Commentary | California’s United States Senator, Diane Feinstein, has outraged Second Amendment advocates with the news of her plans to introduce a new law to ban all assault weapons, high capacity magazines, and pistol grips. Unlike the ban on assault weapons enacted under Bill Clinton, the bill would eliminate grandfathering, possibly requiring all Americans to surrender any banned items they owned prior to the passage of the proposed law. The still unseen law raises the specter of government agents knocking on citizen’s doors and demanding the surrender of previously legal guns and other equipment.
According to Examiner.com, Mac Salvo of The Shooting Wire was the first to break the news about Feinstein’s renewed attack on gun ownership:
“I don’t have the minutes of the meeting (yet), but sources tell me California Senator and longtime gun-hater Dianne Feinstein’s legal staff held meetings on Friday with FTB/ATF legal staff to discuss a new “Assault Weapons Ban” Madame Feinstein would be looking to push through Congress if President Obama wins reelection. This same “pretty good intelligence” says the items that would lead to a ban would ban pistol grips and “high-capacity” magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of “weapons in possession.”
Feinstein is known to gun enthusiasts as a hardcore gun grabber who makes Mayor Bloomberg seem like an owner of a shooting range. In 2004, the Senator spoke about a total prohibition on all gun ownership in America. She gave a quote to the San Francisco Chronicle that probably had the founding fathers spinning in their collective graves:
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
During the 2012 campaign Obama breathed a major sigh of relief when the UN backed down on the noxious Small Arms Treaty, which gun owners, and constitutional scholars alike, fear is designed to chip away at American sovereignty, create an international gun registry and even restrict the rights of nations to supply their allies with weapons for defense.
Critics of the UN have no doubt that any gun control treaty passed by the UN might be used to stop the United States from supplying Israel with the weapons she needs to defend her nation against implacable enemies who surround the tiny Jewish state and are sworn to her utter destruction. They envision a scenario in which China uses the treaty to prevent the US from sending weapons to Taiwan or Russia uses it to block weapons being sent to opponents of the Mullahs in Iran.
Once the election was over and Obama had his “four more years,” it took the White House less than 24 hours to support the UN’s call for a new round of talks on the treaty from March 18-28, 2012.
The US Mission to the UN announced Obama’s renewed support for the treaty:
“We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, spoke about how quickly the President embraced reviving the Small Arms Treaty:
“It’s obvious that our warnings over the past several months have been true. The election was called about 11 p.m. Tuesday and by 11 a.m. this morning (November 7), we got word that the United States was supporting this resolution. We have to be more vigilant in our efforts to stop this proposed treaty.”
It should also be pointed out that assault weapons play a minuscule part in violent crime. They are involved in one percent of gun crimes and 0.20 percent of all violent crime. Most violent crimes are committed with household objects and even when a gun is involved, 99 percent of the time it isn’t an AR15, an AK47 or any other type of assault weapon.
Even the ultra liberal Washington Post admitted the truth about how few assault weapons are used in violent crimes. In a self incriminating editorial, the Post tipped the hands of the gun grabbers in our government and exposed the real reason they support a ban on assault weapons:
“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
Examiner columnist Ryan Keller spoke about the reasoning behind the renewed attack on gun ownership in America:
“With Obama, who supports the ban, in the White House for another term and the Democrats fully in control of the Senate, Feinstein will most likely be able to introduce the legislation. If any trouble is encountered in the Republican-held House of Representatives, then gun control advocates should fear not, as Obama would most likely issue an executive order to get around it as he’s done in the past when he doesn’t get his way. After all, “we can’t wait,” the dictator needs to erode our rights now.”
The most likely scenario that will occur over the next few months will probably read like this: Obama will continue to say UN Small Arms Treaty is harmless and if it is ever passed he will sign it, even if the United States Senate makes it overwhelmingly clear they will vote against the treaty.
Feinstein will introduce an assault weapon ban in the Senate, the bill will be passed in the dark of night with every Democrat voting in favor and every Republican opposed. The bill will be killed by the House of Representatives and Obama will ignore the Constitution and write an Executive Order banning assault weapons.
That is the scenario most gun rights advocates and conservatives are predicting. Once again, it looks like we are headed for a full blown constitutional crisis between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government and I am betting the do nothing Republicans will let Obama get away with another Presidential power grab.
Most gun owners are horrified by any thought of a background check and a waiting period to buy a gun. I am a libertarian and I support the right to own and bear arms but I am about to say something that will upset quite a few people. While owning a gun is a right, it is also a privilege and I do not have an issue with background checks and a waiting period to buy a pistol or a long arm.
If a fair and equitable standard is put in place by the combined effort of the House and Senate, signed by the President, and found to be constitutional by The Supreme Court, I see no difficulty with filling out a form and waiting a few days to pick up my weapon.
What do you think? Is gun ownership an absolute right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Is it unconstitutional or unfair to ask gun owners to go through a background check and a short waiting period to buy a gun? What is your opinion on this highly important issue?
A great big Thank You to Kim LaCapria for the absolutely fabulous title for this column. Thank you Kimmy.