Thursday, January 22, 2009

Obama States Gun Policy – No Surprises Here

The inauguration has come and gone with the masses cheering, and now the official policy has been posed on the White House website. Hidden in the urban policy section, with no more veneer of “I don’t have the votes”, written in plain black and white print:

“Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

This policy represents virtually a worst case scenario for anyone who values their freedom and liberty. It is clear from the stated policy that Obama and Biden have absolutely NO respect for the Second Amendment rights of AMERICANS – not gun owners. They first need to stop looking at gun owners as some “fringe group” that lies outside the American mainstream. Current gun owners aren’t the only people with Second Amendment rights. Simply because an individual does not exercise their Second Amendment rights, or because an individual has been brainwashed to be hostile to their Second Amendment rights, does not change the fact that the Second Amendment to the Constitution affirms the inalienable right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Going through his points one by one:

The Tiahrt Amendment essentially forbids “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives *(ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation, and any data so released is deemed inadmissible in a civil lawsuit.” This is important because in the United States there is no national firearms registration. Civil Libertarians view registration as analogous to authors having to register their computer or typewriters, or people having to register their faith to practice religion. Many gun owners take a broad view of history and note that firearm confiscation has frequently followed firearm registration. Technically the ATF database itself is in a legal gray area, and as such even the ATF opposes repealing the Tiahrt Amendment – yet Obama and Biden care not one whit. If it sounds like a prelude to registration and worse, it probably is.

Closing the so-called “gun show loophole” has been covered in the past. The overwhelming minority of guns used in crimes come from gun shows (under 5%), and most states already require a background check at gun shows. This is a paper tiger and yet another wedge issue. The real issue here isn’t gun shows so much as it is private firearm transactions – they’re currently legal – “closing the loophole” would most likely make them illegal.

Making firearms childproof is something that “sounds good” but really means changing firearm designs to prevent anyone but the owner from firing them. It’s a pie in the sky idea that, if implemented, will mean the price of new firearms will skyrocket – which is part of the goal of the anti-Second crowd – turn a gun into a luxury item that only a few can afford. Making all firearms childproof could also result in existing firearms requiring modification or dewatting if taken to the extreme.

The so-called “Assault Weapon Ban” has also been covered at length. “Assault weapons” are used in less than 5% of crimes. The original ban had no impact on crime. In light of the Heller decision, a blanket ban on a type of firearm is unconstitutional. However Obama and Biden don’t seem to care.

As expected, the next four years are going to be rocky for those who value their Second Amendment rights. Fortunately individuals with an “A” rating from the NRA still hold a majority in the House and enough seats in the Senate to prevent a supermajority. However, hoping that our representatives will be able to stem the tide is not going to be enough. Second Amendment supporters have generally been representative of the “speak softly” mold. We don’t march on Washington. We don’t hold massive rallies or protest (we have jobs…). However given what’s at stake, it’s time we reconsider speaking softly and adopting the tactics that have been used so effectively by others to raise awareness of the fundamental issues.

We as Second Amendment supporters must make it clear that we OPPOSE Obama and Biden’s stance.

We as Second Amendment supporters must make it clear that we will fight any attempt to enact Obama’s stated policy into law. We will first fight it when it is proposed. If it’s passed we will then fight it in the courts. We have to make it clear that we will not meekly submit to unconstitutional and therefore illegal infringements of our Second Amendment rights.

Until next time!!!

2 comments:

Jimi said...

Doing some research on this to clarify definitions. I get really tired of the press using generalizations, and I'm confused.

Your views are clear, but I'm still unclear about what actually defines an assault weapon? Aren't we talking about an Uzi here, and do people really hunt with that? Seems a bit absurd that all this noise is being made over a small percentage of guns out there they supposedly want to ban. Kind of harder to conceal an Uzi, don't you think?

We really need to push the paranoia and fearmongering aside on this issue. This is being used to try to get citizens to rebel against Obama on a NUMBER of issues, not just guns, and that is the real travesty. We were the closest we have ever been to martial law in the country under Bush/Cheney, with habeas corpus being suspended, the govt illegally wiretapping you, people being disappeared and put on watch lists...yet there seemed to be no call to recover citizens rights. Where were all the gun owners then? I don't get it...

So please, continue to CLEARLY define what this really about, and continue to refrain from the fearmongering. Thanks...

Jimi said...

From FactCheck.org This is the fearmongering I mentioned before... At least you didn't go down this route.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

NRA Targets Obama
September 22, 2008
It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.
Summary
A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition.

The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition.

Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns."

I may not agree with your analysis of the child protection, nor the assualt ban argument, but at least you aren't out and out LYING. So now my question, what are the best solution, and how do we get citizens relatively on the same page again? By many of the photos from those "tea parties", we clearly are very confused.