When President Obama was just Barack Obama, there were many concerns about some of the policies he would enact, after he moved into the White House. One of those concerns was over his view of the 2nd Amendment and how he would possibly work to undermine what is arguably the most important amendment to our Constitution. Let’s face it, without the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment, the 1st and the rest of the amendments could easily be overcome by someone willing to use force. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms as individuals, to protect ourselves from the possible tyranny of the government. I do not want to find out what happens if the 2nd Amendment becomes null and void.
Remember the drug wars in Mexico? Remember how well armed the drug cartels are? Not long after Obama took office, efforts were undertaken to make it appear that the vast majority of those guns were coming directly from the United States. The President himself stated, on more than once occasion, the percentage was extremely high. As it turns out, the number he was referring to was the percentage of guns that the government was able to track. What he failed to mention was the fact that most of the guns were untraceable and many of them were of foreign origin, foreign meaning not from North America. Since that didn’t meet his criteria for a crisis, he left that little tidbit of information out of his rhetoric.
Many of you will be familiar with the ongoing investigation into the ATF’s ill-fated gun-tracking operation near our border with Mexico,
Operation Fast and Furious. It is now known that the ATF instructed it’s agents to deliberately allow guns into Mexico, even after many of those same agents warned of the dangers of doing so. Those who control the ATF told the agents they simply didn’t understand the bigger picture. Well, the bigger picture is the fact that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered by a member of a drug gang, using a weapon that was traced directly back to the ATF’ and Operation Fast and Furious.
I seriously doubt anyone will be able to make a successful argument that the ATF didn’t royally mess this operation up. The facts are plain and simple to understand and it is clear, they screwed up. In spite of Eric Holder’s assertions to the contrary, the facts can not be denied. If that isn’t enough to chew on, we are now looking at new regulations ready to be implemented by the Obama administration, regulations that will require firearms dealers to report certain sales to the government. From Fox News:
The Justice Department, facing growing questions over Operation Fast and Furious, a controversial sting targeting Mexican drug cartels and American gunrunners, announced last month that it would begin requiring firearms dealers along the nation’s Southwest border to report multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles. The department said such rifles are “highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations,” and the new measures would help “detect and disrupt” weapons trafficking networks.
When the measures were first announced, a top Justice Department official said they were “tailored to focus only” on multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles with calibers greater than .22 and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. In particular, federal authorities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas should be notified when multiple purchases are made within a five-day period.
What can I say, but here we go again? Does the ATF really believe these new regulations will bear fruit? Do they not see how meaningless they are, how easily they will be to manipulate? Clearly, all they care about is placing more burdens on gun owners and the firearms dealers they do business with. With those added burdens, they acquire added control of the 2nd Amendment and the rights that it affords to the American citizen. Does that constitute an attack on the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution of the United States? I believe it does.
Related Posts
Thursday, June 21, 2012 -- Fast and Furious – Political Witch Hunt or Fact Finding Mission
Friday, June 22, 2012 -- Fast and Furious Investigation Rooted in Racism?
Saturday, May 4, 2013 -- If You Think Gun Control Is Finished, Think Again
Tuesday, June 19, 2012 -- Eric Holder to Meet With Darrell Issa on Contempt Charges
Thursday, May 2, 2013 -- Mexico – The Other Side Of the Immigration Coin
Friday, April 26, 2013 -- B Todd Jones – Obama ATF Nominee
I don’t really see this as a big infringement on our right to bear arms. It might be an added hassle to gun merchants, but it may possibly bear fruit. It’s not like they’re telling them that they can’t sell to certain people, barring convicted felons and the like of course.
They’re likely getting some of their guns from North America, and we’ know that they’re not just magically materializing out of thin air. What is likely happening is that the cartels or whatever have plants, people without any criminal records whatsoever, go in and buy a gun here and there and then give them to whomever their contact is.
There’s no real way to trace that unless you look.
At what point do we consider policies such as this to be an infringement of our right to bear arms? In my opinion, the government is doing nothing more than hassling law abiding citizens that are exercising that right.
Of course, some of the guns that are being used in Mexico are coming from North America, but the administration has been trying to make the case that the majority of them are doing so and that has simply not been proven.
This why I am strongly against the ridiculous practice of letting enforcement agencies write the law (regulations) that they desire to enforce. Please see my post today, Larry, and you will understand what I’m talking about.
Letting bureaucrats write and enforce any regulation they choose is not a good thing, in my opinion.
You won’t be too surprised to learn that I agree with Jack — this is no infringement on the legitimate rights of lawful gun owners. The Supreme Court allows reasonable state measures that fall under the broad umbrella of “gun control”. I don’t see how this measure can possibly be labelled “unreasonable” and an attack on the 2nd Amendment. Is it not reasonable to question the motives of somebody who goes from gun store to gun store buying multiple semi-autmatic weapons in a 5 day period? Is there any reasonable, lawful purpose for such purchases? Perhaps but why not allow somebody to check it out and make sure they meet that standard.
To Jim’s question about letting law enforcement agencies write the laws they want to enforce, I think he makes an interesting point but I think the burden on Congress to do as he suggests is unworkable. The process currently in place has worked well for a very long time. I know he disagrees with many of the policies this administration is following but that is a product of the system we have in place. I doubt we would be having this conversation if John McCain was president. The blame belongs with the adminstration policies not with the procedure in place for passing laws. At the same time I would ask whether he thinks it’s reasonable for law enforcement officers to enforce only those laws with which they agree (see Oath Keepers)?
I think you’re right on that last part Mike. It’s unfeasable to ask congress to closely oversee every policy decision by all the administrative agencies because it’s just too much to expect out of any group as small as congress.
That’s why we have administrative law.
Maybe it’s not unreasonable, Mike. However, as I asked Jack, where does it all end? At what point do we say it is unreasonable? We have covered a lot of this before, but I have a problem with the never ending and pointless regulations or requirements that do nothing to stop illegal guns and everything to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. Why don’t they just enforce the numerous guns laws that are already on the books, instead of adding new ones.
I think the answer is that the laws on the books are insufficient to address this issue. If it is legal for somebody with a clean record to buy up semi after semi, day after day, without any registration mechanism in place then there is no means to then find out what they do with those weapons. If they then turn them over to a gunrunner in exchange for cash then certainly a crime has taken place but how do we know it occurred? If that person then successfully gets those guns across the border (and that’s pretty easy — border security leaving the US for Mexico is very lax) then the crime is complete. What laws on the books allow these criminals to be stopped? None. This law is perfectly reasonable. The ATF actions were handled by a bunch of clowns no doubt but it’s hard to argue that Obama has done anything but sign laws into place reducing gun restrictions rather than increasing them.
I have been writing about Gunrunner for quite awhile now and there is no doubt in my mind that this was part of a plan to “persuade” the American people to support gun restrictions, but it has blown up in this administrations faces. yet even with this scandal ongoing the Obama administration has decided to enact these restrictions. How ironic is it that the administration allowed criminals to buy weapons without a second thought, but law abiding American citizens are going to be tracked?
Fast and Furious was simply an attempt to set up gun dealers in the U.S. – and the NRA – to take the fall. Pure political manipulation that killed many people. All set up, I think, by people in the Obama admin. Maybe the Prez himself was involved? Obama worked hard when he was in Chicago to keep guns banned. This is no secret. Although he hasn’t openly gone after guns – I think F&F shows there was a move on the sly to do so.
You “create” a crisis then try and pass a law to “fix” it.
Trackbacks: