As Americans mourn the innocent lives lost as a result of the recent terror attack in Orlando, gun control advocates have wasted little time leveraging this atrocity to push an agenda. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and many others have increased their calls for banning so-called “assault weapons,” and prohibiting individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. Both these proposals would do little to prevent the next terror attack, but would significantly curtail the rights of law-abiding citizens.
As we have all seen in the news, anti-gun activists have been using misleading rhetoric to describe so-called “assault weapons,” a term which is nothing more than a misnomer. These guns are no different than any other rifle. They are semi-automatic, which means that a single projectile is expelled when the trigger is pulled. A 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found the distinguishing features of these firearms, such as the pistol grip, flash suppressor, collapsible stock, detachable magazine, and bayonet mount, had no discernable impact of firearm related deaths. When was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting? It’s likely you have not heard of one, so why would we restrict features that won’t reduce crime—the simple answer is we shouldn’t.
Rifles, including those deemed by gun control supporters to be “assault weapons” are not a significant source of crime. Since 1991, violent crime has decreased more than fifty percent, and murder has declined by fifty-four percent according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Uniform Crime Report. This decline has occurred at the same time that there has been a proliferation of these firearms. In addition, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2010 through 2014 shows that more murders are committed using hands, knives or blunt objects, than rifles of any type. Of course, I am sure skeptics of the right to keep and bear arms will still scoff at this empirical evidence, but it just reinforces that these individuals seek to abridge freedom without considering the facts.
The focus of those who have distain for our freedoms has not been limited to arbitrary restrictions based on a firearm’s appearance. Many gun control advocates, including Hillary Clinton have publicly endorsed the idea of prohibiting individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms. This proposal would hasten the degradation of our constitutional rights.
Criteria for how someone is added to the terror watch list is considered esoteric. When someone who is placed on the list accidentally, and seeks to be removed from the list, there is no defined process for removal. A person has no way to learn the specific suspicions or allegations that led to a person being added to the list.
The list is also riddled with inaccuracies. Consider the following two examples: former U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, and an eight-year-old Boy Scout from New Jersey. Both were on the list, and neither had any substantiated ties to terrorist organizations. This should be seriously concerning to all Americans, but more importantly, it should give us pause when President Obama, Hillary Clinton and others begin the drumbeat to prohibit individuals on the terror watch list from being able to purchase and possess firearms.
The U.S. Supreme Court has specified that individual firearm ownership is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and it has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a “fundamental right” under the 14th Amendment as this liberty is protected by the due process clause.
If the government is so intent on suspending the right of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights on the basis of suspicion, then what is there to stop the government from moving to curtail other rights based off the assumption you might be a threat—not much. Today, it’s firearms, tomorrow it could include anything from being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, limiting the right to a fair and speedy trial, to limiting the right to freely express oneself. Literally the possibilities are endless, and it’s not as far-fetched as it may sound.
U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) recently said on MSNBC’s The Morning Joe, he believes “if a person is under suspicion there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, this is person continues the same traits…but due process is what’s killing us right now.” That statement should horrify American’s everywhere. The fact that a sitting U.S. Senator has openly suggested that we need to curtail constitutional protections because of a terrorist threat.
Infringing on our liberties is not how you prevent the next terror attack. Yes, we are facing barbaric assaults on our way of life from terrorist organizations such as ISIS, but to push for arbitrary restrictions on our freedoms, does little good. The reason we have these constitutional rights is so citizens can protect their families, and neighbors in the event we face another event of this magnitude. It’s evident from these attacks that as much as we would like to put our faith in the federal government to protect us they are unable to keep up with this enemy, so the responsibility and fight for our country needs to be shouldered by Americans everywhere. If we are willing to give up our rights as enumerated in the Second and 14th Amendments, then the terrorists will win. As Thomas Jefferson once said “I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.”
Delegate Michael Webert serves in the Virginia General Assembly representing the 18th District, which encompasses all of Rappahannock, and portions of Fauquier, Warren, and Culpeper Counties. He is a member of the Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee in the Virginia House of Delegates, a legislative panel that has oversight on Second Amendment related issues.
