“If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!” —California Senator Diane Feinstein, appearing on NBC News’ 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
When reading the above quote, which time was Senator Feinstein being sincere? When she said this in 1995? Or, when she said recently,
(This legislation) will be carefully focused on the most dangerous guns that have killed so many people over the years while protecting the rights of gun owners…”
“While protecting the rights of gun owners” says Senator Feinstein. Which is it?
Yes! The Anti-gun left in America is speaking out and their talking points go something like this:
“Most Americans believe, while supporting the second Amendment, there are reasonable restrictions that can and should be implemented to restrict who can own a firearm, what sort of weapon they can own, and the amount of ammunition that can be loaded into the weapon.”
There is nearly always some discussion of what “America needs,” in the form of some, “Common Sense,” gun laws. But who decides what is, “common sense?”
Senator “Chuckie” Schumer, in a recent op-ed for the New Hampshire Union Leader wrote,
The gun debate of the past two decades has devolved into a permanent tug-of-war between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advocates of gun safety. One side has viewed the Second Amendment as absolute; the other has tried to pretend that it doesn’t exist. The result is a failure to find any consensus, even as one mass shooting after another underscores the need for sensible reform.
Chuckie also said this little gem:
“The truth is, it was bad strategy to ever deny an individual right to bear arms and, similarly, the special place guns hold in our culture. That mentality alienated potential allies in the ideological middle of the gun debate – something I learned three years ago when my friend, Ben Nelson, invited me to Nebraska for my first hunting trip. I returned with true respect for how, in many parts of America, gun ownership is not just a constitutional right, but a way of life.”
Chuckie is going to get a few, hook, line and sinker with that morsel. He almost sounds sincere, not withstanding his track record of viscera against guns.
Sensible reform; Consensus… The favorite contemporary buzz words of anti-gun liberals seeking to curb ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Apart and aside from the Kool-Aid Drinking true believers who want to ban all guns, are those shrewd, machiavellian-liberals who adopt the time-honored incremental approach to taking away our guns and extinguishing the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Presently, a centralized registration system is being proposed by California Senator Diane Feinstein while Gun control proponents accuse second amendment supports and advocates of paranoia and other such “tin-foil hat-lined,” Fears despite a long and well-documented world history showing registration as a precursor to confiscation. Here, and Here.
Yes. A National Registration is on the table, folks. Below, is what Senator Feinstein proposes in her up and coming legislation for 2013:
Requires that “grandfathered” weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration
Firearms registration existed in New Zealand for fifty three years and then in 1971 all revolvers were confiscated by the Government.
Australian states and territories had firearms registration requirements until 1996 when most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns were completely banned. Private citizens were required to surrender their firearms so that they may destroyed following a 12-month amnesty program.
Since 1921 the UK required that all lawfully-owned handguns be registered with the government. However, with the implementation of 1997 handgun ban, UK handgun owners had little choice but to comply with the surrender of their handguns as mandated by the new law.
While we look to these examples outside the United States, we have some experience with registration and confiscation right here at home.
In 1967 New York City council enacted a registration law for rifles (long guns). Yet, in the early nineties, that same law was used to confiscate semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, following a Council ban on firearms classified (by the city only) as “assault weapons.” 2,340 NYC residents who had registered firearms were summarily notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or removed from the city.
There is nothing in gun registration laws that will prevent government from being arbitrary. Take the case of California where the state revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) declaring registered weapons illegal.
The NRA and other Second Amendment advocacy organizations have come under fire for failing to “compromise” or assent to “reasonable” gun controls. Likewise, Citizens who own guns are scolded for being paranoid, called conspiracy theorists, tin-foil lined hat wearers and other enumerated pejoratives. Liberals dismiss these groups and citizens claiming, “Nobody is going to take away your guns.”
In United States v. Emerson, (270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) ) The Government actually argued, “there is absolutely no right of an individual to own firearms!”
Judge Garwood: “You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?”
Meteja (attorney for the government): “Yes”
Garwood: “Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?”
Meteja: “Exactly.”
Meteja then said that even membership in the National Guard isn’t enough to protect the private ownership of a firearm. It wouldn’t protect the guns owned at the home of someone in the National Guard.
Garwood: “Membership in the National Guard isn’t enough? What else is needed?”
Meteja: “The weapon in question must be used IN the National Guard.”
Res Ipsa Loquitur. I think I understand all of this now in the full context of the pursuit “sensible gun policy.” Sensible gun policy means I must agree to ban semi-automatic rifles that are dark colored and scary. If I do not agree, then I am unreasonable….irrational and don’t care about children.
So, we, the law-abiding citizens who currently own these scary black rifles need to be photographed, fingerprinted and have the permission of government to have them?…Even though they are “grandfathered?” And we simply have to take the government at its word that perhaps ten, fifteen or twenty or more years down the road, when everybody is lulled into this acceptance of Big Brother Government, nobody is going to step up and propose and enact a total gun ban? Bollocks!
History of Gun Registration in world democracies supports the assertions of this tin-foil hat-lined writer for Granite Grok. Moreover, Historical precedent is an inconvenient predictor of facts. This legislation, proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein is bad. Really really bad. I’ve seen the numerous headlines: Gun Groups digging in for a fight. I say to them, “Good on you!” This is not compromise, nor sensibility, nor reasonableness they ask for…It is carefully disguised rank capitulation to an anti-gun agenda, with the ultimate goal of confiscation.
