Surprise! Little Marco Rubio betrays gun owners.

Supposedly, during the Medici's reign in the City of Florence, if one had a problem with a neighbor, a business partner, or some merchant who had done you wrong, the solution was to anonymously put that persons name into a box that was kept at the palace gates.  The accusation was enough to throw the person squealed upon in prison, or worse.  There was no confronting your accuser, no jury of your peers, and no appeal.  If that was you, you were essentially convicted and to hell with your rights.  Today, we seem to be trying to replicate this approach.  It is going backwards, and we don't need to do it.

Senator Rubio, the man Trump referred to as "Little Marco Rubio" has a bill he wants to push, apparently approved by none other than your National Rifle Association to spread so called "Red Flag Laws" nationwide.  A discussion of the bill can be found at Off the Grid Survival (not the greatest language but were all big boys.) Hat tip to David Codrea at the War on Guns.

As I have expressed on several occasions, I have real problems with a law that purports to take away my Constitutionally protected rights on the basis of  ex parte proceeding where the "defendant" has no knowledge that an accusation has been lodged, has no ability to defend his position, and the first time he knows anything about it is a 5;00 AM when sheriff's deputies are beating on his door.

Rubio claims to be solving these problems:

According to Rubio’s team, here’s what the bill will do:

Creates an Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program at the Department of Justice Makes states enacting qualifying laws eligible for funding to help implement such laws, as well as priority consideration for Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary grants.

Requires that a qualifying state law be in compliance with the minimum requirements described in the act, including: Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

Providing a process where a law enforcement officer or family member of an individual can petition for – and after notice and hearing, a court can grant – an Extreme Risk Protection Order if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself/herself or others by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

The duration of such order may not exceed 12 months but may be renewed upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence it remains warranted. Respondent has the right to request a hearing to vacate an order or renewal.

Providing a process where a Temporary Ex Parte Extreme Risk Protection Order can be issued if a court finds probable cause to believe that an individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by possessing or purchasing a firearm.

Establishing a felony criminal offense for knowingly making a false statement relating to an Extreme Risk Protection Order regarding a material matter.

Requiring clear processes and instructions for the surrender of a respondent’s firearms should an Extreme Risk Protection Order be issued, as well as clear processes and instructions for the swift return of such firearms upon expiration or successful motion to vacate an order.

Requiring that an issuance of an Extreme Risk Protection Order be reported to the appropriate federal, state, and tribal databases.

The first problem with such a law is that it targets not those who are truly dangerous, but the generally law abiding who happen to utter an unfortunate comment within the hearing of someone who then runs and files for a protection order.  One can imagine that at a Thanksgiving dinner, Uncle Jim says something like "Well, if they had had guns on those planes on 9/11, they would have gotten those towel heads. "  Eventually, Uncle Jim goes off with the other guys to watch the game, and forgets all about it.  Meanwhile, spinster Aunt Sue, who fears guns and doesn't think anyone should have them, runs to court and says that Uncle Jim needs to be "red flagged" because he wants to kill any Muslim he sees.  Her anonymity is protected, and in any case, the process is ex parte so who's to say she lied?  That will never be prosecuted, though it should be.

Assuming Uncle Jim survives the SWAT team invading his house a 5:00 AM, he isn't rich, and can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars required to get his weapons and his rights back.  So effectively, he is now defenseless.  In any case, the guns themselves were only worth a few thousand dollars whereas he will have to spend tens of thousands to get them back.  The state will hardly take the kind of care of his property that he would have, so if they are a bit rusted, or seized up, well that's just the price of keeping the community safe, right?

Meanwhile a truly dangerous criminal, who truly means to kill and maim people, will not be reported or have his guns taken from him.  Why?  Because who in their right minds believes that he won't find out who narced on him?  Who believes he won't retaliate?  That guy is truly dangerous, and nobody is going to mess with him, including your courts.  Meanwhile your busy taking guns away from blowhards like Uncle Jim who isn't the least bit dangerous.

No, Mr. Rubio, while your process sounds all nice a legal like, it will not work that way in the breech.  Its just an excuse for gun grabbers to take yet more guns from the law abiding, while doing nothing about mass shooters.  Anti-gun lawyers and judges will, out of an abundance of caution, take away the rights of any honest citizen that comes to their attention, and resist ever giving the back their rights.  But the dangerous criminals among us will remain.  ready to strike at a moments notice.