This is a fairly new playbook entry for our anti-gunner friends that want to implement the “reasonable gun controls” that we supposedly refuse to consider. By the way, I am still waiting to hear any “reasonable gun controls” that will prevent criminals and the mentally ill from gaining access to firearms without infringing on the rights of the lawful and violating existing Federal statutes.
So, what I have heard three times in the last two days is, “There are restrictions on the First Amendment, so there is no reason that there should not be restrictions on the Second Amendment.”
It is amazing to me that they don’t consider the following limitations to be restrictions to the Second Amendment. Let’s start with actual laws that have been implemented to control firearms:
- National Firearms Act of 1934
- The Gun Control Act of 1968
- Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986
- Brady Handgun Violence Act of 1993
- “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994
- Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995
Now, with the major legislation out of the way, let’s look at the many restrictions that have been placed on firearms:
- Age of owners
- Rate of fire
- Rifle barrel lengths
- Shotgun barrel lengths
- Size of projectiles
- Types of metals and combinations of metals used in projectiles
- Where firearms can be stored
- Where firearms can be purchased
- Where firearms can be carried
- Where firearms can be transported within and between Cities and States
- Licensing eligibility based on residence
- Suppressor ownership
- Who is allowed to manufacture firearms
- Who is allowed to sell firearms across State lines
Then there are some incredibly restrictive local City and State laws that include limitations regarding:
- The ability to possess firearms that are not an approved list
- Magazine capacity
- The ability to change a magazine without requiring a special tool
- Type of safeties on firearms
- Micro printing
- Biometric locking mechanisms
Where do we draw the line about what is and what should be acceptable for private citizens? What was the intent of the Second Amendment when it came to private ownership of firearms?
If we go back and look at History, and what was considered in use by private citizens in the War of Independence and during the drafting of our Constitution and its first set of Amendments, we see the private ownership of firearms of all levels. It is clear from History that the arms used to fight for our independence were mostly privately owned. The arms included:
- Naval vessels – Privateering was the basis of our Naval force until the creation of the Continental Navy. Even then, the Continental Navy focused on commercial shipping, and Privateering continued to be a significant part of our Naval forces. Yes, these vessels were armed with cannons.
- Field cannons – Private metal mills forged steel and built cannons for the militias. Cannons were also seized in conflict, and many of the cannons initially used in the war were left by the troops that returned to Britain following the French and Indian wars.
- Small arms – Of course there were all sorts of small arms available to our citizens during the War of Independence. Some firearms were purchased prior to coming to the Colonies. Some firearms were brought over by the British and the French to fight conflicts. Some firearms were captured in conflicts.
Basically, every firearm available at the time was owned by private citizens. While we didn’t have the larger warships available to the British, we did have privately owned vessels that engaged in raids and battles.
We, the citizens of our new Country, owned all of the same weapons as our Government. For us to own anything less is a clear limitation placed on the rights reserved by the Second Amendment.