The Senate agreed Thursday to move forward on debate over S. 649, also called the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013. Contrary to what you may have heard, nothing has been passed. At the moment, they’re hammering out the details. Amendments will be suggested, there will be debates, and it might go back to committee. After all of that, it heads to an uncertain fate in the House. It’s going to be awhile.
At the moment, we really only have the broad outlines of the bill. Yes, the proposed text is available, but that’s going to change quite a bit.
Of particular note is a “compromise” amendment proposed by Senators Toomey (R-PA) and Manchin (D-WV). Its title is the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.
Sounds harmless, right? Well, so did the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, and look where that got us.
Notice Toomey’s strident admonishments:
The bill will not take away anyone’s guns.
The bill will not ban any type of firearm.
The bill will not create a national registry; in fact, it specifically makes it illegal to establish any such registry [this is already illegal under the 1986 Fireams Owners’ Protection Act].
The bill will not, in any way at all, infringe upon the Constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
This is the same drivel we’ve been hearing from anti-gun politicians since January. It’s what they say when they just want to take some of our guns. Or when they just want to take some of our guns at the moment.
While no Republican has so far voiced any sort of support for the Toomey amendment, he’s chosen to portray himself as the gilded paragon of compromise while dangling a partial reduction of our rights as some sort of carrot for which we’re expected to jump. No thanks.
This isn’t about compromise. Even if we were to accept, the stick would be firmly applied, and the carrot would be legislated out of existence at some point in the future. We’d be left staring at a plate of carrot crumbs and wondering just how it all happened.
I’ve been hearing a lot of gun owners lately saying, “well, we’ll just let them have expanded background checks. Then they’ll leave us alone.” Wrong. We have no data whatsoever proving that the Brady Law has done anything to reduce crime or violence. All the NICS system does is generate more paperwork, fund more payroll at the FBI, and often wrongly delay or deny guns to purchasers.
The whole background-check system is a solution in search of a problem. It’s a meddlesome failure of social engineering. Why would anyone want to expand upon it?
Historically, appeasement has never been a sound strategic option and we dare not succumb to it now.
Exactly how are these supposedly universal background checks going to be enforced? How would someone know whether I bought that .500 Loudenbowser last week or ten years ago? Imagine the conversation with law enforcement:
“So, didja do a background check when you bought it?”
“Um…sure?”
“Hm. Well then. Uh…I guess, have a good night, sir.”
For the scheme to work, it needs an enforcement mechanism. There is only one way to make it stick, and that is national registration of all firearms.
I swear I’m not wearing my tinfoil hat. The ocelot ate it. Then he threw up all over the carpet and…well, Sprinkly McScrunchybutt isn’t the topic here. Universal background checks are. The only way to make sure we’re in compliance is to have a central registry against which to check the data.
You want to know how that’s going to work? It’s going to be a logistical nightmare. People will swarm local police stations, who will inevitably screw the process up. Am I sure the desk jockey they put in charge knows which of those numbers is the model number and which is the serial number? What if my twelve-page registration form (which is going to cost money and is going to take forever to process) gets lost in the shuffle? Many people will decide it’s not worth the trouble, and they’ll simply divest themselves of their guns.
Which, really, is better than a ban. Of course, many folks will keep their guns. Does the registry mean the government can go door-to-door confiscating them?
Nope. They don’t have to. That’s the beauty. Errors and negligence in processing will create all sorts of easily prosecuted statutory violations. People who meant no harm will go to prison. The result is a chilling effect on the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights, and even more folks will decide owning guns isn’t worth the risk or trouble.
In the meantime, the registry will prove an utter failure to everyone but its proponents. We need only look to Canada for a good example.
That’s where appeasement gets us. That’s where apathy gets us. Look at the rhetorical change we’ve seen over the last few months. Despite their claims of imminent and total victory in January, the gun-control lobby is now more than eager to accept a gutted, toothless bill because it’s “a good first step.”
Aside from jaywalking, bad things rarely end with the first step.