During the September 16 GOP debate, host Hugh Hewitt asked Jeb Bush if he supported states confiscating guns when a family member expresses concern about the mental state of a particular gun owner. Bush said he not only supports it but that “we need to encourage that kind of involvement.”
Jeb Bush’s only stipulation was that a judge needs to sign off on the confiscation before it takes place.
Bush’s exact response: “I think there needs to be hearing, but the fact is, I think we need to encourage that kind of involvement.”
This is the very path California took after the May 2014 Santa Barbara attack in which Elliot Rodger stabbed and killed three people then shot and killed three more. Democrats then pushed through “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (GVRO) and Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed them into law in September 2014.
The GVROs work just the way Jeb Bush outlined by opening the door for a friend or relative—or disgruntled former friend or spouse—t0 seek a GVRO against a certain person and, with judicial consent, have that person’s Second Amendment rights suspended and their guns confiscated.
In May 2015, the National Journal reported what gun rights groups had warned about all along—GVROs would not have stopped Elliot Rodger from carrying out his rampage—at least not in part—and would not have prevented the Democrats’ favorite go-to example, Adam Lanza, from attacking Sandy Hook Elementary because his mother did not see a “potential for violence” in him.
What GVROs will do—in states where they are implemented—is form another part of the left’s argument for a gun registry. They will argue that such a registry is necessary so that law enforcement knows how many guns a given person owns in case that person is ever the subject of a GVRO.
Yet Jeb Bush thinks such “involvement” in gun owners’ lives should be “encouraged.”