In the face of state acts (legislators et al) proposing alleged solutions which violate the Constitution. 
Whether they would materially reduce stranger-shootings is entirely irrelevant. The ends never justify the means, which in this case is abridging civil liberties. 
"Don't do something immoral and unjustified" is not the same statement as "do nothing" or "nothing needs to be done."
Elizabeth's original resolution says we oppose doing something immoral, which state actors are insisting should or must be done. 

I vote YEA on the original resolution and I'm happy to author an article to contextualize the debate, which humanizes the party, I think. 
Ultimately, we must stand behind individual liberties and against unconstitutional abuses that abridge them.  That's who we are.