Commentary: There’s a dark side to the debate on gun laws that is not seen in any of our other political discussions: thinly veiled, or often completely unveiled threats of violence.
Clare Chase, a Republican candidate running for Congress, was the latest to participate. She recently posted an online video in opposition to bills in the state Legislature that would allow the courts to temporarily remove firearms from those shown to be a threat to themselves or others.
“Today I have a few words about the so-called red flag laws that the liberals in Santa Fe are pushing,” Chase said. She then fires a rifle from a tripod on the tailgate of a pickup truck at a red piece of cloth that had been hung out in the desert. The video ends with her turning to the camera and saying, “Today I have a few words for the liberals in Santa Fe; come and take ‘em.”
As Chase clearly knows, if a court ever did file an emergency order of protection on her, it would not be liberals from Santa Fe enforcing that order. It would be sworn law enforcement officers from her own community. Is she honestly suggesting that she would be willing to kill those officers rather than comply with a lawful court order? Or, even kill liberals from Santa Fe, for that matter?
Of course she isn’t. She’s the wife of a millionaire, dabbling in politics for the first time. Everybody watching the video knows that it’s all bluster and hot air. But it is a clear threat, nonetheless. And it’s the kind of thing that happens all the time when gun laws are being debated. And only when gun laws are being debated.
There is no other issue under consideration by the Legislature this year, or any year, in which one side uses intimidation and threats of violence to try to get its way. But it happens every time gun laws are being discussed.
The Legislature allows for open carry of firearms during the session. Whenever gun bills are in committee, the rooms are filled with scowling opponents who are armed to the teeth and glaring menacingly at anyone brave enough to speak out in support of the bill.
The same is true for City Council meetings. Every discussion involving guns inevitably attracts those who come with rifles slung over the shoulders. A meeting in 2018 had about two dozen gun owners standing silently along the back wall, letting their weapons do the talking. It is an obvious attempt to intimidate and silence those with opposing viewpoints, and it has no place in our political process.
A subsequent City Council meeting on the same issue had to be held outside of a city facility to allow for an unarmed debate where everyone in the community felt safe to participate.
Our founders set up a governing process in which ideas such as the proposed red flag gun laws are intended to rise and fall based on their merits. Some bills will pass exactly as written. Many more will fail. And others, like the red flag gun law now in the Legislature, will be amended as compromises are made during the committee process.
Proposed gun laws are no different than the hundreds of other bills being considered. They should be vigorously debated, and everybody should be encouraged to participate freely, without fear or intimidation.
If passed, they should be universally enforced by all law enforcement officers in the state.
Laws that violate our constitutional rights should be struck down by the courts, not ignored by the cops.
Walter Rubel can be reached at waltrubel@gmail.com