Summary: I have been exploring ways to get a
wider circulation of this forum for discussion. Please advise me if you
can.
My Thoughts:
I felt that President Obama spent too much time trying to justify his new
executive orders on gun control. Also, he hand picked his audience so
that only those who agreed with him were present. Do you do that if you are really trying to "bring both sides together," as Mr. Obama claimed? A lot of politicians
pick places to speak where they are most likely to have a "friendly"
audience, but this was pretty blatant.
Most of his justifications were disputable, if not downright
false. It is disputable that a majority of
Americans, or a majority of gun owners, favor or support his proposals.
Polls on the subject have had mixed results. There are also polls that
show that a majority of Americans are opposed to gun more stringent gun
control. Americans are voting with their wallets by buying guns in record
numbers. At least twice in recent memory, there has not been enough available
ammunition to meet the demand for it.
The NRA is a grassroots
organization with five million members, not some evil entity that thwarts the
will of the people. It is not just "the gun lobby." Yes, the NRA works with some gun manufacturers, but it is cooperation to support the Second Amendment. Every law abiding citizen who wants one should buy a gun. Every gun owner should belong to the NRA.
"The polls" may be manipulated statistically and are often
lacking in scientific rigor. Regardless, the constitution provides for a
House of Representatives and a Senate elected by the people and empowered to generate law; subject to presidential approval, veto, and override of the veto by congress. This provision safeguards the rights of all citizens by preventing the government from being overly influenced by the whims of public opinion. We, the people have the right to petition our government, and we do so in
many ways including writing our elected representatives, circulating petitions, and hiring lobbyists. It isn't perfect, but it is better than mob rule. We are governed by our elected
representatives, not pollsters, and our elected representatives have voted down
President Obama's orders for background checks and licencing schemes,
repeatedly.
People collect things like coins, stamps, antiques, and guns.
Occasionally, they sell the things they have collected. Sometimes they make a profit. The value of a gun usually appreciates over
time. If you hold on to one long enough, you are very likely to make a
profit. Other people buy and sell guns on line or at gun shows. You do not have to sell many to make a nice amount of money, if you buy low and sell high. Most of
those sales are subject to a background check through a Federal Firearms Licence (FFL)
holder at some point, especially if they involve an interstate transfer of
ownership.
The profit motive is, in general, a good thing that has
provided the western world with a wonderful standard of living and is pulling
the developing nations out of poverty. It is not wrong to sell a gun for a
profit. It is an excessive extension of executive authority for the
president to usurp the authority of the legislative branch, creating new
law regulating the sale or transfer of gun ownership and "encouraging"
or "discouraging" the venues in which this may be done through
regulation and taxation (licence fees). This president has a pattern of
illegally extending executive authority.
Please look at a couple of cases where these executive orders
might adversely affect law abiding citizens:
A widow dies leaving everything she had to her only child, a
daughter. The widow has kept a 10 gun hand gun collection worth up to ten thousand dollars, that was left
to her by her husband before the new regulations. Does the daughter have the
ability to inherit the guns? Will she have to pass a background check?
Can the daughter sell the guns if she wants? Will she have to obtain
an FFL? If she is a semi-invalid who is also being treated by medication for cyclothymia (mild depression), and if she has a representative payee for her Social Security
Disability check because she can't get around well, will she fail the background check? Under the new executive
orders some bureaucrat may say that she does not get her inheritance. If
so, will the guns go into probate? Who gets them then, the government? If
she does inherit the guns, will she have to get an FFL to sell them because she is making a
profit on a multiple gun sale(s). Will she have to sell them to a retailer
at wholesale to avoid becoming a criminal?
If a man has a .410 gauge shotgun that does not meet his
needs for goose hunting, and a friend at work wants to trade a 12 gauge
shotgun for the .410 so that he can teach his son to shoot, can they do it?.
In most cases, the guy getting the 12 gauge is getting a better deal.
Will they be criminals if they make the trade without obtaining an FFL and the
ability to run a background check? How far should ordinary citizens be empowered to go in investigating the background of other ordinary citizens?
The president has the authority to increase the staffing of
agencies in the executive branch, if congress gives him the money to do it. He has the authority to encourage or commission research to develop technological
improvements that might prevent unauthorized persons from using guns, if congress gives him the money to do it. There is
disagreement about whether the president has the authority to impose use of the
new technology without new law originated by the legislative branch. If
people are are required to implement this technology, it may involve
considerable expense (with the exception of trigger locks, and the like). Will this raise price new guns so high the
average citizen can't buy them? Is that Mr. Obama's hidden agenda? Will existing gun owners have to install the new technology, like finger print controlled lock boxes and grips, on all their guns? By the way, that technology already exists. What if they cannot afford it? Will they have to
sell their guns or turn them in to the government?
The law prevents the exchange of medical information,
including mental health information, without first obtaining the written
consent of the patient. The legislative branch can change the law so that
this information can be shared interstate and used in background checks, but will it violate the
right to privacy? It is my opinion that the president does not have the
legal authority to change law without first going through the congress.
Although I support the inclusion of mental illness in background
checks, I believe that careful consideration should be given to how it is defined, existing law, and the constitutional rights of all Americans. If a Social Security recipient
or a disabled veteran has a representative payee, or if a person is taking
prescribed psychotropic medication, who decides if they are mentally fit enough
to legally own and use a gun? Will they have the right to due process of
law, since it involves a constitutional right?
Not one of the president's executive orders will prevent a
single criminal from getting a gun if she or he wants one. They will only
make it more difficult and expensive for law abiding Americans to keep and bear
arms.
Much of what the president is trying to do may
be illegal. Hopefully, the courts will see it that way. It will most certainly cost Americans a lot of money for more
staff, research and development, higher gun prices, litigation, and the cost of
regulation. Canada had to abandon a system for registering long guns
because it was too expensive. In the United Kingdom and Australia,
increasing involvement by the government in
regulating firearms eventually led to confiscation. Is that what we want
here? President Obama said that he will not take our guns away.
That is only because he knows that he can't, before his term of office
expires. I think that he would if he could. His passion gun control and tears
for the children killed in Newtown and Chicago were genuine. I wish he
had tears for the 60 million children killed by abortion,
since Roe vs Wade.
What to do? Vote, write your state and federal legislators, sign and circulate petitions, peacefully assemble, and peacefully demonstrate after obtaining the necessary permits. Prayer is not the "least you can do," it is the most you can do. Obey the law as long as it does not contradict God's law or violate your constitutional rights. If it is against God's law or violates your constitutional rights, talk to an attorney. After that, if you are prepared to take the consequences of civil disobedience, refuse to obey the law and take the consequences. Tell the news media what you are doing.
Build public support by hunting ethically. Try to persuade others. Know the law and defend yourself and others from death or serious bodily injury according to the law. Recreate with firearms in safe and legal ways. State your truth clearly and in ways that respect others, even if they do not. Trust God that current events are unfolding as part of His larger plan.
