States Considering New Gun-Confiscation Laws

control

In the days, weeks and months after the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Americans mourned as opportunistic politicians and gun-grabbing political figures gruesomely exploited the tragedy to try and use it as an opportunity to achieve their anti-gun goals.

Masquerading as concerned citizens, gun-grabbers like Barack Obama and Michael Bloomberg shouted for “common sense” limitations on our Second Amendment right. Connecticut adopted more-stringent gun control laws and most were unaware that a remarkably anti-Second Amendment law existed in the so-called Constitution State since 1999 according to TPNN.

In 1999, in response to a shooting at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters, Connecticut adopted a law that allows police officers to seize firearms from law-abiding owners and hold the firearms for 14 days until a hearing is held where the gun owners could demonstrate that they are not a risk to anyone or themselves. If the gun owners are not able to meet this burden, the state could hold their firearms for up to a year.

Indiana holds a similar law passed in 2005 and now New Jersey and California are considering a similar law. New Jersey state senator and former governor Richard Codey has proposed legislation that would permit a “gun violence restraining order” and California Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner has proposed a similar law in California.

Perhaps this would be a good time for a refresher on what the Second Amendment says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”The Second Amendment, remarkable in its brevity, demands that this right to keep and bear arms, a right the Supreme Court has affirmed as an individual right, shall not be infringed.One will note that it offers no exemptions. It does not allow for just a little infringement nor does it allow for the existence of “common sense” gun control measures that infringe upon the absolute right to firearm ownership.

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut’s undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, defended the law as necessary and pointed out that the law could have saved the lives of children murdered at Sandy Hook.

“That’s the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it,” Lawlor said. “In many shootings around the country, after the fact it’s clear that the warning signs were there.”

At the root of this absurd law, however, is the erroneous notion that firearms cause murder. Recently, in France, a teacher was stabbed to death in front of her students. Earlier this year, in Santa Barbara, a man went on a killing spree and murdered 6 people, but did so by stabbing three of them.

As California considers a law in the wake of the Santa Barbara killings, they purposefully gloss-over certain realities.

A) Murder was not invented along with the firearm. Untold savagery has been wrought by a blade and one does not need a gun to murder.

B) Even if we assume that one needs a gun in order to inflict maximum casualties, we need only look to places with strict gun control to see how that’s working out. Guns are all-but outlawed in Chicago, yet maintains some of the highest murder rates in the country. Washington, D.C., Newark- they all have  laws aimed at only allowing upstanding, sane citizens access to firearms and yet, they maintain high crime rates.

Heck, even Mexico maintains outrageously strict gun control laws and still, we see a flood of illegals surging into the country to escape this gun-free utopia filled with carnage.

 The bottomline: as states consider new, unconstitutional methods to separate citizens from their rights, they make a grave error by presuming that limiting lawful access to firearms will, somehow, limit the capability to commit murder.It’s a fairytale that our Constitution and American way of life cannot abide. 

  Share: