Dianne Feinstein has been a United States Senator for a long time now. During her entire time there, though, she’s pushed for one thing more than anything else, and that was gun control. She’s tried for it time and time again, but through most of her career in that chamber, she’s been downright ineffectual.

Thankfully.

Now, though, she’s taking to the pages of The Hillextoll the virtues of extreme risk protective orders to , also known as red flag orders.

There is one point in the national conversation about gun violence that all Americans should agree on: Individuals who pose a serious threat to themselves or others should not have guns.

Too often we see the deadly consequences when those at risk of committing violence are given easy access to guns. Nearly 40,000 people die each year from gun violence, and on average guns kill seven children every day.

I’ll address some of these “facts” in a post later today, just for the record.

Before many incidents of gun violence, shooters display warning signs of impending violence. However, family and friends – those in the best position to recognize troubling signs – are too often powerless to stop it.

That’s why Congress must pass the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, Sen. Feinstein’s bill to help states enact laws that allow for extreme risk protection orders.

Extreme risk protection orders, often referred to as red flag laws, allow law enforcement and family members to petition courts to temporarily remove guns from dangerous individuals. These laws help save lives without treading on Second Amendment or due process rights.

Well…that last paragraph is a bald-faced lie.

By their very design, red flag laws take guns from people on shaky evidence. That is a violation of an individual’s Second Amendment rights by depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. It’s also a violation of their due process rights because those guns are taken without the person in question getting to face their accuser or even the judge that makes the determination.

In what demented universe is that not treading on someone’s rights.

Feinstein goes on to argue that California is proof that red flag laws work, but she fails to mention how it didn’t stop the Gilroy shooting, the Thousand Oaks shooting, or any of a number of other mass shootings that took place within their borders.

The problem is, though, Feinstein and company are continually using the number of times the law is used to justify the existence. They count every red flag order issued as a win, with no regard to how many innocent people have had their rights trampled on by an oppressive government.

It’s not like Feinstein actually cares about those rights, though. She and people like her routinely distort reality in an effort to push a narrative that would see each and every one of us beholden to the government for our personal safety, a safety they cannot and will not guarantee, it should be noted.

Extreme risk protective orders empower far too many people to trample on individual rights. As we saw in Colorado, it’s far too easy for people to make a claim and try to punish those they dislike. Feinstein doesn’t care about that. She doesn’t care about how many of those “successes” in her beloved California were maliciously motivated, either.

She just cares about finding ways to separate you from your guns.