Since Gov. Gretchen Whitmer entered office, she's had an anti-gun agenda. The state has embraced a number of gun control laws under her "leadership," and it seems like that's fine with way too many people there.
Among the laws passed was a red flag law.
These measures are popular with anti-gunners, and even some Republicans have expressed support for them, but they're a violation of the constitutional rights of anyone targeted by such a law. Not only are they losing their Second Amendment rights, but they're losing them without due process.
Yet what has been done by the legislature can be undone by the legislature, and a group of Republican lawmakers is trying to do just that.
As the Michigan House Judiciary Committee debated overturning the state’s red flag law, gun rights advocates aired their grievances with the law and how they considered it to violate constitutional rights.
The main point that proponents of the three-bill package made was that the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, passed in 2023, specifically provisions for ex parte orders that are able to be issued if there is clear and convincing evidence that a person will harm themselves or others with a gun, insisting it violates due process rights by removing the gun without a prior hearing.
The legislation, introduced by Rep. James DeSana (R-Carleton), has a near-zero chance of passage through the Democratic-controlled Michigan Senate, much less past Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Regardless, DeSana said his intent in bringing the bills forward went beyond adherence to the Second Amendment.
“Another constitutionally protected right is the right to due process, and I cannot think of any more important right than the right to your day in court and the right to face your accuser and the right to tell your story, which has been denied our gun owners in the state of Michigan,” DeSana said.
Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), who had chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the passage of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, repeatedly pushed back against DeSana and others testifying in favor of the bill. She argued that, because of the option to have an appeal hearing on an Extreme Risk Protection Order, due process was not being violated and people were being given their day in court.
I'm sorry, but your day in court coming after you've already been stripped of your right to keep and bear arms is not the same thing as having your day in court.
Plus, because this isn't a criminal matter, those who don't have the means to hire an attorney to fight on their behalf in that courtroom will be at a severe disadvantage in protecting their rights. That's not due process when you're talking about a civil liberty. I don't care how you try to shake it out, especially when that appeal hearing will ultimately mean the individual in question has to essentially prove their innocence.
That's not due process. That's not how things are supposed to work in this country.
Unfortunately, one thing the article did get right is that there's almost no chance of this law passing. Whether it's a valiant gesture or political grandstanding doesn't really matter because everyone knows the outcome.
That doesn't mean that DeSana is wrong, though.
It also doesn't mean he shouldn't see his bill become law. In a just world, it would.
Then again, in a just world, it wouldn't be necessary because red flag laws wouldn't be a thing.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member