We often view gun laws as a challenge to our freedoms without even recognizing their interaction with other regulations. Gun laws in America violate the Second Amendment, so in order to pass these unconstitutional laws, effort must be put in to encourage public support for legislation. Fear is the most used tactic. The “Ghost Gun” fear campaign is often used to advocate for the serialization of firearms. The term “Ghost Gun” evokes alarming imagery. Public sentiment is swayed with this term and encourages people to envision the construction of homemade firearms as engaging in a nefarious activity.
Historically, building firearms has been part of American tradition, yet recent media coverage has depicted it as a criminal act. Proponents of gun control and the ATF argue that serialization aids in crime investigations and tracking criminals, yet the ATF fails to verify that argument with any data. The gun control crowd tries to stigmatize gun owners as obstructionists to crime solving, when the actual intent is to simply preserve the Second Amendment. When did it become the gun owner’s responsibility to assist in crime-solving by relinquishing our rights?
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional at its core. It mandated that all manufacturers place serial numbers on their firearms. [18 U.S.C. 922 K prohibits the possession or transportation of firearms with obliterated serial numbers, making it unlawful to transport, ship, or receive firearms whose serial numbers have been altered or removed.]
The ATF has made efforts to include homemade firearms, 3D printed guns, 80% lowers, and parts kits under these requirements. The ATF has been deviously changing firearm policies without going through congress. These policies have been responsible for the arrest and incarceration of several innocent gun owners. Presently, only firearm dealers (FFLs) are required to serialize firearms at the national level; private citizens are not, although state-specific laws may vary. There is nothing wrong with making firearms, in fact, it has always been an American tradition. Unfortunately, an anti-gun element within our society has been working very hard for decades to normalize the idea of mandatory serialization, so it’s no surprise, as unconstitutional as it is, many people have come to accept and even expect such a thing.
The term “Ghost Gun” is utilized to generate fear and garner support for national serialization and registration, which has been proven to lead to confiscation in other Countries that have done it. Our Founding Fathers didn’t write the Second Amendment to say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…as long as a list of all your guns and the addresses where they can be found are registered with the federal government.”
We already showed King George that we wouldn’t tolerate this behavior. It seems gun grabbing Democrats might need to be reminded of this again. Apparently, they didn’t get the message, or they need a history lesson.
What Are ERPOs and How Does the Left Use Them?
Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) are a legislative tool used to confiscate firearms without due process. The term Extreme Risk Protection Order was carefully crafted to evoke fear and encourage the public to support the enactment of a national law. “EXTREME RISK” implies danger to the public, and causes Sally Soccer Mom to fall right in line when the time comes to vote for the Politician who promises her “safety” while simultaneously undermining her own rights. “PROTECTION ORDER” implies that the government will “protect you” if this policy is in place. The truth is, ERPO’s are nothing more than the act of firearm confiscation without any due process afforded to the accused.
These orders aim to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment which affords American Citizens due process of law. ERPOs were introduced following the Parkland, Florida school killing. Under ERPOs, the individual cannot defend themselves or confront their accuser and must prove their innocence to retrieve any confiscated firearms. This reverses the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
SWATing – Another Infringement
SWATing was the precursor to ERPOs. It was the act of calling the cops on gun-owners and claiming the gun owner was posing a risk to himself or others. Law enforcement officers would show up to confront the accused, putting everyone except the accuser in danger. Often, SWATing calls were made anonymously with no repercussions for the accuser even when it was a false claim. Anti-gun bureaucrats seemed to like this act of violating the rights of citizens and accusing them with no evidence of a crime for the purpose of firearm confiscation, so many States adopted the concept and turned it into law.
An instance of SWATing resulted in the death of Andrew Finch on December 28, 2017 when police responded to a prank call about a shooting and kidnapping at his home in Wichita, Kansas. Finch, unconnected to the perpetrator, was shot by an officer who believed Finch was reaching for a weapon.
ERPOs / Red Flag Laws would be catastrophic to the rights of American citizens should they be implemented at the national level. Regardless of the dangers both these policies present, Democrats in Congress have been pushing aggressively for them nationally because they know that with them, the Second Amendment could be essentially bypassed. Both are important to the gun grabbers because, although having a national Red Flag Law alone would allow for firearm confiscation, a national serialization requirement would provide easy access to the locations where those firearms could be found.
And you can easily imagine what comes next.
The Second Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
