The ‘Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control’

President Obama is making darn sure that there is a federal dossier on every American by collecting information from all federal agencies, from medical sources, and from individual states. He has done this by Executive Order for the purpose of taking guns away from every one. Why else would he burden every law abiding citizen, every federal agency, every medical and mental health facility, plus build a federal database registry for gun control purposes all because of a madman’s shooting? If you have a better explanation for his actions, let me know.

First, it begins with every citizen who has any public record with any federal agency. FOID is a good place to start, yes? But because gun owners already have FOID cards, the efforts will be to ensnare all citizens into the database. They will have a ‘federal dossier for gun control’ established. All federal activities from every agency will be collected into a single dossier for each citizen. FBI, ICE, Armed Forces, National Security, Department of the Interior, State Department, every freakin’ federal agency save the IRS will examine what data it holds and provide same to the Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control. (What good is a gun control database if it doesn’t have your name in it? Hmmm?)

Second, state and local, mental health and/or specific medical records will  have patient names and summaries of their mental health state, medicines taken, drug abuse violations, drug usage or overdose, and any medical or mental health evaluation and/or history of same, added to the database to thicken the Federal Dossier about you. (What good is a database if you aren’t in it when it is checked?)

Third, the President will provide money to states to entice them to forward all state criminal records of investigations (innocent or guilty) to the Federal Dossier. From domestic abuse to drug usage and fist fights in high school, all state law enforcement authorities will report all criminal investigations to the Federal Dossier.(Not just trials…investigations…)

Fourth, the President already authorized and directed the Attorney General of the United States of America to determine which combination of federal agency records, patient medical issues, patient mental health issues, and state law enforcement records, in some algorithmic and alchemic combination, identify you as a ‘dangerous person’ within your federal record. Dangerous persons, as we know,  should not have a gun. I reckon there will be different categories of dangerousness developed.

Fifth, every law enforcement organization, before returning any gun that they took from you for any reason, will be required to run a background check in the Federal Dossier to determine if you ‘qualify’ to have your guns returned. And if you don’t qualify: too bad, so sad, they keep them.

Sixth, the federal government will craft a letter telling federal gun dealers how to run background checks using the new Federal Dossier and Database for Gun Control. Punitively, of course, if they fail to do it correctly or completely, or if they fail to record that you actually purchased a gun or several guns. (What good is a gun control database if it doesn’t tell people you have a gun to be controlled and what its serial number is? Hmmm?)

Seventh, require that any gun connected to any law enforcement investigation be traced backwards to its original purchase so that if you break the law by selling your gun to a private party without a background check, you can be arrested or fined even if the person you sold the gun to did not commit the crime. It will make you feel guilty that the gun you owned a decade ago was used in a crime after being sold three times. And they will punish you as a contributor to the crime by placing a mark in YOUR federal record forever as failing to control your gun sale to a third party. (What good is a gun control data base if it doesn’t have serial number traceability?  How do they know what guns were bought and sold illegally if they don’t track serial numbers? Hmmm?)

Eighth, maximize prosecutions over gun control failures to send a message that gun control is serious business. Make gun control failures a felony. Failure to control guns will be just as criminal as using guns to commit a crime.

Ninth, establish a responsible gun ownership program to make every gun control failure a teachable moment and to facilitate naïve media articles to put fear in the minds of reasonable people that the negatives of gun ownership outweigh the positives… and possibly outweigh even  the constitutional right to possess firearms.

Tenth, if you are ‘qualified’  for responsible gun ownership, but subsequently develop a series of factors that move you to a ‘dangerous person’ level,  they will come and take your guns away before you hurt yourself or someone else. (They will say “It only makes sense right? We have to protect some ‘unknown but probable’ person you may kill tomorrow by taking your guns away today.”)

And that is how the Federal Government will have a dossier on every citizen in the US, how they will use the “process” to take existing guns away and make it  intolerable, onerous, and odious to possess a gun.

This will take less than 20 years by my estimation and Congress doesn’t have to lift a finger. All by Executive Order because this *cough* constitutional scholar President doesn’t have a clue what a constitutional right is.

Scared yet? You should be. Read the NYT for yourself.

How do I know this from the NYT article? Because that is what I would do if I wanted to take guns away and I had those tools at my disposal. With a Congress that sits on its butt with its fingers up its collective nose AND with a Supreme Court that fails to restrain the federal government on anything it does unless the court case is 20 years old, both you and I don’t stand a chance against runaway federal agencies.

