There are "constants" in the Universe. Gravity is a "constant" in the universe. The speed of light is a "constant" in the universe. Unfortunately, "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals and arguments after a mass shooting event are also "constants." Within the scope of "Knee-Jerk Reaction" gun control proposals, there are other "constants" as well. One of those "constants" is that eventually someone will argue, "we make people get licenses and insurance for cars, why shouldn't we make people get a license and liability insurance before they can own a gun?"
The fact is, the vast majority of those that push for increased gun control have no idea of what current laws already exist, the extent of those laws or how they apply to gun ownership, or what the process is for purchasing a firearm. A number of those that are "pro-gun control" believe that anyone can go to a store and buy "fully automatic" firearms over the counter, or that one can go to a website, pick out a gun, type in their credit card number, and the gun will just be mailed to them. Many gun control advocates give the impression that a gun show is a "free-for-all," full of individuals who could never pass a federal firearm background check and intend to go on a shooting rampage the moment they leave the show. If one listens to some gun-control advocates, gun shows exist solely to provide a location to avoid back-ground checks for firearm purchases.
Sadly, there are a great many people who listen to these "pro-gun control" advocates, despite the fact that many of those who are "pro-gun control" have limited knowledge of guns at best. The public hear phrases like "background checks," "keep military weapons out of civilian hands," or "assault weapons ban" and cannot help but think the proposals are reasonable.
Perhaps the best way to show why some of these proposals are unreasonable is to compare guns and automobiles. Let's take current gun control proposals and laws and see what they look like when applied to automobile ownership, operation and licensing:
1. We must ban all Jeeps and Hummers- they have a military appearance and we can't have that. A military appearance makes things more dangerous. Suburbans and other quasi-military looking vehicles also should be restricted.
Firearms reality: Many so called "assault weapons bans" restrict the sale and ownership of a firearm simply because of the "looks" of the gun. These laws may ban one firearm but say another is a "common hunting firearm" and therefore permissible to own in the view of some gun control advocates. This despite the fact that both of the firearms use the same caliber of round (bullets) and both are semi-automatic. It should not be a valid reason to ban a firearm because it "looks scary"
2. All vehicles must be limited to a tank quantity of less than 10 gallons. That way you can't drive as much. You must stop to reload (the tank) more often.
Firearms reality: A constant proposal from gun control advocates is limiting the size of firearm magazines (incorrectly often referred to as "clips"). If I am in a situation where I have to use my firearm to defend my life or the life of another, I don't want to run out of ammunition (personally, I am a decent shot, so I might not run out of ammo, but there may be others who don't shoot as well). Another reason why a person may wish to have a high-capacity magazine may be that a person might not want to spend all their time at the shooting range re-loading. The "gun-control advocate" view is that no one needs more than eight to ten rounds of ammo. That view is false.
3. We must place an breathalyzer interlock on ALL cars and trucks- regardless of whether the person had ever had a DUI- they might try sometime even if they NEVER drink.
Firearms reality: I have lost track of the number of times when a certain firearm is used in a crime, and "gun-control advocates" immediately want to ban everyone from having that type firearm. The criminal actions of a single individual should never dictate the rights of millions of law abiding citizens.
4. All states should adopt "MAY ISSUE" laws instead of SHALL ISSUE. It should be up to the whim of local sheriffs to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't. With the Shall Issue law if a person passes the Drivers License test and has a clean record, the state MUST issue a drivers license. Obviously this is bad.
Firearms reality: There are nine states with either strict or partial "may issue" concealed weapons permit laws. The most egregious jurisdiction in the eyes of many is San Diego County. It is nearly impossible to obtain a concealed weapons permit in San Diego County. The San Diego County Sheriff's website states that to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapon Permit you must demonstrate "a set of circumstances that distinguishes the applicant from other members of the general public and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply writing "self defense" or "personal protection" on an application does not provide the requisite proof of good cause." Other jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia have been told by the United States Court of Appeals that a nearly identical "good cause" requirement is unconstitutional. This issue has yet to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Rulings from the Court of Appeals only apply to those places where the individual court has jurisdiction.
5. One state should not be required to accept another's Drivers License. Places like New York, California, DC etc should be allowed to ban drivers from other states from driving in their states. To hell with the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that interstate travel is a right.
Firearms reality: Although most states accept the Concealed Carry permit of other states, places like California do not. In fact, because California does not allow for the open carry of firearms, and in California only a California resident may obtain a Concealed Carry permit, it is in effect illegal for a non-resident to carry a firearm. The general belief of the public is the Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Therefore, for now at least, in California, the Second Amendment does not apply to those who are from any of the other 49 states.
