Our good friend in the ether, Bob Belvedere has written a good post with some excerpts from Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom on the Second Amendment. I’m excerpting some portions of his article with some thoughts of my own at the end.
Jeff follows up with another prediction:
Now, let’s walk through this so that we know just who the GOP members who’d support such a measure are:
1. You are pulled over for a busted tail light and the patrolman sees a rifle in the back seat of your car.
2. The patrolman asks you to furnish proof that you went through a universal background check to purchase the rifle. You reply that after 24 hours those records are destroyed, and besides, the specific weapon isn’t listed on the paperwork anyway. Since you’ve owned the gun legally for over 24 hours, there is no way for you to prove you underwent the check.
3. The officer can either believe you or decide that he’s not taking any chances and confiscate your weapon.
4. You have a right then to go prove your innocence, having been preliminarily found guilty.
5. This will require lawyers and legal fees and you will be deprived of your weapon in the interim.
6. Eventually some court will rule that you were denied due process — that the police cannot presume you guilty until you prove your innocence, especially when no mechanism is in place for you to prove your innocence.
7. At which point, the “common sense” reformers will note that their universal background check — indeed, any background check in the context of showing you have a right to own the weapon (because the same scenario illustrated above can play out now) — is worthless after the initial check (which itself produces tens of thousands of false positives every year, and so is problematic insofar as it keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons in a timely manner, and at least a percentage of these citizens probably face an imminent threat) unless and until it is tied to paperwork that allows you to show that you aren’t a criminal.
8. And that will be a gun registry. Kept by the government. To protect you! Meanwhile, you’ve been forced to pay legal fees, have been deprived of one means of defense, and have been compelled to surrender your time to the state in order to prove yourself worthy of state sanctioning.
9. Gun violence ended! Career criminals unable to get guns because there’s no way they can pass a universal background check!
Sarcasm justified, I think you will agree..
Do you have any doubt that this is exactly the way it will play out? It seems to me we’ve seen this play before.
Getting a bit Biblical [as a Prophet is wont to do], Jeff suggests a brilliant way for us to handle the situation:
How should I put this delicately: any lawmaker who supports an unenforceable law — one that serves only as a precursor to a gun registry — just so they can say they reached across the aisle and “did something,” should be tarred, feathered, and then booted from office. If they be Republicans, there names should become expletives.
Their names should be cursed whenever free men speak of them. They should be made, as Psalm 63 says, a portion for foxes.
Enough is enough.
I also want to link to an article posted by my lovely wife, Phoebe that isn’t so much about the Second Amendment, but about the federal government’s efforts to license more and more drones or surveillance aircraft for state and local law enforcement;
Federal authorities step up efforts to license surveillance aircraft for law enforcement and other uses, amid growing privacy concerns.
If this doesn’t get you fired up, nothing will. While we sit around bitching and moaning about our loss of freedoms, they are taking every last vestige of freedom we have left. We can blog about it until the freaking cows come home and they’ll still do it, that’s why we’re in the trouble we are . I suggest we take it local and petition our city council to outlaw drones for law enforcement use or at the very least making them illegal without a search warrant. C’mon people, where’s our line in the sand or are we so whipped at this point that we don’t have one? – Phoebe
The Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it had issued 1,428 permits to domestic drone operators since 2007, far more than were previously known. Some 327 permits are still listed as active.
Local and state law enforcement agencies are expected to be among the largest customers.
That’s the problem, according to civil liberties groups. The technology is evolving faster than the law. Congress and courts haven’t determined whether drone surveillance would violate privacy laws more than manned planes or helicopters, or whether drone operators may be held liable for criminal trespassing, stalking or harassment.
“Americans have the right to know if and how the government is using drones to spy on them,” said Catherine Crump, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has called for updating laws to protect privacy.
A backlash has already started.
In Congress, Reps. Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) introduced privacy legislation Thursday that would require police to get a warrant or a court order before operating a drone to collect information on individuals.
“We need to protect against obtrusive search and surveillance by government and civilian use,” Poe said in a telephone interview. A similar bill failed last year.
So folks, where is our line in the sand? We are already seeing a backlash against the fed from Sheriff’s departments all across the country as far as gun control laws are concerned. Most have unequivocally stated that they will not obey any new federal gun laws as unconstitutional. Good for them. What we must do is give our County Sheriffs all the support we can.
We can head on down to our local town council meetings and respectfully petition for regulation or resolution that the council will back the Sheriff all the way in their endeavors to protect everyone’s Second Amendment rights.
We also need to do the same for the Drone problem. Phoebe and I had already talked to our Sheriff, before the election, and asked how he felt about using drones. He was against it then and I feel like he will still be against it today. But to make sure, we are going to have another tete a tete with our Sheriff to be sure he still feels the same way. Then we are going to the town council and see how we can petition against drones being used in our county.
Folks, whatever the issue is, we all need to get more involved at the local levels. That is where we have the power. Writing letters to your Senators and Congressmen/women is good too, but most of the time, you just get some kind of form letter back saying they will “look into it.” To get attention from your national reps, you have to constantly write letters, visit their local offices…basically, be the squeaky wheel.
Think about it.