U.S.—Democrats have made vows to place extreme restrictions on guns, but they keep running into a problem: Many of their ideas can’t go into effect because of an early addendum to the Constitution. They’re now calling this the “Second Amendment loophole.”
“We just want to get guns off the streets,” Cory Booker, one of 583 presidential candidates, told the press, “but this Second Amendment loophole makes it so we can’t do that. We need to close that loophole.”
The way many gun control advocates would like things to work is, if they read in the New York Times about a particular gun model they think is scary–like an AR-15 or a semi-automatic or a glue gun–they could then just go ahead and ban it and start taking it from people. Normally things would work this way with anything else, but thanks to the Second Amendment loophole, they can’t just ban guns because they feel like it.
Closing the Second Amendment loophole won’t be easy, though, as it will take two-thirds of the states to sign on, a nearly impossible task. This sort of thing has also blocked many other politicians’ brilliant plans, something they refer to as the “Federalism loophole.”
Watch what they do, not what they say. Trump administration actions bely Trump’s pro-Second Amendment rhetoric. From Michael Hammond at dailycaller.com:
President Trump stands to lose voters in 2020 if his administration undermines the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s happening. Consider the events of the last several weeks.
First, Attorney General William Barr announced the creation of a working group to consider ways to enforce the Lautenberg misdemeanor gun ban.
This 1996 ex post facto law was a major victory for gun control groups. It imposed a lifetime gun ban for a “crime” as minor as spanking your kid or spitting on your husband.
And one of the great, unintended consequences of the ban is that it disarmed many police officers — retroactively.
Now Barr can’t understand why the law we predicted would be ineffective has, in fact, been ineffective.
Secondly, additionally, at the request of the Justice Department, the Supreme Court turned down a petition to review whether suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment.
If political subdivisions can be sanctuaries against immigration law enforcement, why not sanctuaries against gun control and gun confiscation law? From Dagny Taggart at theorganicprepper.com:
Sanctuary cities aren’t just for immigrants anymore.
A growing number of states, counties, cities, and towns are declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries” and are refusing to enforce gun-control laws that infringe on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
While adopting ordinances and resolutions to defy gun laws isn’t a new tactic, momentum is rapidly building – likely in response to increasing calls for more gun control at state and federal levels.
Sheriffs in several states say they will NOT enforce gun control laws.
Sanctuary counties and towns are passing resolutions that state no funding will be used to enforce unconstitutional laws and that the sheriff will uphold his oath to the Constitution instead of enforcing laws that violate the Second Amendment.
County sheriffs are, legally speaking, the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights:
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)
Here’s a rundown of the states with jurisdictions that have adopted Second Amendment Sanctuary resolutions.
Don’t expect the Republicans to show any spine when it comes to protecting Second Amendment rights. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:
The House of Representatives recently passed legislation that would expand the national background check system to require almost everyone selling firearms, including private collectors who supplement their incomes by selling firearms at gun shows, to perform background checks on the potential buyers. The bill has a section purporting to bar creation of a national firearms registry. However, the expanded background check system will require the government to compile lists of those buying and selling guns. In other words, it creates a de facto national gun registry.
Similar to the experience with other types of prohibition, making it more difficult to legally buy a gun will enhance the firearms black market. Criminals, terrorist, and even deranged mass shooters will thus have no problem obtaining firearms.
It is no coincidence that the majority of mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones,” where shooters know their targets will be unarmed. This shows that any law making it more difficult for Americans to own and carry firearms makes us less safe. If Congress really wanted to reduce the incidence of gun violence, it would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act. This law leaves children easy prey for mass shooters by mandating that public schools be “gun-free zones.”
The old bumper sticker still rings true. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:
Guns are banned in the UK, but the black market is booming and criminals are loading up on firearms.
I have often wondered what is the real agenda of gun ban advocates. More people die from falls than from being shot. Deaths from accidents far exceed deaths from being shot.
The FBI reports that there were 1,247,321 violent crimes in the US in 2017. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/violent-crime
Aggravated assault and robbery account for 91% of violent crimes. Rapes account for 7.7%. Murders accounted for only 1.4% of violent crime. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-crime-statistics-released
According to the FBI, there were 17,284 murders in 2017. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/murder
Assailants using rifles killed 403 people, and 1,591 were killed by people using knives. Handguns were used in 7,032 killings, many of which resulted from criminals killing one another over, for example, drug distribution.
See also: https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
The police were responsible for 987 shooting deaths, about one-fourth of which were mentally disturbed people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/nationwide-police-shot-and-killed-nearly-1000-people-in-2017/2018/01/04/4eed5f34-e4e9-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?utm_term=.c7ff0f9c8b3d
Here’s some Christmas cheer: civil disobedience over a stupid gun law. From Matt Agorist at thefreethoughtproject.com:
New Jersey — Unless you’ve been under a rock lately, then you’ve likely seen the unprecedented push by all levels of government to separate law abiding Americans from their guns. No, this is not some conspiracy theory. The president himself ushered in a new level of gun control doing what his liberal predecessor even refused to do by banning bump stocks. However, as states across the country seek to limit the ability of innocent people to defend themselves, people are disobeying.
In May, Gov. Phil Murphy signed a law that reduced the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 rounds to 10. Citizens immediately sued the government, citing the unconstitutional nature of the ban, but they failed.
“New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”
Decentralized manufacturing via 3D printing may render the gun control argument moot. People will just print up guns in their basements. From Doug Casey at internationalman.com:
Joel Bowman: G’day, Doug. Ready to talk guns again?
Doug Casey: It’s one of my favorite subjects.
JB: Great. Faithful International Man readers will, of course, recognize this discussion as part of our ongoing conversation titled: Doug Casey’s REAL State of the Union. The idea is to use the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution – also known as the Bill of Rights – as a kind of measuring tool to see just how present day America fairs in relation to its founding ideals.
DC: Of course, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter these days, the Supreme Court having more or less interpreted it out of existence. The only parts that are strictly observed have to do with procedural matters, like how the Vice President breaks a tie vote in the Senate. Anything in the Bill of Rights, which spells out limitations on the State, is regarded as an academic curiosity. Still, it’s a useful framework for discussion purposes.
JB: Indeed. When we left off last week, you were describing the changing character of America and explaining how gun violence is really a cultural problem, not a political one. Still, that hasn’t stopped prohibitionists from ignoring the lessons of history.