By Lee Williams

At 5-feet 10-inches, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the same height as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but that’s not all the two have in common.

Neither Rubio nor Feinstein support the Second Amendment.

While Feinstein is open an upfront about her anti-rights passion, Rubio is riding the fence. Several bills he’s introduced clearly infringe upon the Second Amendment, but he still tries to hide his anti-rights zealotry in communications with constituents.

A reader recently reached out to Rubio after reading this story: Sen. Rubio’s red-flag bill would allow ‘temporary’ firearm confiscation and delay due process.

“I emailed him a while ago about his Red-flag bill he sponsored after you taught me about it and telling him it violated several amendments and to my dismay this was the response I received,” she said in an email. I am not publishing her name.

She noted that Rubio’s reply was “vague” and that he was “not specifically addressing the issues about his bill’s violation of due process and our other amendments as opposed to him saying that our communities lack the law enforcement resources.”

Politicians have form letters for irate constituents. I have no doubt our reader received one of Rubio’s letters designed to appease an angry Second Amendment supporter. I’m guessing his staff sends out a lot of them, especially since he introduced the federal red-flag bill.

“I hold the fundamental belief that the Second Amendment should not be altered,” Rubio’s email states. “While I have always supported the right of law-abiding Americans to bear arms to protect themselves and their families, I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Senate to create a more effective system to prevent senseless gun violence, without unnecessarily infringing on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

Two things leap out of that statement. First, “senseless gun violence” is a Bloomberg talking point, which is used by Demanding Moms, Everytown and the Trace.

Second, Rubio hopes to create a more effective system “without unnecessarilyinfringing on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

I guess that means the Senator is willing to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights, but only when he believes it’s necessary.

Bunkum, that is.

And of course, there’s a plug for his federal red-flag bill.

“We currently lack the tools for law enforcement, or families, to take away guns from someone in their community they know is a danger to themselves or others. I am working to change this by incentivizing states to enact extreme violence protection orders, sometimes referred to as “red flag law,” the email states.

Rubio’s bill — S.292 – Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2021 — would lure states into creating their own Extreme Risk Protection Orders like we have here in Florida, by offering them federal grants to get started.

You could be paying for gun confiscations. That’s your taxpayer dollars at work.

The bill allows the petitioner — a law enforcement officer, family member, household member, someone who has a child with the gun owner, a current or former boyfriend/girlfriend, or anyone who lived with the gun owner in the past year — to tell the court that the gun owner “poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others.”

And the worst part: The gun owner has no right to attend this hearing and, therefore, no ability to defend themselves.

The legal standard is “clear and convincing evidence” that you’ll become a threat “in the near future.”

The Senator’s email follows.

As always, thanks for your time.

Lee