“Washington State Proposed Gun Law Calls on Sheriff to Inspect Homes of Assault-Weapon Owners”
The Constitutionality of such introduced measures is no longer even considered. Big Brother is here, and he is working to make sure law enforcement joins his fascistic team. But it’s benevolent fascism. For “public safety,” you see. And Big Brother will get what he can done before the courts catch up to him.
In Colorado, for instance, while the Sheriffs association is holding firm, the police chiefs association supported a ban on magazines over 10 capacity (the bill was eventually amended to 15 rounds, still short of many rifle platforms), using as their argument that the police are often outgunned by criminals, transparently failing to note that most of the criminals who “outgun” the police tend to get their weapons outside the system of background checks and legal sales used by law abiding gun owners; more, the kinds of weapons most likely to be affected by such a ban are rifles that accept detachable magazines — which are used in a statistically insignificant number of crimes: one can buy smaller magazines for 9mm semi-auto handguns. But for the SCAR platform or the AR-15 platform, standard magazines exceed the ban’s limit, and so should be unconstitutional. Unless and until Obama can get the court configured in his favor; at which point the kind of settled and controlling law conservatives refuse ever to revisit will be egregiously and with political motivation overturned by leftist activists on the Court. Bank on it.
The very idea that the 2nd Amendment sets out to assure that only the rights of some select people — governmental functionaries and civil servants — shall not be infringed, is a rather obvious and odious misreading of a text that makes clear that the right of THE PEOPLE, a singular, all-encompassing set, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Creating a class of governmental agent who is not only better armed than the people, but who are then charged with making sure that they are better armed, flies directly in the face of the Second Amendment’s intent. That many police chiefs are willing to trade the liberties of law-abiding gun owners for a measure of their own safety is, frankly, abhorrent and cowardly.
Similarly, as I learned last evening from a presentation by Dr John Lott put on by the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and sponsored by my House Rep, Lori Saine, the Obama Administration is looking at the passage of a universal background check in Colorado as a way to push the issue nationally.
But from testimony and debate on that measure — to which Colorado Democrats in the assembly were impervious (many of them didn’t even stay in the chamber), passing the voice vote on a near party line count (3 Dems from rural areas split off) — it was clear that there is no workable enforcement mechanism for the proposed law, and that the Democrats know this. And because that’s the case, Dems will then insist down the line that, for their law to actually work — for public safety and for the children — it must be tied to a gun registry. That’s just “common sense,” we’ll be told.
This is the real and actual trajectory gun-control advocates are working from, with the ultimate end being a registry and then, when the time is ripe, confiscation or a massive coerced or mandatory “buy-back.”
Watching this unfold, I’d like to say to people like Joe Scarborough — a key speaker at the National Review’s “Conservative Summit” — that their dismissal of gun owners concerns that the government is after our guns, often done in ways that mock us and call us fringe conspiracy buffs and extremely extreme extremists, is actively aiding the left’s long-term gun grab plans, the very clear contours for which are easy enough to see once one drops the faux-sophisticate stance that keeps him in the good graces of a progressive media.
These “conservatives” are nothing of the sort. They are Trojan horse statists, and the fact that they are being pushed as the party’s future shows that the establishment and the base are miles apart.