Liberal Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo will push for more gun control in New York, a state that already has among the strictest gun laws in the nation; Democrats are pushing additional gun restrictions in Washington State, and on Capitol Hill, Democrats in Congress also want to clamp down on Second Amendment rights, and it will all happen in the next 100 days.
The New York Times may have best defined the situation when it reported this week that, “Emboldened House Democrats, seeking a politically charged debate on gun control… are signaling that it is a top priority.”
Their political juices flowing after taking control of the House of Representatives, Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi – as previously reported – have launched legislation to require so-called “universal background checks.”
In New York, third-termer Cuomo is pushing a “red flag” law to allow gun owners to be disarmed via court order if they display “violent behavior,” which just might be more subjective than substantiated, according to critics of such laws elsewhere.
Out in Washington State, as earlier reported, Democrats energized by the passage of a restrictive gun control initiative that is already being challenged in federal court, and by election results that increased their majorities in both the state House and Senate, are looking at further clamps on the rights of the state’s gun owners.
The New York Times article is instructive for various reasons, among them being the way semantics change in the first four paragraphs. In the lead, the story talks about Democrats pushing “gun control.” At the end of paragraph four, the newspaper reports that “Many Democrats…were elected last year after promising to address gun safety.”
Second Amendment rights activists—including those at the WaGuns.org forum who created a T-shirt bearing their message—contend that “Gun control is not gun safety.”
This is quickly devolving into what promises to be a very nasty war over a fundamental right that, according to the firearms community, people like Cuomo and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer want to turn into a heavily-regulated privilege, complete with bans on whole classes of firearms they don’t like.
That said, there was an interesting piece in the Morning Call this week regarding Second Amendment rights in which the author acknowledged that background checks “won’t stop gun violence.”
The column also stated, “The National Rifle Association and other opponents of expanded background checks contend they miss the point because criminals don’t obtain their firearms through legal purchases. They’re right. Background checks wouldn’t help with shootings by gang members, drug dealers and other degenerates. But background checks could keep firearms away from people who try to buy them legally and shouldn’t be allowed to have them because of their history of being unstable or dangerous.”
That isn’t necessarily accurate. The mass shooters in Florida, Las Vegas, Fort Hood, Silver Springs, Mukilteo, Virginia Tech, Tucson and elsewhere all passed background checks.
And then he added this: “The argument that Second Amendment supporters always make is that they are law-abiding citizens who shouldn’t be subject to laws that infringe on their constitutional rights. If they are law-abiding, they shouldn’t oppose background checks because they should have no problem passing one.”
Try that same logic on voting rights, for example. Nobody should oppose a Voter I.D. requirement because legitimate voters should have no problem providing valid photo identification so they can exercise their right to vote.
The hundred-day period during which all of this gun control activity is supposed to occur has only just begun.
