Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter‘Panic buying’?
Local firearms dealers have been doing a brisk business of late. Normally, that would be good news for any local business, but in this case, the motivation may not be the Christmas shopping season or even new and better models on the store shelves.
It appears some people are stocking up because they are concerned about what President-elect Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress will do.
“There’s a lot of unknowns out there,” said Dennis Alverson, owner of Old Dominion Gun and Tackle in Brosville. “There’s been a whole lot of speculation and there’s been a whole of panic buying.”
The ironic part about this — besides the fact that Obama didn’t run on a gun control platform — is that the country received clear legal guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of firearms in American society.
Gun control supporters have long argued that the Second Amendment referred to a collective and not individual right. But even on the face of it, that argument made no sense because all the other constitutional amendments making up the Bill of Rights referred to individual, not collective rights.
More to the point, why would the founders of a new nation that had just thrown off the world’s superpower using privately armed citizens seek to deny those citizens the right to defend themselves against criminals, hostile Indians and wild animals in what was for the most part a sparsely-populated country?
Gun owners have always known the answer to that question, but in June, the Supreme Court finally agreed when it ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.
“The dedication and perseverance of millions of American gun owners paid off when five justices agreed that not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to own and use firearms, but that we have a basic right of self-defense as well,” Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and chief executive officer of the NRA, wrote in June. “The importance of the Heller decision cannot be overstated. Because of it, Americans across this country now know their right to own a gun is just as real and important as their right to speak freely or to worship God without government approval.”
Before the election, Americans were told that Obama would be the most anti-gun president ever. For that reason alone, it’s no surprise that some people are now stocking up.
So where does the Heller case and Obama’s election leave us? Exactly where we were before the case was decided and Obama was elected. It makes a lot of sense to take Obama at his word about guns, but it also makes sense to keep a close watch on what goes on in Washington.
Time will tell if Barack Obama is a friend of the Second Amendment.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Our fore fathers, while writing the Constitution of The United States, had a very fresh memory of the kind of despotic governments that they left in Europe.
“___ I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, - if they are such, because I think a general government necessary for us and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years and can only end in despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall have become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.”
Benjamin Franklin’s words after the Convention when asked by the press: “What kind of a government have you given us Dr. Franklin?” “A Republic” he replied, “If you can keep it!”
The purpose of the Second Amendment, was not to fight Indians, or to hunt, or to defend against criminals. The sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to defend against a despotic government, OUR OWN.
And just what does the Constitution have to do with anything when Mr Obama takes office? I’m still looking for the Article and Section which give him the power to “spread the wealth around”. The fact that they don’t exist won’t slow him down, I’m afraid. Obama, despite the ad by Jeremy Shockey, is anti-gun, always has been.
tyler got it right! Obama’s proposed policies would endanger this country and our freedoms.
If you care about freedom join the NRA by going to www.discovershooting.net/Join.html
Hello,
I believe the Obama transition team has made it clear how they stand on guns. The members of the administration have solid gun ban histories and on their website www.change.gov they listed their first agendas:
“Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.“
I can easily make a case for disagreeing with all.
First:
The Tiahrt amendment only keeps sensitive firearms trace data (which is the sales history of a gun) from the general public. It has NEVER kept ANY data from law enforcement agencies. This is why Congress, the ATF, and law enforcement, including the nation’s largest police organization, the Fraternal Order of Police, agree on the importance of securing this data.
Michael J. Sullivan, who is acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Department of Justice, has written that neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. He also wrote that the ATF considers this information law-enforcement-sensitive because it is often the first investigative lead in a case. “We treat it no differently than fingerprint matches and other crime-scene information, since disclosure outside of law enforcement can tip off criminals to the investigation, compromise cases and endanger the lives of undercover officers, witnesses and confidential sources.”
Second:
“Assault Weapons” as defined by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban are not machine guns. They are commonplace firearms that fire only one round at a time and use the same caliber and type of ammunition as the non-banned firearms. The difference between your great-grandfather’s self loading hunting rifle and an “assault weapon” is not mechanical, it is only cosmetic. Substituting an ugly plastic stock for that pretty American Walnut one doth not make the rifle evil, just ugly.
Third:
In order to close the “loophole” in the Brady Bill, all private transactions must be registered. There has never been a federal gun registration in the USA. Great Britain created one and has sucessfully used it to confiscate guns. Great Britains violent crime rates have risen since then to where citizens have a 25% chance of being a victim of violent crime. We in the USA don’t even make the top ten in industrialized countries in regards to violent crime.
Fourth:
Childproofing entails redesigning products and retooling of facilities that already have a low profit margin. Good business sense would dictate cessation of production for the civilian market for those items. Law enforcement and military would not be required to be childproof. Only criminals and our government would have the opportunity to buy guns, essentially removing the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Advertisement