GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS: Another Tax Funded Study That Reveals Nothing

Did you know your tax dollars are being used to support and expand laws that would brand you as GUILTY – until proven innocent?  That’s right – this backasswards movement is getting a lot of attention, in America, where we have been guaranteed for 200 plus years to be INNOCENT until proven guilty.

Why?  Because the magic little “red flag” pill being pushed by leftists and some confused conservatives as a solution to mass shootings begins with the presumption of guilt – even though no crime has been committed.  What’s more, our tax dollars are being used to push this dangerous agenda – which also violates the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.

Just this week, a highly partisan team of researchers at UC Davis released a study stating that California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders “appear” to be working.  Garen Wintemute, the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program did, however admit “We can’t prove that the orders are responsible for the outcome.”

Now that’s some seriously solid scientific evidence right there.

Democrat and anti-2^nd Amendment Assemblyman Phil Ting went even further with his analysis, calling the research actual proof that gun control is effective. “It proves that strong gun control measures work,” Ting said. “You have potentially 21 people who could have carried out violent acts who aren’t able to because their guns were taken away.”

GOC is pretty darn sure that he would be laughed out of any scientific study for drawing a definitive conclusion using the word “potentially”, but that just doesn’t seem to matter.  The push is on to further expand California’s GRVOs – and Governor Newsom has promised to sign any bill that accomplishes this.

GOC Executive Director Sam Paredes has been fielding media calls ever since the report was made public.  “There is no way for them to quantify what would have happened had they not issued court orders – there is no scientific logic to the study because there is zero follow-up of the individual who has had their guns removed. No mental health evaluation, no nothing. “

Conversely, three men were arrested in other parts of the country after threatening mass shootings on social media.  To make the arrests, local law enforcement acted on existing state laws that outlawed written or digital threats.  Rather than an absence of law, it was an absence of follow-though – much like the flawed research from UC Davis.

“So guns are removed – how is that getting to the heart of the problem?” Paredes continued.  “We’ve said it before – GVROs/red flag laws are insincerity on steroids.”

Further demonstrating the shameful consequences of red flag laws, look no further than Florida, where a man’s guns were seized because he had the same name as a domestic violence abuser.  He lost his guns with no hearing, and must wait until a court date later this month to petition their return – this after proving to police they had the wrong guy. Now that is criminal.