Boston Globe on Confiscation: Hand Over Your Weapons
“The logic of gun control lies, at bottom, in substantially reducing the number of deadly weapons on the street — and confiscation is far and away the most effective approach,” wrote Scharfenberg.(Photo: NRA-ILA)
Like many other gun grabbers, he points to the national “buyback” in Australia that followed the shooting at Port Arthur in 1996.
The Aussie government was able to seize an estimated one-fifth of the country’s firearms, in addition to banning almost every gun under the sun.
Scharfenberg concludes by suggesting what many won’t, at least publicly, that for the anti-gun agenda it’s confiscation or bust.
“Ultimately, if gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms, as radical as that idea may now seem,”
Talk of confiscation is growing ever more common. In the mainstream media, in Hollywood and even in Washington, D.C. Remember when Hillary Clinton, on the presidential campaign trail in 2015, was asked this by a voter at a Town Hall meeting in New Hampshire:
“Recently, Australia managed to get away, or take away tens of thousands, millions, of handguns. In one year, they were all gone. Can we do that? If we can’t, why can’t we?”
You recall her response? It wasn’t, “That would be infringing on our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms,” nor “You’re crazy to even mention that.”
Clinton said, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged.”
If that could be arranged it’s worth considering? Wow! Clinton’s always been anti-gun, but never before had she acknowledged the truth. The end game — as Scharfenberg rightfully identified — is confiscation. It is seizing lawfully owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.
You may be saying, well, talk is cheap. Billary lost the election, she’s no longer a threat. We have Trump now. We’re good.
But what about what Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said after the Vegas shooting? When talking about legislation that would ban the mere possession of bump stocks, the House Minority Leader said that she “certainly hopes” that it would lead to more gun control.
“They’re going to say, ‘You give them bump stock, it’s going to be a slippery slope.’ I certainly hope so,” she told a reporter during an October news conference.
The bill that Pelosi was referring to was the one spearheaded by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) known as the “Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act.” That bill included no exemption for current owners of bump stocks.
When the government makes lawful property suddenly unlawful it’s a defacto form of confiscation. Most bans on black rifles or accessories usually contain a grandfather clause for current owners. This one did not.
What I fear is that all this talk of confiscation will lead to action. In some ways it already has. Many states are considering enacting “extreme risk protection order” (ERPO) schemes that allow accusers to petition courts to strip citizens of their 2A rights.
As I’ve said in the past, these ERPO laws are an affront to due process. A way for the government to confiscate today and litigate tomorrow. California, Connecticut, Oregon, Washington, and Indiana already have ERPO laws on the books.
Maybe I’m just hyper-sensitive nowadays. Maybe the threat of confiscation isn’t higher today than it was in years past (On that note, we can’t forget what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina).
Nevertheless, I’m not going to fall asleep at the wheel because the Don’s in office. I want to make sure confiscation remains a radical idea. Not something “worth considering” under any circumstances. Ever.