“Loose Language in Reid’s Gun Control Bill Allows the Beginnings of a National Gun Registry”
Unlike it might to, say, Joe Scarborough, this doesn’t come as any great shock to me. In fact, I’d have been a little disappointed had the Democrats not tried to write a bill that, by either omission or commission, attempted opened up a path to a national registry, which in turn sets the stage for confiscation.
As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) must know, Americans who own firearms have a special sensitivity to a “Big Brother” federal government that wants to keep centralized records on who owns what guns and where in America. Loose language in his gun control bill (S. 649) could start America down that slippery slope.
Since the Second Amendment guarantees to the people the right to keep and bear arms, many Americans look askance at efforts to create centralized records that might some day, in some distant future neither wanted nor expected, facilitate a despotic government’s efforts to disarm the populace or ensure that its supporters but not its opponents possess arms. Some Americans look at history and view that concern as far-fetched; others look at history and see careful attention to that concern as essential to maintaining freedom.
Congress has attended carefully to the concern about a federal gun registry in the past. Thus, for example, section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) regarding the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) provides:
No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–
(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922(g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code, or State law, from receiving a firearm.
Unfortunately, the Reid legislation deviates from this strong guarantee that protects against misuse of the NICS process to start a national firearms registry.
Title I of the Reid gun control bill purports to “fix gun checks.” The proposed “fix” in section 122 of S. 649 is to take away an individual’s right to sell or give away a firearm to another individual unless, in most cases, the individual uses a licensed importer, dealer, or manufacturer to make the transfer of the firearm.
In a departure from section 103(i) of Public Law 103-159, section 122(a)(4) of the Reid bill enacts a new section 922(t)(4)(B)(ii) of title 18 of the U.S. Code to direct Attorney General Eric Holder to issue regulations “requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and an unlicensed transferee.” The legislation does not define the term “record of transaction,” does not specify any limitations on who creates and who keeps the record of transaction, and does not explicitly incorporate the existing prohibition on a national firearms registry.
Thus, the loose language could be construed to allow the Department of Justice itself (or another agency specified by the Attorney General) to keep centralized records of who received what guns and where, by sale or gift from one individual to another. [...]
Dealing with the new breed of national Democrat — those who have spent their lives basting in New Left dogma, and who have fallen-in lockstep behind the progressive agenda being pushed by this Administration — requires constant vigilance.
That they were discovered here watering down language to open the way for the beginnings of a national gun registry means only that, should they now be defeated in their plan by strong arguments and sunlight, they’ll merely try again later, in some other way, using some other bill or some other crisis to reach their ends.
That is, if the full-frontal approach doesn’t work, they’ll return to the incremental approach — and with respect to their gun control aims, the contours to that approach are already quite clear: empower the AG to expand the parameters for what is included in a background check, wherein a partisan agent is given the power to determine what group or groups of people come to constitute a potential danger; cross-reference ObamaCare, with its governmental access to health and prescription records, with other databases, using medical professionals and (they hope) mental health professionals to create the conditions under which they can argue for “sensible” prohibitions on firearms ownership; use Democratic majorities in various states to drive draconian gun control measures through the state legislatures on a party-line vote, then see which of those state laws stand up to court challenges and which do not; use agencies such as the CDC to lend an air of scientific and medical emergency to the “gun violence” “epidemic” — as if gun violence is contagious in any way other than through some strained sociological metaphor — then demand action to combat the crisis or “epidemic” (regardless of what the crime statistics show).
We are living in a time when our government is looking for ways to usurp our rights, pressuring them from every angle, waiting for us to “compromise” if only to make them relent.
But we mustn’t. It is painfully clear, having myself listened to the entirety of the assembly and Senate debate on the Colorado gun-control laws that this current push for gun control has nothing whatever to do with protecting innocents from violent gun offenders, and everything to do with chipping away at the rights of the law abiding in order to make them in ways both large and small more dependent on the government and its agents.
It is beyond outrageous that a state representative who can’t distinguish between a magazine and the bullets that go into it is given the power to bring legislation that bans that about which she demonstrates publicly she hasn’t any real knowledge.
At some point in our history, shame and ridicule would be heaped upon such a lawmaker by constituents on both sides of the political aisle.
Progressivism changed all that: the people masquerading as Democrats today are the far left radicals who a few decades ago made clear that they despised the Democrat Party, whom they considered bourgeois and soft, fighting openly against it from the left in much the same way the TEA Party today fights the GOP establishment from the conservative side. It was only after they were defeated openly that they took to overtake the Democrat Party from within.
Make no mistake: We are not fighting a party that disagrees with us on certain policy issues; we are fighting an ideology that has as its purpose the deconstruction of the Constitution, and with it, a clear path to remake society in its image through pure assertion of unchecked power, marshaling regulation, taxation, price controls, and the re-defining of core foundational ideas made permanent by activist courts as a way to fundamentally transform the US.
It is post-constitutionalism — and whether or not the babycons at the American Conservative find such a diagnosis crass and uncouth, that doesn’t change the reality of the situation, which (as I’ve pointed out repeatedly) is being reinforced through the normalization of a broad, cynical, manufactured narrative that seeks to make those who express fidelity to the Constitution fetishists and extremists, racists and dangerous, would-be domestic terrorists whose unnuanced opinions can and should be marginalized or disregarded entirely on their face.
Sadly, simply putting “conservative” on your masthead doesn’t help you sell the principles behind it. You have to believe in them. And when that belief can be bracketed out of love for a particular video game series, it wasn’t all too strong to begin with, in my opinion.
Meaning, if the future of conservatism rests with snotty brats who refuse to allow error and are more concerned with appearing thoughtful to liberal academics than they are with the real existential fight we now find ourselves in — that is, ignorant pollyannas or willing right-leaning statists — then it doesn’t stand a chance against the relentless rhetorical gambits of the left, who seek nothing less than control over a “reality” that they themselves get to construct through consensus, repetition, and insistence.