(Just imagine that you are a returning vet from Afghanistan. You are classified as a ‘dangerous person level 1’ because you have killed in combat and are familiar with guns. You suffered from PTSD upon returning but have been treated and released. You don’t have a job but you want to buy a gun. Should you be “allowed” to purchase one with your life history and  your possible threat to others or yourself…. hmmm? That’s my point.)

Violence Control

What is it about people that causes them to follow the crowd?

The President speaks of gun violence and only addresses gun controls. Where is the effort to stop violence? It is as if people think that violence is normal and that violence can be expressed with knives, fists, clubs, and spears. Yet, if violence is expressed with guns, well, that is a matter that must be thwarted because violence with guns is fatal.

If we create violent video games, we teach violence to children, so they say. As if no other factor exists to develop our behavior beyond video games. But life is about a variety of experiences to judge the good from the bad for ourselves. And for most of us, we grow to become good adults regardless of parental neglect, parental abuse, or a violent upbringing. A few do grow up wrong but it is impossible to tell how much of a role nature or nurture played.

The issue is not guns, it is violence that we should examine. What are the triggers to violence? How much do they vary by individual? How much violence is learned behaviors versus an innate desire to harm others? Does a boy who pulls wings off  flys become violent later in life?

If our approach to gun violence is simply to control guns in the hands of bad men and women then we will fail. We tried to keep alcohol away from bad men, we failed. We tried to keep drugs away from bad men and we failed. We try to keep guns away from bad men and we failed again. When do we stop addressing the tools and focus on the man or woman who is violent?

In Chicago there were over 500 murders in the inner city. This is in a few square miles of land. And in LA there were 517 homicides and if you look at this map you will see that they are grouped into a specific number of areas. If violence is territory-oriented shouldn’t we have strategies for a territory instead of making it tough for people who don’t live there to obtain guns? What value is a law that punishes the good and does nothing to prevent the bad?

Something is wrong in America when we give detention to the whole class because a few people in the back talk too much. You know there are laws like this and you know they are wrong. Oppression begins when the majority is punished for the wrongs of a minority. That is a truth that everyone can understand. (Except maybe Congress and the President.)

Laws by ‘decree’ and ‘one-size laws that fit all’ are wrong for America.

Gun Control by Fiat

I have always supported gun rights but I have also been skeptical of those who say liberals want to take your guns away. Today I am no longer skeptical.

President Obama probably got all wiggly today as he signed 23 executive actions in order to change gun control efforts by federal decree. He also proposed 13 additional legislative changes for Congress to act upon. You can read them all here if you like.

While I have not moved over to the doomsday prepper party, I am more inclined today to believe stories of gun control perfidy than I ever was.

You remember General Washington, yes? A civilian militia, assembled in the colonies, led by the General, led to America’s freedom. It is hard to imagine the reaction to a million NRA members celebrating General Washington’s birthday in Washington, D.C. this year.

In any event, I am upset by this alleged constitutional scholar who knows all the words but none of the meaning in any of the Bill of Rights amendments.

I think Judge Napolitano’s comment was spot on. The Second Amendment is not about hunting, target shooting, or self-protection although any of those is enough to ensure that the right to bear arms is protected. It is about armed resistance to tyranny.

I support training, gun safety, and background checks for gun purchasers. I support the same for voters: training, voter safety, and background checks. Are they so different that we have completely different rules for them? We fear ignorant gun owners and ignorant voters, don’t we?

The Domestic Enemies of America

1. Any President who asserts authority not granted by the Constitution.

2. Any Congress that asserts authority not granted by the Constitution.

3. Any Supreme Court that ignores the rights of individual or collective states (or persons) and establishes more authority for Congress and the President than plainly expressed in the Constitution.

4. Political parties that seek to raid the National Treasury instead of preserving it.

5. An educational system that prefers advancing underachievers rather than developing excellence.

6. Federal and local law enforcement that commit unconstitutional and illegal acts while performing their duties.

7. Groups and organizations that promote social justice first, personal responsibility and freedom second.

8. News media that proselytize to stir emotions instead of promoting understanding.

9. People and organizations seeking to use the force of law over others to accomplish what they cannot achieve themselves by argument.

