase in another state. Or that a firearm will not be obtained through the black market. This is the innate flaw of all of these laws.

    P.S. Keep your eye on this guy. He is the most rabid spokesman for the gun banners. He is still arguing that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Heller and McDonald. I wonder if he has a bodyguard; it would be a fair assumption, given that Shannon and The Mighty Midget have them.

    1. avatar GayGunOwner says:

      Thanks, Mark. Insightful comments.

    2. avatar rlc2 says:

      Thanks for keeping RF honest on the GVRO facts, Mark N.
      And your final point about the federal NICS being useless if the input is not maintained is really the key point.

      Politicians should not pass any more laws until the systems required for the ones they have passed, are funded, and we can see the outcome- or unintended consequences of same.

      California and a couple other states are candidates for exactly that kind of study- to see what effect, if any, that having tighter background checking actually makes on gun crimes. UCDavis prof Wintermute has suggested same- the problem is we can expect douchwaffles like CSGV and Brady to obscure the facts there, as they have on other studys showing little to know effect on reducing crime, and indeed- some positively correlated effect on crime reduction for enacting concealed carry.

      So, keep on broadcasting the push-back, RF- reduce the bombast if you can, and stick a little closer to the facts- to educate other interested new voters seeking the Truth About Guns. That works and exposes the lies and agitprop that is gleefully traded up the chain by journalistas and faux news sources like Trace. It just takes time, but its working. The truth will set you free.

  14. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    It would allow family members and/or law enforcement to go before a judge and request that guns be temporarily removed from an individual who is likely to be dangerous toward himself and/or others (while allowing for due process). Contradictory statement. No due process with these critters.

    1. avatar DaveG says:

      If a family can’t make the case in court (or won’t) to get their mentally ill person into an involuntary hospitalization, what makes anyone think that the same family will do what it takes to get a GVRO?

      The process and evidence is the same, or at least it should be.

  15. avatar Bob says:

    “The idea that taking guns away from dangerously mentally ill people – and leaving them in society – will prevent spree killing is dangerously naive.”

    ^this. So motherf’ing this.

    If they are so dangerous, really that dangerous, really do something, something that stops the nut from shooting me in a movie or knifing me in the grocery checkout line or driving over me with their car.

  16. avatar bob says:

    What’s to stop a perp who has had his guns taken via GVRO from acquiring more from his friendly neighborhood MS 13 member or mafioso?

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if the people guarding Josh and his crew had their guns taken away for being a danger to others? Hmmm.

  18. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    If the government can use welfare to break up the black inner city family, then the government can make every slight disagreement between a man and woman a reason to disarm the family unit. Using advertising and the public education system to undermine the parental authority. Interesting how the definition of a family was expanded and another definition of the family they try to disarm.

  19. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    So the anti-gun folks try and tell us that defensive gun uses don’t exist because there isn’t any media coverage or police reports to prove them.

    But….

    We are supposed to accept that the GRVO and similar ideas are perfectly effective exactly because there isn’t any media coverage or police reports.

    Our lack of evidence means fail, their lack of evidence means winning.

    We really need to just stick with open mockery of these people. Seriously… just point at them and laugh. It’s really the only thing that might stop them.

  20. avatar Joe R. says:

    No one can protect you on an individual level (not even in prison). It is wrongful, not just wrong for someone to hold out that they can/are/wiill do that.
    This latest theater shooting should prove that to you before anything else. This guy knows it. He’s trying to prevent you from conducting a civil war, especially to defend America, and its Constitution from gun/power grabbers like him. This is a problem we have with LIBERALS, of any ilk, but solidly centered in the gravity well that is the evil blue state house of (D).

  21. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    “Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence …”

    Translated: Executive Director of the me-too Coalition to provide me too with some cheesy, liberal sounding coalition to be executive-something of…… Because I’m just a born-again retard, who in any meaningful field, is doomed to remain forever an absolute and utterly worthless nobody…..

  22. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    Now I know who’s responsible (or at least claiming credit) for CA’s idiotic useless microstamping law: Mr. Horowitz per his bio.

    Happens to mention his assistance in Ileto v. Glock – which the 9th Circuit decided in favor of Glock and Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. Not exactly one of his triumphs.

    Ammoland has an interesting piece too: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/08/tough-year-for-josh-horwitz-coalition-to-stop-gun-violence/ where I learned that, wait for it…he’s been feeding at Bloomberg’s trough for decades. CSGV was formally called “National Coalition to Ban Handguns” before rebranding themselves.

  23. avatar JSJ says:

    Perfect. Now an abusive spouse or other can have the courts disarm their victim on trumped up accusations with no judicial review. What could possibly go wrong?

  24. avatar Lance Manion says:

    Definition from Manion’s Law Dictionary: Restraining Order: A piece of paper, generally 8.5″x11″, containing printed words from both the English language and ancient Latin instructing the Respondent to stay away from the Petitioner.

    The paper is signed by a judge, magistrate, part-time hearing officer, or other bored, burned-out, and ill-informed government official after the petitioner signs a pre-printed paper (Petition) alleging certain “facts” (term intentionally used loosely) which are always conclusory and often either speculative or knowingly untrue, but which by definition never allege the entire story.

    Upon a careful balancing of the constitutional and natural rights of the Respondent, the tearful demands of the Petitioner, and most importantly the personal interest of the official, the Restraining Order is signed 100 percent of the time. The Restraining Order is served by a Sheriff’s Deputy to the Respondent. This is preferably done at the Respondent’s place of work so that the Respondent, his employer, and that nosy bitch Doris in Accounting, are aware that the Petitioner has accused the Respondent of being dangerous.

    The Restraining Order carries the full force of law: If the Respondent violates the 8.5″x11″ piece of paper and its English/Latin commands by arming himself with several deadly weapons and having unlawful contact with the Petitioner by murdering, raping, kidnapping, or dismembering her, he will be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or 10 days in jail.

    Related: Gun Violence Restraining Order. An equally useless deterrent which seeks not to protect any particular person (Petitioner) but rather “no particular person” by ordering (in English/Latin) that Respondent shall not have a gun. The Petition is “reviewed” by the government official without notice or input from the Respondent to determine if it meets certain strict legal requirements such as whether the Respondent has been acting “weird, funny, quiet, loud, emotional, non-emotional, or otherwise kooky.” Generally used as cover for the ass of somebody else (police, judge, politician, etc.).

  25. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    One more thing…Mr. Horowitz extols the virtues of California’s GRVO, but the recommendation fails the smell test. How many have been issued since the GRVO became effective?

    None that I can find. And plenty of articles from law journals and others not aligned with “the gun lobby” that decry it as #FAIL too.

    Mr. Horowitz’ claims about John Hauser in the Huffington Post and CNN are astounding. Despite nearly fatally strangling his mother, she declined to press charges against her son. Likely, an entirely different outcome had she done so. She blames the courts and mental health workers for failing to prevent the theater shooting according to Horowitz.

    I’m relieved and grateful if Mr. Horowitz is the best and brightest that the anti-gun elements can muster. Ridiculous assertions and illogical claims. We need more like him to highlight the absurdity of the antis bogus claims and solutions.

  26. avatar Cassandra (of Troy) says:

    Note how similar would-be Beriya successor Horowitz’s ‘common sense gun violence solution’ is to the current ‘anti-terrorist’ law/s that allow/s the legal kidnapping/subsequent indefinite detention at a classified location, denial of legal representation, & notification of family members of Americans on the suspicion/accusation (would that I could do italics) of aiding/abetting terrorists &/or planning such acts.

    Like Yogi famously said,: “It’s deja-vu all over again”.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email