Chandler Foster
Obama’s plan to
introduce a new executive order is
a clear example of executive overreach.
This proposal has some serious issues
that even a gun-control advocate should
be wary of. The whitehouse.gov website
clearly states that “Quantity and
frequency of sales are relevant
indicators. There is no specific
threshold number of firearms purchased
or sold that triggers the licensure
requirement. But it is important to
note that even a few transactions,
when combined with other evidence,
can be sufficient to establish that
a person is engaged in the business. For
example, courts have upheld convictions
for dealing without a license when as
few as two firearms were sold or when
only one or two transactions took place,
when other factors also were present.”
I have a problem with this because
it means that almost anyone who
wants to sell a weapon can have that
right stripped from them at the dis-
cretion of the ATF. There isn’t a safe/
not safe list of acts. So what does it
take to lose your right to trade weap-
ons? Ties to religious extremism? Fair
enough. What about expressing per-
sonal problems with a protest or dem-
onstration in your hometown? Is that
a threat? Who gets to decide that?
There needs to be a line.
Of course, that’s ignoring the fact
that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about
hobby hunting and business deals. It’s
about defending ourselves and keep-
ing a check against a tyrannical gov-
ernment. Funny that they should be
the ones who want to put more lim-
its on that right. Sure, some people
are against gun ownership. So they
shouldn’t buy guns.
People should stop asking the
government to take more power and
instead vote with their actions. Com-
munity doesn’t want a new local
gun store? Don’t shop there. Afraid
of high gun-ownership rates in your
neighborhood? Move.
Any penalty with “no specif-
ic threshold” is a power grab and
shouldn’t be trusted, whether it be in
regards to firearms, farming, driving
a car, or the food you eat. When you
are talking about limiting someone’s
rights, there needs to be a very strict
and rigid set of criteria that must first
be met. The precedent which this or-
der would set suggests an ominous fu-
ture of a Federal Government which
can investigate and deem dangerous,
nearly any citizen for any reason.
Despite violent sprees, stripping
select citizens of their right to trade
weapons for unspecified criteria dis-
regards not only a person’s right to
defense, but also their basic economic
freedoms.
2/3 Managing Staff agree
The Hawk Eye 