10. Those who do not recognize that just societies, economic societies, and healthy societies are fundamentally based upon spiritual qualities: honesty, truth, integrity, self-discipline, love of oneself, respect for others, and acceptance of the immutable goodness and evilness existing within the body of mankind.

Liberals are salivating about gun control in 2013

They don’t appear to care what gun control is enacted just that as much gun control legislation is accomplished as soon as possible.

Starting with President Obama today, the President assembled a task force to develop more gun controls at the federal level.

President Barack Obama vowed to press for tighter gun laws early next year, as he sought to turn national outrage over the Connecticut school massacre into action to ban assault weapons and ensure better background checks on gun buyers.

Obama held a White House news conference on Wednesday to announce that Vice President Joe Biden will lead an interagency effort to craft new gun policies. The group is expected to offer its proposals in January.

So the White House plans to craft new gun policies within 30 days. How much thought is going to go into that effort? The President says: “What we’re looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we’re gonna actually be serious about the safety side of this,” Obama said.

Apparently only 30 days is needed for a thoughtful approach.

“…able to carry out their activities…” We are  not talking about activities, Mr. President. We are talking about rights that are enumerated in the Constitution.

The President has it right that violence controls should be enacted: Obama said he believed most Americans support the reinstatement of a ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons, barring the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips and a law requiring background checks on buyers before all gun purchases, to stop sales at gun shows without such checks. The last one has nothing to do with controlling gun violence and is an impediment to keeping and bearing firearms.

The first part is true enough. But there are other measures that will likely be proposed that will infringe upon the Second Amendment and create more federal control.

Allow me to speculate on how the President the Executive Branch in league with Congress will  increase federal control and restrict/inhibit your freedom to keep bear arms:

1. A federal mandatory waiting period for any firearm purchase (which exceeds the 48 hours handgun waiting period already in place in Wisconsin). I don’t know what he might recommend but I suspect that a 7-day waiting period would be placed on the table and then they would dare any one to argue against it.

2. Requiring states to record the sale of every gun in the United States including person-to-person sales.  Like the title to a car, every sale would have a title transfer take place. The President will avoid establishing federal registration but he will have Congress mandate that states perform this function under the Commerce Clause. The hue-and-cry for the past several years is that volumes of criminals with their valid firearm registrations could go to gun shows and purchase weapons for criminal activity. This is nut case thinking of the highest order. But a title transfer presents an opportunity to develop a database of gun owners who buy and sell weapons. This allows a traceability aspect on all weapons going forward and allows government database sharing that identifies those who have purchased several weapons in X amount of time. In an unconstitutional twist, gun owners would have a grace period to register all their current guns or face jail.

3. Mandatory FBI background checks for all gun purchases with an imposed fee to offset the cost. Not trusting state background checks, the President will seek federal or national background checks to ensure that no criminals could go from one state to another to purchase guns. By mandating that state registrations include proof of federal or national background checks, the federal government can sew this whole thing together.

4. Knowing how many and what types of guns any citizen may have, the federal government and state government will share that data for every address in the US and use a mapping program to show the demographic footprint of weapons in all areas. Because all of this data is required for registration and sale of weapons, it will have to be made available to the public. You and all the criminals in the area will know which homes and buildings have guns and which do not. If you don’t have a gun, you will become a more likely target for criminals.

5.  Because of item 4 above, police procedures will vary depending upon the gun map of your address. Less tolerance for upset citizens, and more arrests for bad behavior, will be the norm as police will seek to control the situation conclusively if weapons are known to be present.

6. Perhaps the President will recommend that ammunition purchases be limited to X amount of ammunition per gun type per month to allow you to “carry out your activities”. You may be able to up your quota of ammunition via Ammunition Quota Increase Request Forms which require a current background check  and explanation of why more bullets are needed.

7. Perhaps mandatory fire arm safety training will be required for every gun purchase and for gun title registration. Licensed gun dealers will be qualified to provide such training and re-certified annually. You, the gun owner, will be required to pay for this if you have less than five guns. If you have more than five, you will be exempted but you will have to prove how many you have and it will be compared to the database. You will have to explain any differences and pay the piper if you cannot.

8. No semi-automatic weapons will be sold unless the trigger mechanism cannot be changed to full automatic operation without destroying the weapon.

