Gun Law Drafted In Secret
By Alan Korwin, Author, Gun Laws of America. April 8th 2013. GunLaws.com.
Article Original source.
Bans Firearms Public Already Owns
State retains power to own all, especially deadly guns
Forces federal agents to either violate state law or deny civil rights
Effectively immediately
That's not the way networks covered it, is it, but identical story
Can you imagine what a tough uphill struggle the anti-gun-rights people would have if the "news" media wasn't falling all over itself to support the anti-rights side?
Connecticut just drafted 138 pages of gun law basically in secret, enacted it before it could be read and digested by those who signed it – and certainly not by the public it pretends to legitimately control – and in doing so ended up requiring federally licensed agents in the state to violate federal law, or flatly deny citizens their rights. Just on practical grounds this is a disaster. But that's as if nothing, according to leading experts.
Legislators who draft laws in secret are behaving like the king's men who ignited the American Revolution. They can expect no less if they continue down such a dark road, many experts say.
What did the officials choose to draft law against by this nefarious method? Only the very palladium of liberty, the very thing the Revolution warned us to guard against, a bill to reduce and actually eliminate a right for keeping and bearing arms the public already legally keeps.
Along with a list of many of the most popular makes and models in use today, the bill includes broad descriptions of arms to cover an untold number of other modern and older firearms. Are they out of their minds?
Is it an excuse that they didn't know what they were doing? Of course not. That is an aggravating factor.
These officials operate by consent of the governed, with rights of minorities protected. Laws are to be drafted in public, with input from experts and the public. They deliberately and with malice aforethought chose not to.
Infringement is banned by the Bill of Rights. This is not some debating point. Violation of the Bill of Rights is an offense against We the People, and throughout our history has earned punishment. Not just at the ballot box, but real punishment. Else, what value the Bill of Rights?
Requiring agents of the federal government, in this case, licensed federal firearms dealers (FFLs), to conduct paperwork and electronic examinations of private citizens which the agents are banned by law from doing, is a clever way to stop citizens from getting firearms. It is also malfeasance of the worst kind, and deserves punishment of the highest order. This isn't just use-the-other-lunch-counter bigotry, this is the no-lunch-counter-for-you brand.
(Connecticut is requiring FFLs to conduct background checks on private firearm transfers, and offers to pay them. It is a federal offense for FFLs to use the NICS background check system for anything other than their own authorized business sales.)
But the worst offense remains drafting and proposing such treasonous poison in secret. Merely voting for it is no less serious an act. Legislators who participated in this infringement of the fundamental civil and human rights of the citizens of Connecticut act as enemies of American freedom whether they recognize it or not. This is not how Americans behave.
Using the acts of a madman to justify the acts of these madmen is reprehensible, immoral and corrupt. Worse, their failure to act in a way that might actually identify and curb future deranged monsters is a failure to accomplish their most rudimentary role. It is abrogation of their responsibility as elected officials. This is grounds for removal from office.
How should the public react when their officials depart from the rule of law, act without concern for established procedure, quorum in secret, enact laws without public knowledge, defy existing law and issue proclamations that cannot legally be met? Cheering them on, as the mainstream media has been encouraging, is irrational. Irrational acts in this arena bring up the specter of hoplophobia, the morbid fear of weapons. Is this supposed political problem in actuality an undiagnosed medical one?
When the king chooses to post laws too high on the wall to be read, issues edicts that cannot be tolerated, takes actions without the consent of the governed, allows representatives but does not allow them to represent their constituents, and attempts to strip from the public the main tools they possess to guarantee their safety and independence in deference to his own, what course can the public be expected to steer?
Perhaps the most curious element of the Connecticut approach to gun law, and the most dangerous facet of this entire adventure, is that government officials have exempted themselves from this whole proclamation.
They remain free to own, possess and use every bit of this lethal arsenal they forbid to the public. If these implements are so dastardly, so deadly, so powerful, so dangerous they must be banned from We the People, how on Earth can We the People possibly entrust them to the hands of, well, who exactly?
Under what rationale can all the "designated" people in this secretly operating government be allowed to possess such awesome firepower? Such high capacity? Such dark guns with so many features? Do Blacks in America trust the man quite that much? Do you? Just who do they think they need it for? Do they face murderers the public does not? Just who do murderers murder?
Isn't it the government that is the corrupt, immoral, capable of every imaginable act of deceit, deception, official malfeasance, coverup, fraud, theft and mayhem we see in the nightly "news"? Do criminals seek out police to assault, or do they seek out us innocently in theaters, schools, shops and our homes? If the police keep saying they're outgunned, hey, they're the second responders, anyone can see that on the "news." If anyone needs arms capable of repelling boarders, it's the public – the people crime is perpetrated upon.
If the government needs all this sophisticated weaponry, feels it must exempt itself from the laws it proposes to control us, how does that square with the fact that it is government that is the greatest murderer of people, and has been throughout all of recorded history?
If the anti-rights Americans on the left have their way, led now by Connecticutters, we would be relegated to little guns that don't work well, with only a few small bullets, that fire the small bullets slowly and then we would be out. This is not the balance of power the Founders sought. Small guns with a few bullets are not safe. Limited power does not keep your own government in check. Government arguing to limit your power in deference to its own is government not to be trusted.
When we the people have pop guns, and the government by law grants unto itself the power to own and use all the serious guns on the list it forbids to us, the free country we all want is over, and that cannot be allowed to pass.
That is the way of a tyrannical government that does not trust its people. The excuse that this is for our own safety is abject nonsense. "Disarming you for your own safety" has been the rubric of every tyrant of the last century. Sorry, Connecticut, even if you mean well, history has got you there. And if you do mean well, perhaps worse, it makes you classic useful idiots.
—But cling to hope, you in Connecticut. You can yet act for your own safety. Trash this nasty unconstitutional feckless illegal infringement approach.
