I have a confession to make. When it comes to confiscation, I used to
be a skeptic. See, in addition to missing some of the latent warning
signs, I made the grave mistake of believing a then-Sen. Obama when he
promised American voters that he wouldn’t take our guns.
“When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’ You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” said Obama, during a campaign stop in a Lebanon, Virginia in 2008.
Yes, shame on me for trusting a politician. Well, not that I really trusted Obama but I thought, you know, it would be political suicide for him to come after our guns. So, from an electability standpoint, he just won’t do it. And aside from a few minor provisions during his first term in office, he did stay away from the 2A. But after his re-election in 2012, well, all hell broke loose. Obama turned from gun-friendly to gun-foe almost overnight. The president who explicitly said he wouldn’t take our shotguns, rifles and handguns had a whole new attitude. Many of you probably saw this coming — sad to say, I did not, especially to the extent that he changed.
“We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines. And that deserves a vote in Congress — because weapons of war have no place on our streets, or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers,” said the president back in February of 2013 while visiting the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Basically, that’s a complete 180. A flip-flop that would make even Hillary Clinton jealous (she’s been known to “evolve” on issues from time to time). Obama went from, I’m-not-taking-your-rifle to I-want-to-ban-the-most-popular-rifle-being-sold-in-America, i.e. modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 platform. Well, from that point on there was no mincing words, no more subterfuge. It was clear. It was game on. It was all systems go for the gun-control machine. They were going to come for our guns. And they did. And they still are. And they’re not going to stop. And here’s how they’re going to do it.
First off, there’s no data to back up Feinstein’s statement. She’s completely full of it. Crime has dropped uniformly since the expiration of the Clinton-Era AWB, leading every honest criminologist to conclude that it had zero effect on crime rates.
What Feinstein was proposing was actually implemented in New York State, under the flawed SAFE Act. What the SAFE Act did was (1) broaden the definition of “assault weapon” to include more commonly owned and widely popular firearms (2) require everyone to register it with the government and (3) prevent any future transfers of those weapons, so that once the owner died the gun would no longer be legal for anyone to possess. That’s what she means by “dry up the supply.”
Make no mistake, it’s not only a ban, but it’s confiscation over the long haul. It’s insidious, and like I said, several states have laws on the books just like it and more our considering them (Wisconsin lawmakers are looking at one right now!). Could something like this be passed at the federal level? It’s unlikely. However, they’re going to try like hell to see that it does.
Now, none of these buybacks are mandatory. But, as we’ve recently heard from Hillary Clinton, that could change. Clinton wants to take a page from Australia’s gun-control playbook and institute a national, mandatory gun buyback which would force all gun owners to turn in certain firearms. It’s precisely what the government did in the Land Down Under following the Port Arthur shooting in 1996. The Australian government enacted the National Firearms Agreement, which banned semiautomatic rifles, pump-action shotguns as well as other firearms in common use.
Gun owners were faced with two choices: they could turn their guns in and receive a stipend or keep their guns and become outlaws. It appears that a majority opted to follow the NFA (thereby forfeiting their right to self-defense), as the government collected upwards of 640,000 firearms. Again, to the gun-grabbing crowd stateside, this is a great idea.
“When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” said Obama during a recent interview with comedian Marc Maron. And it hasn’t happened since.”
I don’t anticipate this happening anytime soon, but the fact that Hillary Clinton said, the mandatory buyback program, “deserves a look,” should be enough to give one pause.
It’s nothing new, either. Following the passage of Senate Bill 950 in 2001, the Golden State created the Armed and Prohibited Persons System. It’s a program that law enforcement uses to cross reference registered gun owners with a list of individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm. In theory, it’s not such a bad idea. The government can actively disarm bad guys and the mentally ill, right?
But, again, in practice it doesn’t always work out that way, especially when the state keeps lowering the bar for what makes one a prohibited person. Consider the case of Michael Merritt from Bakersfield, CA, who watched as agents raided his home and seized his firearms for a marijuana possession charge that dated back to the 1970s.
“It’s just the worst feeling,” Merritt told Eyewitness News back in Feb. of 2013. “It’s a loss of your liberty, of your rights. I almost passed out when they said they wanted all my guns.”
“I thought, he’s here to get my guns for some reason,” Merritt continued. “He says, ‘You have a felony here from 1970.’ I said, ‘A felony? A pot possession charge from 1970.'”
The agents not only took his five registered handguns but his wife’s firearms as well. What’s crazy is that the (a) Merritt had already settled the matter by paying a $100 fine and serving a probation stint four decades ago and (b) the felony charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Weeks later, the government finally caught their mistake and returned Merritt’s property to him.
“I’m glad we got them back, we got lucky,” Merritt said. “Because we never thought we’d see the guns again, ever.”
I have a feeling that this type of task-force confiscation program is going to be expanded in the near future. I bet that’s what the ATF eventually turns into, an agency dedicated to confiscation. At the same time, I have a feeling that anti-gun lawmakers will start crafting laws that turn petty offenses into felonies in an effort to disarm more Americans, e.g. loaning a gun to a neighbor without a background check.
“When you all go home and you’re talking to your buddies and you say, ah ‘He wants to take my gun away.’ You’ve heard it here, I’m on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” said Obama, during a campaign stop in a Lebanon, Virginia in 2008.
Yes, shame on me for trusting a politician. Well, not that I really trusted Obama but I thought, you know, it would be political suicide for him to come after our guns. So, from an electability standpoint, he just won’t do it. And aside from a few minor provisions during his first term in office, he did stay away from the 2A. But after his re-election in 2012, well, all hell broke loose. Obama turned from gun-friendly to gun-foe almost overnight. The president who explicitly said he wouldn’t take our shotguns, rifles and handguns had a whole new attitude. Many of you probably saw this coming — sad to say, I did not, especially to the extent that he changed.