9. If it looks like a military weapon, perhaps it will be against the law to own it.

10. Perhaps the President will propose  a design modification which renders that any gun cannot be fully reloaded in less than six seconds. This will be proposed under the theory that if one crazy buzzard does go berserk, at least someone will have six seconds to stop him from further carnage.

11. Perhaps the President will propose that all gun owners obtain a mandatory mental health check-up every three years and you must provide a ‘certification of sanity’ for every gun purchase.

12. Perhaps the President will create the “FDA of the gun industry” and require that all new weapons have a plethora of hurdles to overcome before they are allowed to be sold. Those hurdles will be: limitations on the gun’s design, development of safety features, its intended purpose, its targeted market and its ammunition capacity. Over time, a Lethality Matrix will be developed and guns cannot exceed a specific Lethality Threshold to be marketed in the US. Foreign gun manufacturers will have to comply or be kicked out of the American market. Smuggling weapons into the US will become  a lucrative criminal operation as a result. And finally, the GUNFDA will morph its focus so that over time guns are just marginally effective as a defensive method.

I could probably come up with ten more creative ways to interfere with the right of a common man to keep and bear arms of the type and kind he might enjoy. ( Like all bullets are to be manufactured with your DNA embedded in them so that if they are used in a criminal or other activity, the authorities can track it back to you.)

I am speculating, of course, but think about this, the people who are compiling this list of gun control ideas for the President are not constitutional experts, not gun lovers, nor are they rural conservatives who believe that ReasonableCitizens can use and enjoy guns responsibly without government controls.

ReasonableCitizen predicts the following:

1. There will be two measures in the President’s plan that expand federal control of the gun industry through the commerce clause.

2. There will be at least one requirement imposed upon the individual states.

3. The cosmetic look of a weapon and its ability for rapid fire will be controlled in some fashion.

4. The amount of ammunition that a person can purchase in a given period of time will be monitored and reported to local police authorities.

5. Private sales of weapons will be controlled or documented in some fashion.

6. Nationwide background checks will be mandatory for all weapons purchases.

7. A tax or a fee will be imposed to pay for something that interferes with your constitutional right to bear arms.

8. Some type of mental health check-up or urine testing will be required  to demonstrate that you are not currently taking behavior controlling substances when you purchase a weapon.

In thirty days, we will learn if I know something about Congress and politicians and reactions to current events.

Nothing would make me happier than to see the President promote some milquetoast legislation as an oblation to the public. But this will not likely be the result.

Remember, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Legislation is a big hammer and everything about guns is now a nail.

The Second Amendment, a case of commas, (sort of)

Many people debate the interpretation of the Second Amendment. There was a bit of chicanery about the whole thing (IMO). Other versions of punctuation exist and no one has decided which is correct and most people don’t know or care about.

As passed by Congress., the Second Amendment read: 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.

Note the three commas. They set off the modifying clauses. Without the clauses, the sentence reads “A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.” It clearly applied to States to have a militia and that the right existed for people to bear arms.

However, the version passed by Congress is not the version ratified by the states. That version reads “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.”

Only two commas here. The state’s version emphasizes the main sentence to read “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The two modifying clauses become ” A well regulated Militia (comma)” and “being necessary to the security of a free State (comma). Which makes no sense when you extract the modifying clause “being necessary to the security of a state”. For example: “A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But it makes a lot of sense if you remove “A well regulated Militia”. Then it reads “Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 It’s the darn commas that obfuscate the plain meaning.

 The version that is popular and supported today is one that may be structured as “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.” Just one comma and one modifying clause. Regardless of original commas or intent or anything else, that is how we are reading it today. This is the version that supports thinking that only citizens in the militia can possess arms.

 State-sponsored citizen militias no longer exist. The National Guard is not a replacement for a state militia. It is a military organization funded by the federal government and assigned to a state . If it were not, then it could not have been deployed in the Iraq War. While the National Guard is composed of citizens, it is a federal reserve force and not a State citizen militia force.

 In essence, the federal government supplanted State militias with a federal militia reserve force (subject to federal authority) that may be called upon to serve a State under emergency conditions. In current times, if a State chose to secede from the Union, the National Guard would be called upon by the federal government to quell the State’s insurrection, i.e., take the State’s Executive Branch and Legislators into custody. (Texas, take note of this.)

(The National Guard is a federal ‘posse comitatus’ exception when utilized by the Governor of the State… but we don’t want to think about that too much as near as I can tell.)