Back to News
Image Source: (AP Images)
April 22, 2025
Democrats Sudden ‘Due Process’ Commitment is Duplicitous
Today, U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is – (*checks notes) – for Due Process. That wasn’t always the case, and likely won’t be again. Anyone watching his stance on gun control knows.
When it comes to Due Process rights, Sen. Van Hollen’s status, and that for the other gun control-adoring politicians screaming about Due Process rights, might be better described as a “it’s complicated” status. It’s more of a “for Due Process, only when” sort of thing. And by when, that’s only when it serves a political narrative.
Don’t fall for it. Due Process rights only matter to Sen. Van Hollen when it is politically-expedient. It’s never been a pillar of his core beliefs. If it were, the so-called “red flag” laws in Maryland, and the same ones he wants for the federal government, would be written much differently.
Senator-Come-Lately
Due Process has become Sen. Van Hollen’s mantra-du-jour after he found himself defending an illegal immigrant who was mistakenly deported by the Trump administration. That illegal immigrant is in custody in his home country of El Salvador and El Salvador’s president has no intention of sending him back to the United States.
That’s, in part, because the illegal immigrant is a known member of MS-13, the international crime gang known for their viscous attacks, and that was named a terror organization by the Trump administration. That didn’t stop Sen. Van Hollen from visiting with the man he called a “Marylander.” Nor did illegal immigrant’s history of domestic violence and human trafficking. More Members of Congress tried their own photo-op junket but were turned away for not being in El Salvador on official business. U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) refused to allow taxpayer dollars to fund the trip.
Sen. Van Hollen contends that the illegal immigrant’s Due Process rights were violated when he was deported, an argument that may well be correct. However, Sen. Van Hollen was, and still is, silent on Due Process rights of the accused who are subject to so-called “red flag” laws.
To be clear, NSSF doesn’t object to extreme risk protection orders, or “red flag” laws, so long as they have adequate Due Process protections written into them. So far, 21 states and the District of Columbia have these laws. None of those laws provide adequate procedural or substantive Due Process rights. In many states the police can seize a person’s firearms on an “ex parte” order from a court. That means a judge can order the removal of firearms from an individual without the ability of that individual to review and challenge evidence presented to the court to justify the seizure of their firearms. An angry and violent ex-boyfriend could request a “red flag” order on his recent girlfriend, knowing the order would disarm her and she would be defenseless against an attack. Making matters worse, far too frequently, the gun owner is not entitled to a post-seizure (post-deprivation of rights) hearing for many weeks.
To be clear, “red flag” laws deny a person’s civil liberty – Second Amendment rights protected by the Constitution. That should set a seriously high Due Process bar. If someone is arrested for a crime, like drunk driving, Due Process requires that they must appear before a judge within 24-72 hours to hear the charges against them, called an arraignment, and to have a bail hearing. After all, they are being deprived of their civil liberty and have Due Process rights to learn and refute the evidence against them.
Not so much with the current “red flag” laws. Which is why it is so curious that Sen. Van Hollen has suddenly seen the light of the importance of Due Process rights.
Core Inconsistency
When it comes to guns, it gets “complicated” for Sen. Van Hollen. He wants to ban Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), even though that’s a clear violation of Second Amendment rights. He wants magazine capacity restrictions. After all, why would a law-abiding citizen need a magazine that could hold a standard capacity when criminals don’t care about the law and illegally obtain firearms and magazines.
He wants so-called “universal background checks” that would put every law-abiding citizen on a government watchlist, despite the fact that it is forbidden by federal law. He wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the damages caused by criminals misusing firearms. He also wants a national handgun permit-to-purchase – which would be another government watchlist.
With an absolute straight face, Sen. Van Hollen joined Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) for his Extreme Risk Protection Order Expansion Act, S. 889, to establish federal grants to expand more state-level “red flag” laws.
Sen. Van Hollen, and the other gun control lawmakers on Capitol Hill, aren’t serious about Due Process rights. He, along with the others, conveniently look past Due Process as a minor consideration when they’re talking gun control. All the talk about it now that they’re trying to use it for political advantage is just grandstanding.
You may also be interested in:
Categories: BP Item, Education, Government Relations, Top Stories
25650
