Almost immediately following the San Bernardino tragedy, before the incident was fully investigated, President Obama, along with Hillary Clinton in her familiar robotic tone, began beating the drum for the need to enact more gun control legislation to prevent such tragedies in the future.
Pet phrases like “we can do better,” “something has to be done,” and “common sense approaches,” are synonyms for we want you to give up a little more of your freedom.
2nd Amendment restrictions have always been a top priority of Progressives, believing the government is more capable of running our lives than we are.
While insisting more gun-control legislation is what is needed to prevent such tragedies, preventing future tragedies is not their real intent, their real intent is restriction of our 2nd amendment right, and they shamelessly use any gun-related tragedy to further their objective.
Would restricting my 2nd amendment right have prevented the San Bernardino tragedy? How about yours? Or any other law-abiding gun owners? Emphatically no!
Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton’s hasty implication that stricter gun control laws would have somehow prevented the massacre, over the course of the days that followed San Bernardino, turned out to be entirely false.
Their proposed gun-control legislation would not have prevented San Bernardino, and they knew it when they said it, and they still know it. But this isn’t about San Bernardino, it’s about control. Government control.
We now know San Bernardino was terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamic radicals Syed Rizwan Farook and his “wife” Tashfeen Malik.
The Progressives want you to look past the fact the attack was carried out in a gun-free zone, and Syed Rizwan Farook didn’t purchase the rifles used in the attack from a gun store, fearing he wouldn’t pass a background check. Nor would they want to admit because of Farook’s avoided retail gun stores, or gun shows, the current gun laws did their job.
San Bernardino revealed a weakness in legislative policy, but it wasn’t a weakness in gun control, it was a weakness in immigration policy.
The White House’s rhetoric how refugees from the Middle East are “thoroughly” and “rigorously” vetted rang woefully empty in light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
Farook went to Saudi Arabia and returned with his new wife Tashfeen Malik, passing all of the touted thorough and rigorous government vetting processes.
Had those vetting processes simply included looking at Tashfeen Malik’s Facebook page maybe someone at the DHS would have known she was a terrorist, and 14 people would still be alive.
Sadly, the Obama administration has forbade DHS from looking at anyone’s Facebook page as part of the immigrant visa screening process. So much for Progressive ‘common sense.’
The Legislation proposed is the same bill proposed in 2013 (which didn’t pass then either) but with a couple of additions.
The new gun-control legislation proposed by the Obama administration, candidate Hillary Clinton, and sponsored in the Senate by Chuck Schumer, is a Trojan horse.
While the bill’s supporters say tying gun background checks to the government no-fly list is a ‘common sense’ forward step, it’s really a slight of hand.
Tying our 2nd amendment right to a no-fly list would jeopardize that right.
The 2nd amendment, like the 1st, is a fundamental right, a right guaranteed by the Constitution, meaning it cannot be taken away by the Federal government except as the result of conviction of a felony in a court of law by a jury of your peers.
Restrictions can be placed on your right to purchase a gun, but those restrictions are enforced at the state level, not at the federal level. They also can be directly appealed in court.
The proposed legislation by Obama, Hillary, and Schumer, would diminish your 2nd amendment right by changing it from a fundamental right to an entitlement right (a right determined by the government, or a government bureaucrat).
On a side note, ole Chuck Schumer hasn’t mentioned the 100 Million dollar budget that goes along with this legislation, has he?
You go to a sporting goods store to purchase a firearm. You fill out the paperwork, and suddenly you’re denied because your name is on the government no-fly list. You want to know why your name is on the no-fly list, so where do you start?
You’re a law-abiding citizen, haven’t been convicted of anything, you may not even ever had a traffic ticket, so there must be some sort of mistake.
You begin your inquiry by contacting local law enforcement, upon which you’re informed your denial comes from the DHS (Department of Homeland Security).
Lucky for you the government has established a department and a website where you can challenge your placement on the no-fly list; the DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (DHS TRIP for short).
Your appeal starts by filling out a form, once you realize there is no 1 800 number to call and quickly get this resolved. In the mean-time your 2nd amendment right has been suspended.
There is an excellent article on the ACLU’s website detailing the bureaucratic nightmare involved in challenging your placement on the no-fly list, warning;
“Because there is no other alternative available at this time, we generally advise people to follow the process in the hope that the government will change it’s mind.”
So how could your name wind up on the no-fly list to start with?
This article mentions 7 ways, siting just 3:
- You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
- You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
- Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.
Potentially innocent actions, if considered as threatening by someone at the Department of Homeland Security, could decide your name should be added to the list.
At his point a government agent has suspended your 2nd amendment right; without a trial, and making a subjective decision based on reasonable suspicion. Who determines what qualifies as reasonable suspicion?
If you ever wind up on a no-fly list, even in error, in all likelihood you would never be able to find out who decided to add you to the list.
Even if you challenge the reason or reasons you are on the no-fly list, and are fortunate enough to talk to an official, it’s likely that official will only have a summary of reasons why you are on the list:
“You should know that the government’s summary likely will not include all of its reasons for your placement on the list.”
They also don’t have to tell you why your name is on the list.
“the U.S. government’s privilege against disclosing classified information that could harm national security. This makes it difficult for those prosecuting these claims to investigate the reason behind their inclusion on the List or to challenge the List on constitutional grounds because they cannot easily show a pattern of improper behavior.”
An unnamed government agent, operating under privilege, has determined you guilty, based on suspicion or error, without a trial by jury of your peers, has revoked your 2nd amendment right.
In other words; whomever at DHS, or at one of its agencies, decides your name should be on the list, can add it without any accountability to you or the public at large.
What is to prevent a government official from deciding who is added to the no-fly list based on their personal prejudices?
Without accountability they could add your name to the no-fly list for any number of reasons: maybe because you are a Conservative, a Liberal, a Christian, white, or maybe they just don’t like your friends or Facebook page. Any of these reasons, or dozens of others, could be used to suspend your 2nd amendment right indefinitely.
The inherit dangers of this kind of government rule-making, without accountability, has already happened, and more than once.
Remember Lois Lerner, the IRS official who was removed from office because she was caught intentionally obstructing tax free applications for Republican organizations during the 2012 presidential campaign?
She was removed from office with full pay and benefits. I guess that’s the government’s definition of being held accountable. Wouldn’t it be great if we in the private sector could be fired yet keep our pay and benefits?
The founders were very shrewd in the verbiage used in the 2nd amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is no constitutionally justifiable reason the 2nd amendment should be altered, or infringed upon, based on a list compiled by any government agent or body who is not accountable to the public. Doing so could be considered a violation of another constitutional right, the 6th amendment.
The ACLU is currently challenging the government’s no-fly list in court.
“Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms.”
Tying our 2nd amendment right to the no-fly list is truly a Trojan horse. This is purely an assault on our 2nd amendment right by the government. President Obama, Senator Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton, democratic candidate for President, are leading the assault.
We must not allow ourselves to be conned into giving up our 2nd amendment right by slick-talking Progressives whose only interest is exerting more government control over our lives.
Be assured if they can control the 2nd, we will soon after lose the 1st for our freedom of speech is only guaranteed by the 2nd.