Nobody wants a crazy f*ck to have a gun. Or a knife. Actually, knives are OK. So are cans of gasoline and chains and matches. Focus here! Guns are bad! Take away the guns! That’s how the anti-gun rights states roll these days . . .
They’re enacting so-called gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).
GVRO’s are dumb. Why wouldn’t you take a crazy f*ck into protective custody and get them help? Removing a crazy f*ck’s guns to make them safe is like taking whipped cream off a piece of Cheesecake factory cheesecake to make it non-fattening.
But the really scary bit — which we’ve been flagging since California responded to a triple knife murder (along with two firearms-related homicides) by creating GVROs — is the stunning lack of due process afforded gun owners subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order.
Surprise! You’re a crazy f*ck and we’re here to take away your guns. And ammo. And papers and computers. Don’t blame us Sir. It was your soon-to-be-ex-wife who tipped us off. You want them back when? Hire a lawyer. See ya in court!
I played the ex-wife card for a reason. Take it from a two-time loser, ex-wives go a little crazy when they fall off the gravy train. Without due process a gun owner with a pissed-off husband or wife is smack dab in the middle of the state’s firearms-confiscating crosshairs, and not because he or she’s a crazy f*ck.
It’s getting worse. Not only are more states hopping-on to the GVRO bandwagon, not only is the President of the United States up for it (for at least 10 minutes), lawmakers are expanding the category of people who can trigger a GVRO (so to speak). Check this from statesmanjournal.com:
Amidst a crowd of students and advocates rallying for stronger gun regulations, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed Monday the first piece of legislation addressing the issue since the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last month.
The law expands the prohibition of gun ownership to people convicted of domestic violence against non-married intimate partners — closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” . . .
“Closing the ‘intimate partner’ is an important step to keep Oregonians safer from gun violence,” Brown said. “I’m hopeful that the tide is turning on our nation’s gun debate.”
So, in Oregon, anyone you date, for however short of long a time, regardless of whether you made the beast with two backs or not, can tell a judge you’re a crazy f*ck with guns, who can direct the cops to take them all away (and your papers and computer) without prior notice.
Did I wake up in Communist Russia this morning? No, Texas, thank God. Anyway, is this the gun confiscation camel’s nose lovers of firearms freedom have been warning us about for decades? Is this the beginning of the end?