No Guns for You!

President Obama has announced he is going to issue an executive order to impose stricter gun control laws than enacted by the United States Congress.  Congress is the legislative branch of government.  Whereas the President, as part of the executive is limited to carrying out the laws.  A president may use executive orders to develop policy to carry out or interpret law, but they cannot write law.  Here is a good article on executive orders (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order).

We will not know if Obama’s executive order is Constitutional or not until he issues it.  He has said, however, that he intends to close the so-called “gun show loophole.”  First, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.”  Any person, regardless of where the transaction takes place, for example, brick and mortar building, online or at a gun show, who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms is required to be a federally licensed firearm dealer and conduct background checks when selling a firearm. 

There is an exception.  A person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms is not required to be licensed and conduct background checks.  Do sales of firearms by persons not required to be licensed take place at gun shows?  Yes, they do, but it is not a loophole, it is the law that allows it.

Obama and others may not like the law, but it is the law and he cannot change it; making law, as you may recall, is the responsibility of Congress.  Will he attempt to change it through executive order?  Maybe he will, but again we will not know until he issues his decree.  In the meantime, ponder this:

Anti-gun advocates make much ado about the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right; there is no need to be part of a militia. However, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the founders did intend only those were part of a militia could legally possess firearms.  Then I ask, who is the militia?  I think George Mason summed it up nicely when at the Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution in 1788 said, " I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

A militia can be part of the government or as the founders most likely envisioned, separate from it.  Doubt it?  Then consider 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes.  It recognizes unorganized militias. And I ask, what were the requirements for being part of a militia and owning a firearm in 1788?

So, even if being part of a militia is a requirement of firearm ownership, I am part of a militia. I stand ready to defend my country against attacks both foreign and domestic and against my government should it ever come to that. So, the argument that only members of a government militia, AKA the National Guard, is without merit.

I am for stopping violence, all violence, but I will not infringe upon the rights of people to do it.  Passing new gun control laws have proven to be ineffective in deterring violence.  California has very restrictive firearm laws and has continually failed to stop violent acts committed with firearms. 

Martin O'Malley, former governor of Maryland bragged during the Democratic debates about the very strict gun laws he passed including a so-called assault weapon ban and yet Baltimore has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Not much to brag about is it?

No new gun control law will stop violence – we need to address the root cause of violence to stop it.  Do not try to stop me from protecting myself and my family until the criminals and terrorist are brought under control. 

The truth is the anti-gun advocates want to ban all firearms.  To them I say, “go for it, but do it Constitutionally.  Amend the Second Amendment.”  

I do not want them to simply repeal the Second Amendment.  I want them to amend it to ban all persons from owning firearms, including any private security persons.  No person, except those in the employ of a government law enforcement agency shall be authorized to possess a firearm while on official duty; lock it away at the station when off-duty.  

Additionally , armed government security shall be provided only at official buildings or events and no person, regardless of position held, including the president of the United States shall be entitled to government security after their term of office has expired or while not on official business.

Think about that Obama, Clinton, O'Malley, Bloomberg, and Clinton; are you will to give up your guns?  Of course they would never agree to having their armed protection taken away.  Make no mistake, they think their lives are so much more important than yours and mine.  

To the hypocritical rich who want to keep their armed security while taking away my means to protect myself and my family I say, "it ain't happening."

To everyone else I say, "listen to what Obama says, watch what he does and tell me if you really will be any safer?"  You won't but he doesn't care because it isn't about safety.  It is all about politics, always has been. And remember, like the pair joined at the hip, "we've got ours, you don't need yours."