Local lawmakers introduce new red flag firearm seizure bill

The issue of gun control is one of the largest and most divisive political debates in the United States today. The argument on whether or not “assault rifles” should be legally available to American citizens, among other gun control topics, have made more than a few family reunions and Thanksgivings awkward.

I’ve already made my view on gun control and the Second Amendment abundantly clear with past articles I’ve written for this paper. I’m a Constitutionalist, and therefore support the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms against the threat of tyranny. And as a supporter of the Second Amendment, I’ve always felt comfortable with the firearm laws of North Dakota. As someone who has lived in this state for most of my life, I’ve always been proud of the positive attitude most North Dakotans have in regard to firearms. But this comfort I felt with this state was tainted earlier this month when I learned of House Bill 1537.

It’d be obvious, to say the least, that this bill is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. 

House Bill 1537 is a bipartisan bill that was proposed by State Rep. Rose Hanson Jan. 15. This bill, according to Hanson and other supporters, would “save lives by enabling people to act before warning signs escalate into tragedies.” The actual text of the bill adds a new section to the North Dakota Century Code that allows law enforcement to conduct a search and seizure of any North Dakotan’s firearm(s) if they are considered “dangerous” or if family members, friends or law enforcement officers believe a person is “a risk of personal injury to self or others.”

If said person is deemed a threat to themselves or others by a judge, that judge can issue an order to seize that person’s firearms. This order lasts for a duration of one year, although it can be extended if a judge believes the person is still a threat. If a person who has had their firearms seized by the police thinks they aren’t a threat, they can petition the court to terminate the seizure order and must present evidence that proves they are in fact not a dangerous person.

It’d be obvious, to say the least, that this bill is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment. This proposed piece of legislation would give the North Dakota government the ability to seize the arms of any North Dakotan who has been deemed a “dangerous person” by a judge. What exactly constitutes someone being a threat? According to the bill, several actions or characteristics warrant a seizure order, including someone having committed an act of violence or threat of violence, violence or cruelty toward an animal, prior illegal or reckless use of a firearm, a restraining order being issued against them and several others.

So according to this bill, if you’ve recklessly discharged your firearm before, such as accidentally firing it while in city limits, you could have a seizure order issued against you. If you’ve threatened someone before, such as in an act of passion against someone you immensely dislike, you could have your firearm(s) seized by the government. If you’ve been arrested for a violent crime, such as assault or harassment, you no longer have a right to the Second Amendment.

House Bill 1537 is nothing more than an attempt to put a stranglehold on the Second Amendment for North Dakotans.

I’m not condoning any of these behaviors or actions at all, but I find it abhorrent that this bill’s author(s) think a person’s constitutional right should be taken away so flagrantly. Can you imagine if this standard was applied to any of the other amendments in the Constitution? Can you even begin to fathom what would happen if a bill was drafted that restricted our First Amendment rights if one of us committed libel or slander? What would you think if someone wrote a bill that stated the Fourth Amendment didn’t apply to you anymore if you have a criminal record?

I’d like to think you couldn’t conjure up an image like that in your head because it seems too far-fetched and totalitarian to exist in a country like the United States, a country built on a system of limited government and individual freedoms. These freedoms are written down in our Constitution and clearly lay out what we as humans have a God-given right to. These rights cannot and should not be violated by our government, both local and federal, but time and time again we’ve seen public officials and bureaucrats infringe on our freedoms in the name of “public safety” and “American security.”

Now, I know to some the idea of taking guns away from people with criminal records or histories of violent action(s) sounds nice and cozy. Why should we allow those who have assaulted or harassed other citizens to own weapons? Why should somebody who kicked a dog or got a restraining order slapped on them get to keep a rifle or shotgun in their home? Well, I’ll tell you why: because the Constitution applies to everybody. The standard that was set by our Founding Fathers allows each and every American to exercise their Constitutional rights, despite what we or our government thinks of them.

Well, I for one like the Constitution. I like the fact that we have a right to free speech, privacy from government searches, property rights and the ability to keep and bear arms in the name of defending these liberties. House Bill 1537 is nothing more than an attempt to put a stranglehold on the Second Amendment for North Dakotans, all in the name of keeping us safe from ourselves. I hope that the North Dakota Legislature shoots down this bill (pardon the pun) and stops another roadblock from being constructed in the face of the Constitution and our ability to exercise our rights.