FNHQ has a wonderful new gun contol scheme that both sides like, and that works, they say.
Of course, FNHQ says quite a lot, and a fraction of that is true. In this case, the wonderful new scheme is to confiscae guns from those determined to be unfit for gun ownership.
And of course, there are problems, starting with who rules on fitness? Past experiments along those lines had the police ruling on the individual’s owner/buyer’s fitness, just as the Illinois State law that keeps Chicago’s good citizen majority disarmed.
The second problem is that experience with Lautenberg shows that a high percentage of domestic violence are due to pique, not to anything a reasonable person would calll violence. And if the victim “admits the crime” to expedite a divorce, they have lost their gun rights, including the right to defend self and pelf with an effective weapon.
And then, among other problems, is this one:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are many other problems as well, not the least being that in the form presented by FNHQ it allows the State to determine who owns guns, when the Bill of Rights was written to assure “every man be armed.” (Patrick Henry, 1788)
If the victim denies doing violence to the complainant, the victim may attempt to explain things to a judge. But the victim usually has no proof and it is very hard to prove a negative. so the victim’s goose is coked either way.
So it is a case of “No Children, your scheme is not new, not successful, and detested by thoughtful ppersons on both sides of the gun control row.
And at this rate it seems the only thign worth reading FNHQ for are the yucks.