“We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines. And that deserves a vote in Congress — because weapons of war have no place on our streets, or in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers,” said the president back in February of 2013 while visiting the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Basically, that’s a complete 180. A flip-flop that would make even Hillary Clinton jealous (she’s been known to “evolve” on issues from time to time). Obama went from, I’m-not-taking-your-rifle to I-want-to-ban-the-most-popular-rifle-being-sold-in-America, i.e. modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 platform. Well, from that point on there was no mincing words, no more subterfuge. It was clear. It was game on. It was all systems go for the gun-control machine. They were going to come for our guns. And they did. And they still are. And they’re not going to stop. And here’s how they’re going to do it.
The Three Tiers of Gun Confiscation
1. Dry Up the Supply
“Obviously there’s no single solution, which is why I support a wide range of policy proposals to bring sense to our firearms laws,” said Dianne Feinstein in a statement with respect to re-instituting a federal assault-weapons ban (AWB). “I continue to believe that drying up the supply of military-style assault weapons is an important piece of the puzzle—and the data back this up.”First off, there’s no data to back up Feinstein’s statement. She’s completely full of it. Crime has dropped uniformly since the expiration of the Clinton-Era AWB, leading every honest criminologist to conclude that it had zero effect on crime rates.
What Feinstein was proposing was actually implemented in New York State, under the flawed SAFE Act. What the SAFE Act did was (1) broaden the definition of “assault weapon” to include more commonly owned and widely popular firearms (2) require everyone to register it with the government and (3) prevent any future transfers of those weapons, so that once the owner died the gun would no longer be legal for anyone to possess. That’s what she means by “dry up the supply.”
Make no mistake, it’s not only a ban, but it’s confiscation over the long haul. It’s insidious, and like I said, several states have laws on the books just like it and more our considering them (Wisconsin lawmakers are looking at one right now!). Could something like this be passed at the federal level? It’s unlikely. However, they’re going to try like hell to see that it does.
2. Mandatory Government Buyback
Gun buybacks are a common in the U.S. Many local police departments and municipalities set them up to “take guns off the street.” For the most part, they’re unsuccessful at reducing crime because thugs and gangster aren’t eager to trade in their piece for a $100 Best Buy gift certificate (or whatever it is they’re offering). While that’s obvious to everyone with a brain, politicians insist that they make a difference. Of course, they’re wrong. They don’t. It’s basically a way for people with old, inoperable firearms to exchange their junk for something. That’s it.Now, none of these buybacks are mandatory. But, as we’ve recently heard from Hillary Clinton, that could change. Clinton wants to take a page from Australia’s gun-control playbook and institute a national, mandatory gun buyback which would force all gun owners to turn in certain firearms. It’s precisely what the government did in the Land Down Under following the Port Arthur shooting in 1996. The Australian government enacted the National Firearms Agreement, which banned semiautomatic rifles, pump-action shotguns as well as other firearms in common use.
Gun owners were faced with two choices: they could turn their guns in and receive a stipend or keep their guns and become outlaws. It appears that a majority opted to follow the NFA (thereby forfeiting their right to self-defense), as the government collected upwards of 640,000 firearms. Again, to the gun-grabbing crowd stateside, this is a great idea.
“When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did,” said Obama during a recent interview with comedian Marc Maron. And it hasn’t happened since.”
I don’t anticipate this happening anytime soon, but the fact that Hillary Clinton said, the mandatory buyback program, “deserves a look,” should be enough to give one pause.
3. Gun-Grabbing Task Force
Did you know that in California there is a whole task force (33-agent unit) dedicated to confiscating firearms from individuals?It’s nothing new, either. Following the passage of Senate Bill 950 in 2001, the Golden State created the Armed and Prohibited Persons System. It’s a program that law enforcement uses to cross reference registered gun owners with a list of individuals prohibited from possessing a firearm. In theory, it’s not such a bad idea. The government can actively disarm bad guys and the mentally ill, right?
But, again, in practice it doesn’t always work out that way, especially when the state keeps lowering the bar for what makes one a prohibited person. Consider the case of Michael Merritt from Bakersfield, CA, who watched as agents raided his home and seized his firearms for a marijuana possession charge that dated back to the 1970s.
“It’s just the worst feeling,” Merritt told Eyewitness News back in Feb. of 2013. “It’s a loss of your liberty, of your rights. I almost passed out when they said they wanted all my guns.”
“I thought, he’s here to get my guns for some reason,” Merritt continued. “He says, ‘You have a felony here from 1970.’ I said, ‘A felony? A pot possession charge from 1970.'”
The agents not only took his five registered handguns but his wife’s firearms as well. What’s crazy is that the (a) Merritt had already settled the matter by paying a $100 fine and serving a probation stint four decades ago and (b) the felony charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor.
Weeks later, the government finally caught their mistake and returned Merritt’s property to him.
“I’m glad we got them back, we got lucky,” Merritt said. “Because we never thought we’d see the guns again, ever.”
I have a feeling that this type of task-force confiscation program is going to be expanded in the near future. I bet that’s what the ATF eventually turns into, an agency dedicated to confiscation. At the same time, I have a feeling that anti-gun lawmakers will start crafting laws that turn petty offenses into felonies in an effort to disarm more Americans, e.g. loaning a gun to a neighbor without a background check.
No comments:
Post a Comment