King County, Washington State, Creates Fund to Support Gun Confiscation Program Targeting “Domestic Abusers”
The King County, Washington Kooks are at it again with their attempts to find any path, under any pretense to nudge everyone toward total gun disarmament. Now, when I say everyone, I mean everyone that is NOT an actual government official. If you lack the badge, the id, the special license, you should NOT have any effective means of self-defense.
King County Council members have taken to using a Federal law that requires individuals who have been served with a domestic protection order to turn in their firearms to the local police in their area. What they plan on doing is combing through their database of “domestic abusers” who have not turned in their guns and developing a strategy to go out and seize their guns.
To that end, the councilmembers have earmarked $600,000 to fund the program that will be required to go out to these alleged domestic abusers’ homes and confiscate their guns. This one, of course, is an easy one to get the public to support. Who wants someone who is stalking someone else to be able to get access to guns?
But, as usual, the devil is in the details, and the price you pay for what you imagine is security is to set greater precedent for the gun grabbers to use to ‘justify’ confiscating guns from far more people than actual ‘domestic abusers.’
Just how sure are we, even, that these “domestic abusers” are, in fact, domestic abusers. The Giffords Law Center had this to say about the low standards Washington State is currently using to put people into this ‘domestic abuser’ category. Let’s just say, the standard is far below the alleged American jurisprudence standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Here is the passage from The Giffords Law Center :
Washington enacted a law in 2014 that mirrors federal law by prohibiting gun possession by anyone subject to a protective order……The 2014 law also requires the court issuing the protective order to prohibit the restrained individual from purchasing or possessing firearms or a concealed carry license and require the restrained person to surrender any firearms or concealed carry licenses in his or her possession. The individual must file a proof of surrender with the court.
The court may require the party to surrender any firearm or dangerous weapon in his or her immediate possession or control or subject to his or her immediate possession or control to local law enforcement, his or her counsel, or to any person designated by the court.
These provisions apply to … Restraining orders issued upon filing of a complaint for dissolution of marriage, including ex parte orders [and] Restraining orders issued in cases where parental rights and child support issues are adjudicated, including ex parte orders…
Issuing a restraining order is not very difficult, and the standard for getting a restraining order is significantly low. The standard for awarding a restraining order is largely based on the direct testimony of the person applying for the restraining order.
Restraining orders, in and of themselves, are not necessarily a bad thing, but when you couple restraining orders with confiscating guns, well, now you are going down the road of setting a very dangerous precedent, that your guns can be taken from you without due process.
These moves by the King County Council members, to me, are basically a test model for other gun grabbers to study. How successful will they be in confiscating guns? How much will it cost to collect some said number of guns?
How does the community react to armed government agents knocking on doors to take guns from people who have been convicted of no crime and thus not faced due process before their fundamental rights are violated?
The precedent set by civil asset forfeiture, that the state should have the power to seize your property and limit your rights based solely on the fear you MIGHT engage in criminal activity, is why such things as gun confiscation from people merely being accused of being ‘domestic abusers’ is a perfectly reasonable use of state power against its own citizens.
Sadly, I doubt very much that the citizens of King County will see much wrong with stopping dangerous men (and I am sure that’s who most people imagine when they think of domestic abusers) from having the tools to do bad things to helpless women.
It’s the perfect victimhood scenario to nudge people towards the false choose of surrendering more liberty in exchange for more security.
The best scenario is this, to encourage more people to be armed, to be trained, to be responsible gun owners. One thing almost all REAL domestic abusers have in common is this, they like to target people who can’t effectively fight back. A woman with a gun, who knows how to use it, is not the type of target MOST of these domestic abusers want to target.
King County Council Members aren’t interested in actually helping women under threat from dangerous men. Rather, they’re interested in exploiting a genuine fear to nudge people towards an acceptance of a more powerful state that controls citizens that are increasingly weakened to resist the abuse the state has in the pipeline for the not-so-distant-future.