This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

The Weak and Unacceptable Underbelly of S649

Historically firearms registration was used in Australia to confiscate a broad range of weapons. It was also used by Great Britain in 2008 and by the Nazis in 1935.

 

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold who is resident of Mundelein, IL -

President Obama seems to be ignoring a solution in favor of a long-time "progressive" goal of disarming Americans. Blaming violence on a particular segment of society or region doesn't lend itself to solutions.

Find out what's happening in Deerfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Not withstanding, and especially since Newtown, there has been a blizzard of propaganda against the NRA and its supporters in Congress which seem perfectly legitimate to anti-gun advocates. It is always easier to blame an organization with an easily recognized set of initials than the millions of its members and tens of millions of supporters who write their representatives in Congress in support of their Constitutional rights.

Registration in any degree is particularly offensive to those who value their 2nd amendment right. It is the basis for abuse and harassment of law abiding gun owners by those who  would deny those right, both official and unofficial.  

Find out what's happening in Deerfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Historically firearms registration was used in Australia to confiscate a broad range of  weapons.  It was also used by Great Britain in 2008 and by  the Nazis in 1935.  Notably, none of these nations had a  constitution which limits the actions of government as does this  nation. So this can't happen in the United  States, we're just being paranoid?

California and New Jersey are comparing registration lists to judicial and civil records which might, in their opinion, prejudice the legal  ownership of firearms. They have teams of well-armed police conducting warrantless searches to execute these decisions. 

A well-publicized event in California occurred when a woman voluntarily entered a mental hospital for two  days. Shortly afterward, nine officers in black "SWAT" costumes showed up and  bluffed their way inside (they can't enter without a warrant). The family  "voluntarily" (again, no warrant) surrendered three firearms, which the  Attorney General claimed couldn't even be in the same household as a "mental  patient", even if they belonged to another family  member.      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-12/california-seizes-guns-as-owners-lose-right-to-bear-arms.htm

In Delaware, a father took a picture of his 11 year old  son holding a .22 sporting rifle, wearing "military" camouflage. Someone  complained and a child protection representative showed up withe police in tow  and demanded an explanation. (It is perfectly legal in Delaware and all other  states for a child to hold and shoot a firearm under close supervision of a  parent. The father was obviously present, because he took the picture.) The  police demanded he open a safe where firearms were secured so that "the serial  numbers could be checked." (Firearms are not presently registered in Delaware,  so the request was a ruse.) He refused, and the police went away and never  returned.    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/dad-this-picture-of-my-son-holding-a-gun-triggered-a-visit-from-nj-police-family-services/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=Share+Buttons

Democrats and Obama claim that 80% (90%, whatever seems most convincing at the moment) of  the citizens want Universal Background Checks  (UBS), including gun  owners and NRA members.  This is patently false. While  UBC seems like a good thing to people,  the bill (S649) as written seriously erodes second  amendment rights.  First of all, it is based on a false premise, cited over and over by Obama, that 40% of sales are made without any checks at all. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338735/40-percentmyth-john-lott

This is based on a survey taken in 1993 (checks were  instituted in 1996) which assumed only purchases made in conventional stores  (60%) were checked. In fact, most of the remaining 40% are made through FFL  holders, through inheritance, or from close family members. Only about 6% of  legal sales are made by private sellers to strangers. (According to FBI  statistics, about 40% of ILLEGAL sales are made face-to-face, and only 3% from  gun shows.).  http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/11/where-criminals-get-their-guns/

Under Schumer's bill, a father can give or sell  a firearm to his son, but the son can't give or sell a firearm to a  parent, but the Schumer bill goes even further. You can  only loan a gun for temporary use on a licensed target range (and the bill  raises the bar for licensing ranges to require full-time, certified training  and safety officials) or for licensed hunting. You must be present, and the  firearm can't leave the premises. So much for plinking at cans in the country  with a friend!

The clincher is an admission by supporters of Schumer's  UBC proposal that it cannot work unless the government knows exactly  who owns a particular firearm at any time - in short, universal  registration. S649 is only the first step. When that is found to be  ineffective, it's supporters will demand the next step, and the next, ad  infinitude.      http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17326732-nras-lapierre-background-checks-a-pretext-for-gun-registration?lite

The anti-trafficking section of S649 requires an owner to report  lost or stolen firearms to the Attorney General Eric Holder within 24 hours. It makes criminals out of victims  - how convenient.  If you can't catch the bad guys, prosecute the  otherwise law-abiding victim. This section is a collaboration of  Illinois senators, Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk.  Durbin apparently ingratiated himself with Kirk during Kirk's  recovery. While Kirk was never a strong supporter of 2A, this bill seems to be  a payback for Durbin's "friendship."

It is politically easier to go after things (firearms) rather than the  people who misuse them, particularly when the abusers come largely from your core constituency.  It is also easier to burden  citizens who normally obey laws than those who habitually  break them.

There are no easy solutions to  real problems.  Politicians always try to take the easy way  out.  When laws don't work as intended, it is easier to make them stronger and more restrictive than to start  afresh.  We must always ask if it is ever worth  sacrificing freedom for the vain hope of temporary safety.   Our freedoms won at great price, once  gone, are difficult to regain.    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?