Friday, May 31, 2019

Can government tell people they can’t pack pistols? Some would say ‘no!’

I can’t help but think the Illinois State Rifle Association is showing just how ridiculous and overbearing their interpretations of the right to bear arms truly are, what with the way they called “most onerous” a bill approved this week by the Illinois House of Representatives.
Victim of overbearing government? Some would say 'yes'

That bill is one requiring people seeking permits to legally own a firearm to submit their fingerprints – which would make it easy for police to check to see if there are any reasons this particular individual ought not have such weapons.

THE BILL WAS motivated by past incidents, including one in suburban Aurora, where a man with a criminal record that should have stopped him from owning firearms had managed to purchase them anyway.

The man who walked into his former employer and began shooting people (he was p-o’ed) slipped through the cracks of the process we already had in place to make sure people with relevant criminal records don’t obtain such weapons.

Which means these people shouldn’t have pistols or rifles or any other such firearm.

Yet it seems the people whose only interest in the U.S. Constitution is in the (some might say obsolete) Second Amendment are interested in protecting the “rights” of people whom those of us with sense would think it a ‘no-brainer’ that their rights to own firearms have been forfeited.

SERIOUSLY, IN THE Aurora incident (that left five people AND the gunman dead), the man had a felony aggravated assault conviction in Mississippi and had multiple arrests in Aurora and Oswego.

Technically, the law would have made his Mississippi conviction (for which he served a little over two years in prison) ineligible to purchase a firearm legally.

Yet he was issued a Firearm Owner Identification card in Illinois in 2014 in large part because the background check did not include a fingerprint check – which would have revealed the Mississippi conviction and made him ineligible.

That FOID card is what allowed the man to openly walk into gun shops and purchase the weapons (at least one of which he is said to have used the day he walked into his former employer and began shooting – upset that he had been fired from his job).

THE LEGISLATURE’S ACTION might appear common-sense to many, but to the people who want to view firearms as some inalienable, God-given, right, it is one that has them screeching and threatening to take legal action to find a judge somewhere whose willing to let his own ideological leanings interpret the law in such a way that the gun owner becomes the “victim.”

And yes, it would seem that it was rural and outer suburban-based legislators who provided the bulk of votes against the measure – which narrowly passed this week 62-52 (60 votes needed for approval).

There were other provisions of the bill, including one that says someone whose legal right to own firearms has been revoked must actually surrender them to police or document that they’ve turned them over to someone who can legally possess them.

Which would appear to be very sensible – except to those who think that gun owners ought to be able to slip through the cracks of bureaucracy in order to keep clutching their pistols in the grips of their fingers – until said moment that their grip becomes cold and dead!

IT STRIKES ME as hypocritical for some to think that these restrictions on firearm ownership are flawed. Particularly if they’re the types of people who think that a person’s felony conviction for a crime ought to forevermore prohibit them from being able to register to vote in elections.

Then again, there also are those types who want to think there’s no such thing as a unit of government that they’re obligated to respect.

It reminds me of one time I saw one of those daytime talk shows where a clergyman was the guest being interviewed – and he showed as evidence of his disdain for government his own special driver’s license. One not issued by his state’s motor vehicles bureau because he thinks no state has a right to tell him he can’t drive.

About the only consolation I take in any of this kind of thought is the notion that someday, these people will have to confront the lord almighty and have to justify their knuckleheaded line of logic. My faith says they won’t be able to do so.


No comments: