Kentucky’s HB96 Is a Very Real Problem

Dividing things into groups of two tends to be pretty easy, such as pro-gun or anti-gun states. The truth, though, is that there’s more of a spectrum to that than a simple, easy to spot dividing line. For example, Florida is a fairly pro-gun state in many ways, but they passed some messed up stuff in the wake of Parkland that sure didn’t look very pro-gun.

Kentucky is a lot closer to the very pro-gun side of that spectrum, generally speaking.

However, a new bill introduces a problem. On the surface, HB 96 is a simple modification of the state’s anti-stalking measure and deals with getting a restraining order. No one supports stalking, after all, especially considering how often it turns deadly, so not many people are thinking much about it.

But the National Association of Gun Rights took to X, formerly Twitter, with a warning about the measure.

Anti-gunners and weak-kneed Republicans are scheming to attack your 2A rights in Kentucky with a backdoor Red Flag bill!

HB 96 could strip you of your gun rights over something as trivial as a social media post.

Click the link below to tell your Rep to kill this bill! pic.twitter.com/b0mnlw02e4

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) February 27, 2025

All it takes to attack your 2A rights under HB 96 is for someone to claim you:

‘Used technology to “humiliate” or “exert undue influence over” someone.’

This isn’t just a 2A violation—it’s an attack on the 1A too!

Click here to fight back:https://t.co/gidjVCXk0r pic.twitter.com/SlB2STuNZO

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) February 27, 2025

This raised my eyebrow, so I went to take a look.

Sure enough, HB 96 does pretty much just that.

(b) “Coercive control” includes but is not limited to engaging in any of the 11 following:

   1. Intimidation or controlling or compelling conduct by: 

…

        b. Using technology to threaten, humiliate, harass, stalk, intimidate, exert undue influence over, or abuse the other person, including by engaging in cyberstalking, monitoring, surveillance, impersonation, manipulation of electronic media, or distribution of or threats to distribute actual or fabricated intimate images; 

The thing is, I disagree with NAGR about one thing. This isn’t a backdoor red flag law. I’m not sure how “back door” it really is when it’s more or less the same thing.

A red flag law is, generally, a temporary restriction of your right to keep and bear arms pending due process. It’s a terrible infringement of people’s rights, but a whole lot of cases end with people getting their gun rights back.

This is about obtaining a protective order, which would lead to exactly the same thing since restraining orders lead to a loss of gun rights temporarily, at a minimum, and have someone stripped of their gun rights over nothing.

Now, some of this section makes sense, such as surveillance, monitoring, threats, and revenge porn all being problematic. I don’t think there’s really any issue in prohibiting those.

The problem is “humiliate, harass” and thinks of that sort.

Many people will troll someone they disagree with on social media. In fairness, some people say so much stupid stuff that they kind of deserve it. Especially public figures who engage in political discourse. Trolling them is really just a way of poking holes in their arguments. Some people give a lot of trolling, which could be determined to be a pattern of behavior, which the bill says is necessary for this.

No, a single post might not be enough, so on this one, NAGR is probably overstating the impact, but not by all that much.

The kicker here is that most of the sponsors of this measure are Republican. These are supposed to be the pro-gun guys, and they’re backing something like this.

In fairness, they probably didn’t see the problem here, but something every lawmaker needs to do is think about how the most malicious prosecutor or judge humanly possible might apply such a law. I can easily see someone coming after me like this for trolling Eric Swallwell, Chris Murphy, or David Hogg simply because they dislike my stance on the Second Amendment, so yeah, we’ve got a problem here.

Hopefully, this can be fixed quickly by Kentucky lawmakers. If it’s not, then this is a bill that needs to go nowhere.