Trump and the NRA at odds over due process; the NRA is right
President Donald Trump told a bipartisan group of members of Congress that if someone is considered mentally ill, law enforcement should be able to take their guns without due process. The NRA’s public spokesperson Dana Loesch said the president got it wrong on this one – she’s right.
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said. “I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns.” The question becomes who decides who is mentally ill enough to have their Constitutional rights stripped? Is gender dysphoria (transgenderism), a mental illness according to the Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), mentally ill enough to lose a Constitutional right? If due process isn’t used to make the determination, what is?
Trump then explained that simply considering someone mentally ill might be enough.
“Number one, you can take the guns away immediately from people that you can adjudge easily are mentally ill, like this guy,” the president said.
“Adjudging” without the use of the courts would allow some other entitity to decide that your rights are irrelevant because they think you have a mental illness. That would allow law enforcement to search and seize your property without a warrant. Dana Loesch firmly disagrees with the president here.
.@DLoesch: “The NRA is also going to protect due process for innocent Americans, and that is an approach that we are going to hold to. Due process must be respected…it is a foundational principle of this country.” #TheStory pic.twitter.com/DzCFowEsYN
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 1, 2018
Due process is the anchor for all other liberties
— bobby parnell (@bdp514am) March 1, 2018
What happens when someone decides your political or social views are “crazy?” Will your computers and devices then be subject to seizure to prevent you from infecting others with those same views? Who would decide if not the courts?
The president has run afoul of the Constitution with his anti-due process statements. Perhaps it’s bluster and planting an extreme position to create discussion in hopes of a reasonable negotiation or maybe it’s an emotional reaction to recent events. Either way, there’s no way that his view is Conservative, Constitutional or even logical.
