When red flag laws first started gaining in popularity, I made a note that states with such laws would use the number of times the law was used to justify the existence of said law. It doesn't matter if mass shootings increase, if violent crime increases, or if 99 percent of those who were hit with the order were hit wrongfully, they'd still tout it as working because it was used X many times.

And, so far, that's precisely what's happened.

That's bad enough as it is, but it doesn't help when the media buys into the BS. After all, they're supposed to work as a check on the government. They're supposed to question the official narrative.

I'm not shocked that they don't, mind you. I'm used to it by now, but I still want to call them out on it, especially when they go from simply being uncritical to being the laws' cheerleaders.

Santa Clara County seizes more guns from dangerous, disturbed, and suicidal people than anywhere else in California, according to a new State Attorney General’s report.

Well, we're off to a banger of a start, aren't we?

I mean, they're already laying the groundwork that all of the red flag orders were, in fact, justified; that everyone who was hit with one represented a danger to themselves or someone else.

Moving on...

Of the 2,719 GVROs issued in California last year, 24% were issued in Santa Clara County.

Santa Clara County issued 645 GVROs last year. In one case, a man communicated that he was going to get guns and commit a school shooting at a local high school. Quick action by the San Jose Police Department in obtaining a GVRO made it illegal for him to buy weapons.

In another case, an armed man threatened to hurt himself and his wife. Police obtained a GVRO to seize three firearms before he was arrested.

See, these are cherry-picked examples of GVROs that are meant to make the entire thing look like a good thing.

The thing is, both of these examples regard someone making terroristic threats. Under California law, the charge is "criminal threats" and it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Had they been charged with a felony, they'd be prohibited from buying guns or even having them as it currently stands. No red flag law would be needed.

That's part of the issue with GVROs in the first place, they're just not needed for the truly dangerous people. 

Yet my question is how many of those order were issued, stripping people of their right to keep and bear arms, when there was no threat at all? I mean, I've seen people accused of being horrible, violent people simply because they said they were ready and a little eager to defend themselves if the mob came for them. It's not difficult to imagine someone taking out a GVRO on such a person, claiming there's a threat, and a judge granting it initially only to rescind it later.

Those never seem to show up in these reports.

You can't tell me that there's never been a false or inaccurate report in California's history. There's been too many of them over the years since the state first implemented them for me to buy that.

But when the media is cheerleading for you like this, you don't actually have to even acknowledge those. They'll cover for you just fine without ever asking an inconvenient question.

It must be nice.