Gun News Daily

It's time we hold the right people accountable, not law-abiding citizens. We are not the problem. It's criminals and the politicians who coddle them.

If you read Part I, II, and III there is no doubt about what our position should be regarding gun laws. However, there are those gun owners that feel real uncomfortable with the notion of no gun control laws at all.

These are folks that are mostly under fifty years of age who probably consider the hoop-jumping a safety issue or just a way of life. These are folks who accept the system for what it is. It may restrict their rights, not allow them to buy the gun they want, but if it keeps criminals from getting guns and makes us safer, it’s worth it they’ll say. Again, over 20,000 gun laws in this country haven’t kept criminals from getting guns if they want them.

If the gun law system is designed to keep criminals from using it, and it drives them off to an ever-growing black market, what’s the point of having it? If the only people subject to the process are law-abiding citizens it hardly serves any purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s simply a terrible waste of law enforcement resources and our hard earned taxes we give the government.

Let’s go through this and add some meat around it so it makes some sense.

Felons

We don’t want felons to buy guns. As a result they don’t use the system law-abiding citizens’ use. Let’s at least be intellectually honest about this issue. Felons get their guns despite government restrictions.

And boy do we have restrictions. Many hours of reading will be required for California’s firearm laws and when finished, you will understand little about firearms restrictions, other than there a lot of them. You can read the laws on the California DOJ’s website. It is 33 pages long when printed, all implemented to ‘keep us safe.’ After taking a look at it, ask yourself two questions: Do criminals follow these rules? Am I safer knowing that laws exist that are utterly and completely indecipherable by the average college educated person?

Terrorists/Illegal Aliens

The latest nonsense from the anti-gun crowd is that if we don’t restrict access to guns, terrorists will get hold of them. And, illegal immigrants can come to this country and buy guns at will and ship them to who knows where, like Mexico, or use them here to commit crimes. We can’t allow that they say.

Government can be our own worst enemy when it comes to common sense. You see, terrorists entering this country illegally or people entering the country illegally from around the world, not just Mexico, is an immigration problem, not a gun rights issue. The government’s lax attitude on this issue should not be a reason to restrict rights of American citizens. Gun owners should demand that our borders be protected. If you are here illegally in possession of a firearm the law should be swift and severe, which we will reviewed later. If you think that our borders should be open, then please don’t be surprised of the consequences. But your desire to keep the border open should not be cause for Americans to either lose their rights or have them severely restricted. Agreed?

What about nut cases?

Well, what about them? Yes, we hear about nut cases going on a rampage every year or two. In virtually all cases these people were allowed to purchase firearms legally. A number of the shooters we find are on some form of medication prescribed for mental disorders. In most cases they have stopped taking their meds. Millions of people in this country are under care by a licensed doctor and are routinely prescribed anti-depressants. They live a very normal life. When someone goes on a rampage, something else is wrong in that person’s life and brain.

The system fails to catch these people. Does that mean you should jump through hoops and live with restrictions on your right to self-defense because an extreme minority might commit violent acts? Statistically, we are many more times likely to be hit by a bolt of lightning before being shot by a shooter on a rampage. You are hundreds of times more likely to go down in a plane crash or killed in an automobile accident. Let’s not believe that mass shootings are something that happens frequently. They are extraordinarily rare and an unlikely scenario that in no way should justify an entire nation being subject to Second Amendment restrictions.

Restraining Orders

In California filing for divorce is all that is required to obtain a restraining order against a spouse. There is no hearing and no evidence. There is no proof required that you are a danger to your spouse. It’s just another item on the bill of itemized charges a divorce attorney charges the spouse. But, you lose your right to purchase or own a firearm. And it’s not easy getting your guns back after they have been confiscated by local law enforcement. A friend in San Diego, a successful professional with no history of violence and no arrest record, spent five years and a small fortune in legal fees after the divorce was final trying to get his firearms returned to him. That isn’t right. But that’s one of the things law enforcement and legal profession spends its time doing.

The stupid part of all this is that people actually believe they are safe when they have a restraining order out against another person. How many times have we heard about someone killed by a person supposedly under protection of a restraining order? A piece of paper isn’t going to stop anyone. But a gun will.

Unfortunately more often than not the victim is not armed because they can’t get a concealed carry permit in California. You see, having a restraining order out against an individual is not enough of a reason in most California counties to warrant issuing a permit. Restraining orders are handed out like candy on Halloween in this state. You would think there would be hundreds-of-thousands with carry permits. Remember, a restraining order does not require evidence, despite what the law might say. It’s just one person who says they are threatened by another. To obtain a CCW in some communities you must prove that there has been a threat against your life, and in some counties that’s not even enough for a CCW. A restraining order is not generally accepted as a valid reason for a CCW in most locations in California.

We could spend pages going through various ‘what about’ or ‘what if’ scenarios. The possibilities are limitless but anecdotal.

So, what’s next?

Look, if we are advocating a complete rollback of gun laws to 1967, there has got to be something that protects citizens from armed criminals other than then a bunch of law-abiding citizens jumping through hoops. We know that doesn’t work.

Let’s start with a premise that we live in a free society. We have a Second Amendment which guarantees the right to firearms ownership without infringement. It is a fundamental right, as is freedom of the press, the right to free expression, or the right to assemble. We have the right to be secure in our papers and property from unreasonable search and seizure. These are but some of the fundamental rights that should be maintained with the utmost attention by politicians, law enforcement and the judicial system.

When the fundamentals of freedom are violated or abused, not only by government, but individuals as well, the punishment should be swift and sure.

A felon (on probation or parole) in possession of a firearm should automatically receive a minimum of 20 years without the possibility of early release.

The use of a gun in the commission of a crime should be an automatic sentence of 20 years in prison without the possibility of early release. If you are an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, it’s 20 years in prison. If someone is wounded during the commission of a crime, it’s life in prison with no possibility for parole for the shooter along with all accomplices. If someone is killed, it’s the death penalty, no exceptions. The days of murderers on parole need to end. That is nonsense and politicians need to hear from us on this issue loud and clear.

The premise of stiff sentencing is very simple. We remove the burden from the law-abiding and place it on criminals. What would be the outcome of these ‘draconian’ rules that some might call them? Well, you can be certain a criminal will think twice before using a gun to commit a crime. In fact, with severe sentences like this, it’s a good bet that the majority will forgo using a gun whenever possible. It’s not worth it. And those that do use a gun have violated a basic trust of living in a free society. They don’t deserve the freedom they have been given. But it certainly is not right when the freedoms of all are curtailed for the actions of the few.

Here comes the hard part. How do we roll back the law? --- Part V.

If you missed them, links to Part I, Part II and Part III

Image compliments of Patriot Depot. Available as a bumper sticker from Patriot Depot.com