After the recent spate of mass shootings, we’re talking about gun control laws again, because it’s obviously a problem with the tools we have, and not the social values we have promulgated. Even a few RINOs are on board. Sensing that they may not be able to avoid the red tsunami in November, this may be the last chance for the Vichy to sabotage their own party.
I especially like the terminology being employed – common sense gun laws. Here’s a bit of Washington speak decoding for everyone. Using “common sense” to describe the gun laws under discussion is about as misleading as using “affordable care” to describe Obamacare. What they are proposing is anything but sensible – even if it is wrapped in benign sounding terminology.
It’s where rhetoric meets reality that the problems arise. We’re told constantly that the public is in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals – duh. Therefore, they say, universal background checks have broad support. As a philosophical concept that’s true, until the public learns how they plan to do it – which they’re not talking about. They also say the public is in favor of removing firearms from people who have become emotionally unstable. They claim that “red flag” laws are a common-sense solution. But again, they’re aren’t telling us how that will be done. Or more importantly, how it will be done in a constitutionally compliant fashion.
As with all of these proposals, the devil is in the details. Unfortunately, the people who say we have to pass bills to find out what is in them, are never willing to debate the details. We’re just told that time is of the essence and we should quickly pass these bills without debating them. That should have alarm bells going off for everyone.
Let’s take a look at how universal background checks would work. We can use H.R. 8, which the Senate attempted to pass in 2019 for some clues. It would require a Federal Firearm License (FFL) gun dealer to broker all sales between private parties. To sell a gun, I would take it to a dealer, who would run a background check on the buyer, file the necessary paperwork, and then process the transaction – easy peasy.
Except here’s the part they didn’t tell anybody. The last time the Dems attempted to pass a law for universal background checks, the seller also had to provide proof of ownership of the gun before the sale could go through. If I didn’t have a sales receipt for that 150-year-old heirloom rifle which I inherited from my great-great-grandfather, I not only couldn’t sell it, but I couldn’t get it back from the dealer which I had hired to broker the deal. So, in fact, “universal background check” was also a means to firearm confiscation.
H.R. 8 also includes this little gem: Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations. This enables the Attorney General to tack on any regulations he sees fit. Am I the only one concerned about giving Merrick Garland this level of control over our 2nd amendment right?
We’re also talking about “red flag” laws as a common-sense solution. Those would be laws that allow law enforcement to confiscate a person’s firearms, because someone else, is worried about their firearm ownership. And the people who don’t think anyone should own guns want to be empowered to make that decision.
Never mind that what they are proposing is a suspension of a person’s constitutionally protected right, with no due process – no presumption of innocence, no ability to face one’s accuser, no representation at trial, and no jury of peers. You know, constitutional stuff like that.
But like universal background checks, the devil is in the details. What kind of practical methods are we talking about to waive a person’s rights? Who would be authorized to make “red flag” reports?
How about Doctors? Would that be any doctor, or only those who are board certified in psychiatry? You know those that have gleefully diagnosed Donald Trump without ever meeting him, and consider masculinity to be toxic. Sure, they should be “common-sense” arbiters of our civil rights.
How about teachers? Surely, they should be allowed to make “red flag” reports. After all it’s their schools we’re trying to protect. I’m sure even teachers that think white guys are perpetually imposing our white privilege on others can refrain from letting their ideology play a role – not. Consider this scenario. Little Billy tells his pink haired, pierced nose, transexual, non-binary teacher that daddy bought a new hunting rifle. Said teacher then expresses concern about an imminent school attack to the authorities – because he shouldn’t have a rifle anyway. The Authorities then confiscate the father’s weapons pending psychiatric review (at the father’s expense).
Will spouses be allowed to file “red flag” reports? How about estranged spouses – you know, still married but not on great terms? How about those going through a divorce. They should be a great source of claims about instability about each other.
Surely law enforcement will be able to make “red flag” reports. Of course, that would be letting the same guys that thought it was okay to arrest people for going to church decide that it’s also okay to take away the means to self-defense. That would also be the same guys that stood by for an hour and a half while a gunman slaughtered children – and handcuffed parents instead. Sure, I trust their judgement. Let’s let them decide who will and will not be allowed to possess the means to defend each other.
The reality is that the left is not interested in aggressively enforcing existing gun laws, or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. They only want to make it increasingly difficult for law abiding citizens to buy and keep firearms. All of their “common sense” gun laws are crafted with that objective in mind.
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He currently writes at the American Free News Network and The Blue State Conservative. He can be followed on Facebook or reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: AFNN_USA
1 thought on “There is Nothing Sensible About Common-Sense Gun Laws”