Unable to pass new gun-control bills this year, months after the state's deadliest shooting, Oregon Democrats are diving into campaign season with promises to try again in 2017. House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to revive a measure that would limit default gun sales when background checks take longer than expected, after the bill earned tepid support and died in the Senate last month.
No. Actually, it is an attempt to bypass the 'default' protection previously afforded to firearms owners who purchase firearms. But the NICS (National Instant Check System) cannot always provide a response in a timely manner, When this happens, the DEFAULT is to allow the firearms transfer to go through.
This FEATURE (not a "bug") protects the firearms purchaser; independent interests would be required to 'allow' the purchase of a private citizen if they (NICS) could not find just cause to DIS-allow it within a reasonable period of time. (For the "gun grabbers", there are no independent interests; there are merely PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS, and PEOPLE WHO MUST BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS.)
HOW DID WE GET HERE?
The ONLY way that Americans would have allowed the NICS system to be imposed on firearms purchases was the requirement that if a reason why the purchase should not be completed was not found in a reasonable period of time, the transaction would go through. Without that provision, individuals in the NICS system would have been able to stymie firearms purchases unilaterally, arbitrarily, and eternally.
The feature ensures that background checks are processed quickly and efficiently; if the system becomes overloaded, there is (as a default) NO REASON to deny a firearm purchase.
Now, this "measure" (for purposes of discussion, we will refer to it as a "Bad Bill") would apparently change the 'default' from "OKAY" to "DENY". (As of this date, there is no suggestion that the 'default' would be to hold the transaction for a longer period of time.)
This is an "Ex Post Facto" regulation, which entirely undermines the 'in good faith' justification for the original enactment of the law. Legitimate gun owners declined to challenge the law because the 'default' was that .. if no good reason to deny the firearms transfer could not be justified in a reasonable period of time, the purchaser of the firearm was assumed to be a legitimate gun owner.
(Have I rephrased that enough times to make my point?)
And delays in the certification process were specifically NOT allowed; if they were allowed, that would have been assumed an arbitrary decision on the part of the certifying authorities ... to deny the firearms transfer.
Which it would have been, and which it would (presumably) be now.
That a Democratic politician is now making an effort to define a 'loophole' which does not exist, and which was specifically denied at the time the law was enacted, is both an insult to lawful firearms purchaser and an underhanded attempt to impose illegitimate and arbitrary regulations which had previously not been considered necessary ... by either party.
If this Democratic stab-in-the-back is allowed to slip through the ribs of parties who have agreed to a more reasonable arrangement, the people of Oregon will know that their elected officials do NOT have the best interests of their constituents at heart.
Instead, the entire political structure of the State will be revealed for what it is: a pack of poltroons who are willing to arbitrarily and unilaterally dismiss any compromise legislation between the
At the pleasure, and for the prejudices, of said poltroons!
We have been trying to tell you for months that the legislators of this state (Oregon) and this nation (America) have no compunction against sneaking in "feel good legislation" which satisfies anti-gun activists' attempts to confiscate our personal property by nefarious means. Oregonians and other Americans have ignored all warnings that the ultimate infringement of the Second Amendment would take place on little cat paws ... but nobody would listen.
It's more comfortable to be complacent about the Constitution than to be sensitive to EVERY attempt to infringe it.
THE CLAWS ARE OUT
Now anti-gun groups and their toady legislators have determined that they have sufficiently undermined the 'little things' which supported the Second Amendment; now they are bringing out the big guns and going after major issues.And if you don't think that making the default of "no response" from the NICS system become "NO" rather than "YES", you are just not paying attention to the niggling ways your constitutional rights are being undermined.
Right now, as you are reading this, your elected officials are inventing new ways to undermine your constitutional protections ... Administrativly.
And as for you ... you still think I'm over-reacting.
Tell me that next year, when Registration leads to Confiscation.
And hide your grandfather's guns, because those are the only firearms which won't be taken away from you.
Or your children.
3 comments:
This must be another one of those "common sense" gun laws we keep hearing about.
One more rephrasing, if I may:
Under the current system, if the government cannot PROVE that you are DIS-allowed from buying a gun, you may buy a gun.
Under the "Bad Bill", if YOU cannot PROVE you are NOT disallowed from buying a gun, you may not buy a gun.
Under the former, the burden is on the government to prove your guilt before denying your civil rights. Under the latter, you must preemptively prove your innocence before exercising your civil rights.
Of the two, one is significantly more consistent with American jurisprudence. This really is not a difficult concept.
If it saves the life of just one child or one black.
Post a Comment