6. All automobile purchasers should be required to have a background check-- UNIVERSAL Background Checks- even in the case of someone being willed grandfather's old car. The person buying could have a background of speeding or DUI
Firearms reality: Every firearms sale through a firearms dealer requires a background check by Federal law. The information from the purchaser is run through NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System). This also includes sales from dealers at gun shows, as well as so called internet sales. The fact is "internet sales" don't really happen. A person may go to a website, such as Gunbroker to purchase a firearm, but the firearm does not go to the purchaser directly. The firearm gets transferred to a licensed firearm dealer. That dealer then performs all required background checks as well as any required state checks. This also is a check against violation of state law, in that if the firearm is illegal in the state of purchase, the transfer to the purchaser does not take place. The gun control lobby seeks to expand background checks past this point. Under the "pro-gun control" proposals, if I were to purchase a firearm as a gift for my spouse (I have done this on several occasions, and the "gift" is greatly appreciated) not only would a background check be performed on me as the purchaser, but then my spouse would have to go to the store and have a background check run as well. This is an inconvenience with little gain. Background checks do not stop crime. Career criminals generally do not go to gun stores to purchase a gun before committing a crime- they get those guns on the street, or by theft.
7. Ban the private sale or transfer of autos, and all internet sales. The person buying the car MUST have a background check. This includes all "car shows" - OK so even though all car dealers at car shows may be licensed dealers AND they would already do a background check, who cares. You can buy parts at shows and that means a bad driver "could" get a hold of a car at a show.
Firearms reality: There are proposals to ban the private "transfer" of firearms. This would include firearms transferred by Will and Testament. As already discussed, these type checks do nothing to stop crime. These checks are about tracking who owns what guns.
8. Require a background check for the purchase of gasoline at the state level. Allow for an "instant check" for those who have bought a car in the last year (will help speed up gasoline sales). However, individuals who have not purchased a car in the last year will have to wait until they are "in the system" before a gasoline purchase can be approved. Additionally, out of state visitors will be unable to purchase gasoline.
Firearms reality: California has enacted a background check requirement ammunition purchases. The only persons approved immediately are those who have purchased a firearm since the state started tracking purchases. The state wants to be sure you only buy ammunition for a gun you personally own. If you haven't made a recent firearm purchase, you must wait for processing to be completed on your application before the state will approve your ammunition purchase. If you are not a California resident, you would not have a firearm purchase registered with the California system and therefore you would not be able to purchase ammunition. For those who believe that people from outside of California would have no need to purchase ammunition, there are people who travel to California to compete in shooting competitions. There are also those who travel to California to hunt. Regardless of the reason, these restrictions are unreasonable and have been challenged in Federal Court. To date, this law has yet to be reviewed by any court higher than Federal District Court- however, the Federal Judge has stated he believes these laws will be found to be unconstitutional, but there currently is no injunction in place, and the ammo purchase laws are in effect.
9. We must limit AAA. The problem is they are to powerful. EVERY TIME a multiple vehicle accident occurs it is because of their members and the lobbying power they have. If it wasn't for their political influence and stranglehold on Congress and State Legislative bodies there would not be such a problem.
Firearms reality: The media and politicians love to paint the National Rifle Association an enemy of civilization. They paint the NRA as an organization that actively tries to recruit people to carry out mass murders. The fact is the NRA has been around since the 1870's. And while the NRA does lobby on behalf of gun owners for "reasonable" laws, the primary task the NRA performs is education. The NRA provides safety training. The NRA provides training for Range Officers and provides standards for firing range safety. Millions have been taught firearms safety through courses taught by the NRA, or using NRA approved curriculum.
10. A 5 day waiting period on all car sales.
Firearms reality: As much as some politicians like to talk about how anyone can walk into a gun store, put down a credit card and walk out with a gun, every gun sale from a firearms dealer does require a background check that may end up requiring a waiting period. Unless a firearms dealer is told to "proceed" with a firearms sale, and assuming there has not been a "denied" issued, a firearm sale is subject to a hold.
These are just a few examples of what gun control advocates call "reasonable" proposals. However, the public would be furious if, for example, a drunk driver hit a school bus, killing several students, and then politicians started shouting that we need a law to require Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks on every single vehicle sold. Rightfully the general public would be outraged and stress that just because one person got drunk and used their car to cause a tragedy, the rest of the driving population should not be punished. However, the same general public is not concerned when politicians discuss banning a firearm from millions, because one "nut" decided to use that weapon in a murder. The People would be outraged over restrictions to the purchases of automobiles, yet driving is not a Constitutional Right; keeping and bearing a firearm is.
**** To be sure you see the latest discussion and commentary, please follow Carden Chronicles on Facebook, Twitter (@CardenBlog) or subscribe to email or RSS Feed updates at The Carden Chronicles website. ****
The Carden Chronicles is against the #GunControlNow Campaign
#2A, #NRA, #NRAILA, #GoodGuyWithGun
0 comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome- However, Anonymous Comments might be subject to deletion.