Anti-gunners tend to be liberals, and liberals like to pretend that they care about the poor.
So, why then are they proposing laws that will disproportionately hurt the poor?
Allow me to back up a bit. You see, right now, Democrats are pushing for red flag laws. However, as a columnist at the Minot Daily News notes, there are costs in fighting such rules.
This week state lawmakers held a committee hearing on so-called “red flag” legislation introduced by state Rep. Karla Rose Hanson, D-Fargo.
This bill is alarming. All the more so because behind it is a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and law enforcement leaders from around the state.
In fact, the more I consider the legislation, the more I find to be alarmed about.
It would allow law enforcement to take away your guns and force you to attend a court hearing where you must prove you’re not dangerous to get them back.
If you want legal counsel to help you defend yourself in this guilty-until-proven-innocent proceeding you’ll have to pay for it yourself. If you can afford it.
This would be a civil proceeding. Public defenders only work criminal cases.
The writer, Rob Port, brings up another point that often gets missed. An attorney may not be strictly required for such proceedings, but a lawyer can also help you combat a court that has already decided you represent a threat.
Yet many poor gun owners may not be able to hire an attorney to help them, putting them at a distinct disadvantage.
“If they can afford a gun, they can afford an attorney,” some might argue, but that’s a load of bull. For one thing, people can save up their money to purchase a firearm to help them defend themselves and their homes, but attorneys don’t operate on installment plans. For another, one may buy guns when times are good, only to find themselves destitute later. Fortunes can change. What one can afford today doesn’t necessarily represent what they can afford a year from now.
Because of that, this measure will disproportionately impact poor individuals and families. To make matters worse, poor communities are disproportionately minority communities, which means minorities are more likely to be impacted than any other group.
Meanwhile, the mass shooters these laws are intended to combat tend to be white, often middle-class, less likely to be discovered or caught by a red flag law, and more likely to have the resources to get their guns back.
In other words, those who are pushing for red flag law are making it easier to disarm the disadvantaged and minority populations in our communities while doing little or nothing to stop the actual mass shootings or other violent outbursts these laws are supposed to prevent.
Yeah, I know, announcing that a gun control measure is going to fail is like announcing the sky is blue, but it still needs to be said. Otherwise, proponents of such laws will keep pushing them and pretend they never knew this would happen.