Dave Ross should actually meet some NRA members

I can’t say I understand Dave Ross’ recent commentary, especially because it appears to needlessly antagonize people with a position he likely agrees with. But I can categorically say I think Dave should actually talk to some NRA members because, based on his piece, I’m not sure he’s talked to many.

Dave’s commentary focuses on Extreme Risk Protection Orders that, generally speaking, allow a judge to temporarily keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose an obvious risk to themselves or others. He quotes NRA lobbyist Chris Cox as supporting the idea: “that anyone who is a danger to themselves or others should not be allowed to have a firearm … Period.”

And then he makes a rather wild observation:

That surprised me. Because the NRA’s worst fear is that merely owning a gun could subject you to a knock on the door from a clean-cut fellow with a federal ID.

Yet, it’s pretty clear that one of the ways to determine who’s merely troubled and who’s considered dangerous would be the presence of a weapon.

Well, I’m not sure any of this is “pretty clear” at all.

What in the world is Dave describing here? Protection orders don’t work anywhere near what he’s implying. He should know that: his story includes a link to the Washington state site on protection orders. And the NRA lobbyist he’s quoting doesn’t make that point either.

Does Dave think when you own a gun, a federal agent will just check in on you? Is the implication that NRA members believe that’s a possibility too? And, if he believes that’s a possibility, color me shocked that he’s not alarmed by that government overreach either. He should join the NRA in being upset over that clear government overreach.

The context of the lobbyist he quotes is clear, but Dave seems to twist it to fit a narrative that doesn’t exist. It does, coincidentally, play into a caricature of an NRA member thinking government agents are going door to door to collect guns willy-nilly.

Yes, there are some pro-gun lunatics who hold conspiracy theories. But there are also far-left loons who think Jews run, well, everything (and Democratic leaders like Keith Ellison are friends with those anti-Semites). Neither organizations — or parties — are defined by their fringe elements.

And it’s worth noting that Dave incorrectly implies Cox’s earlier quote is about protection orders. It is not. It was about Sen. John Cornyn’s background check bill. Cox does support protection orders with “strong due process protections.”

Dave ends his commentary thusly:

How ironic would it be if the NRA’s policy of making guns so easy to get ends up making their worst fear come true.

Now, assuming due process is front and center, the NRA is on board and Dave should applaud that. I assume Dave supports these protection orders, too. So why would he antagonize their position and almost dare the NRA to take it back?

Protection orders, as outlined by the NRA, do not play into the NRA’s worst fear; the NRA supports law-abiding citizens having access to guns — not criminals or people with mental illness. I suspect the NRA is more fearful of folks helping to demonize the organization by claiming they hold positions they don’t.

I’d really love to debate Dave on this. I wonder if I’ll ever get that opportunity? I wonder if this last paragraph is foreshadowing an event?

Follow @https://twitter.com/jasonrantz