Posted September 13, 2017 3:06 pm by Comments

By Trevor Burrus, Matthew Larosiere Trevor Burrus, Matthew Larosiere

It’s common for lawmakers to go after guns when
there’s a “crisis.” The governor of the U.S.
Virgin Islands ordered the National Guard to
seize guns before Hurricane Irma hit, and the mayor of New Orleans
did something similar before Katrina. More broadly, lawmakers often
go after guns in smaller crises, such as domestic violence
situations or when there are concerns that a potentially dangerous
person might misuse a gun. While that might seem like a good policy
in theory, it should concern anyone who cares about due process and
protecting constitutional rights. That’s why it was troubling
when, at the 2017 American Bar Association annual meeting, the ABA
House of Delegates formally adopted resolution 118B, which urges
state governments to put in place “GVRO”s (Gun Violence
Restraining Orders). GVROs enable law enforcement to search for and
seize a person’s lawfully possessed arms on the theory that they
may pose a danger to themselves or others.

The ABA, whose primary purpose is to set academic standards for
law schools and propose codes of ethics for lawyers, has never been
too fond of the Second Amendment. As early as 1965, the ABA
favored restrictive gun control. What is surprising about this
resolution, though, is the lack of attention paid …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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