Second Amendment Under Fire: Gun Ownership in the Obama Era
Legislation introduced in Illinois would require gun owners to buy $1 million in insurance — but no company offers that coverage.
February 25, 2009 - 12:39 am
There is something truly disturbing about the kind of politician generated in the state of Illinois, and particularly those who call Chicago home. No, I’m not talking about the widespread corruption that sends the elected officials of this state to prison with distressing regularity. I’m talking about the scathing distrust officials have for their citizens — and for the citizens of the rest of the United States.
At this moment, Barack Obama, our neophyte trillion-dollar president, includes as one of his stated policy goals the reinstatement of the laughably ineffective Assault Weapons Ban amid other policies that are not only offensive to gun owners, but also threaten the lives of police officers.
This, of course, is the same Barack Obama who sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation as they cynically attempted to corrupt Second Amendment scholarship, buying law reviews and establishing foundations with the express goal of duping the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. But Obama’s distrust of those bitter, clingy Americans you call friends and family is hardly unique, and seems to be something deeply ingrained in Illinois Democrats.
An Illinois state representative by the name of Kenneth Dunkin is introducing an even more draconian proposal than Obama’s policies, attempting to make it all but impossible for Illinois citizens to own firearms. It’s an insidious scheme which would force citizens to carry at least $1 million in insurance to own a gun. The plan is being all but ignored in the media, the same media that would be verbally ripping Dunkin’s proposed legislation apart if he proposed that journalists have a million-dollar libel insurance policy before writing a story.
The kicker? There do not seem to be companies offering the kind of insurance Dunkin would require — something Dunkin presumably knew as he wrote his bill, since he is on the Insurance Committee of the Illinois General Assembly. It seems that Dunkin’s plan is to attempt to trap Illinois gun owners in a Catch-22 that would make it impossible for anyone in Illinois to legally own a gun because the insurance required doesn’t exist.
Not to be outdone by these other citizen-loathing Chicago Democrats, Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R.45, the Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, into the U.S. Congress. This legislation would subject the rest of the nation to a massive gun registration and owner licensing and tracking scheme. It would not only require all handgun owners in the United States to register their sidearms with the federal government, but also owners of any semi-automatic firearms, including the most common handguns, shotguns, and rifles.
The bill, which has no co-sponsors to date, also imposes an onerous licensing procedure that would require gun owners to submit to intensive background checks and pay as-yet-undetermined renewal fees every five years.
Rush’s bill would dictate how firearms are stored in a gun owner’s home, essentially making it impossible to defend one’s home by making it illegal to store a gun where it can be readily accessed. It would also allow the federal government to revoke your permit if you move and fail to provide a change of address within 60 days. Perhaps the most ominous aspect of the former Black Panther’s bill is that it would create a federal database of all gun owners and the firearms they own, making it ripe for abuse or confiscation.
There is something deeply sinister about the psychology of elected officials who desire to track every firearm and firearm owner in America, shadowing them from one location to another under the threat of federal law.
There is something truly disturbing about the kind of man who would attempt to trick his constituents and fellow citizens into choosing between standing behind first principles or becoming a felon.
And there is something truly alarming about a president who will risk the lives of police officers and informants and remove the teeth of our Republic in a career-long pursuit to gut a key element of the Constitution — as if it threatens his long-term political agenda.