The shooting tragedies in San Bernardino and outside of a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado have raised gun control rhetoric to a fevered pitch. So far, President Obama has been all talk, but it seems increasingly likely he will eventually act unilaterally to strengthen federal gun control laws. This means states need to take action to stop it now.
President Obama took to the airwaves Sunday night and called on Congress to enact stricter gun control laws, including prohibiting anybody on the so-called “no-fly” list from purchasing a firearm. He has also made it clear he wants to ban so-called “assault weapons.”
But from a practical standpoint, it’s unlikely any meaningful gun control will pass down from Capital Hill. Congress simply doesn’t have the political will to approve laws restricting firearms. So, having found it virtually impossible to pass federal gun control measures through their own body, several members of Congress have called on the president to simply do what they cannot through executive orders.
According to WMDT, the latest two Senators to join the effort to get Obama to go around Congress are Sens. Chris Coon (D-DE) and Tom Carper (D-DE). The Senators want Obama to use executive action to expand background checks to include private gun owners who sell a certain number of guns each year.
This is an insidious way to secure all the new regulations on gun shows that Democrats have pursued, but failed to secure, for nearly two decades. It is also a devious way to take another step toward a national gun registry, which would have to exist for all new gun purchases in order to know whether a private gun owner keeps a firearm for longer than a year before selling it.
As the Atlantic points out, while Congressional action remains unlikely, it seems increasingly certain Obama will take matters into his own hands at some point.
“Yet there is still more the president can do on his own, without congressional action. Many advocates for stricter firearms laws believe Obama is again poised to use executive power to address gun violence. The step he’s likely to take, they say, is to broaden the definition of what it means to be in the business of selling firearms—a move that would mean more oversight for gun dealers, and would end up requiring more buyers to be subject to background checks.”
While Congress probably won’t pass any robust gun control laws, it’s equally unlikely that it would do anything to block the president if he passes executive orders. This demonstrates why we can’t depend on the federal government to protect our right to keep and bear arms. We must work to protect the Second Amendment through the states, not at a federal level.
The fact that Obama could issue such orders shows that even if voters fill Congress to the brim with gun rights activists, the president can bypass them entirely and shove tyranny down our throats. And even if America replaces Obama with a pro-gun president the next time around, a future president might not be. When we depend on the feds, we are always at the mercy of the next batch of politicians.
Sometimes the politicians don’t even matter. As we’ve seen recently, unelected federal bureaucrates have tried to use their unconstitutional powers to regulate, restrict or outright prohibit firearm accessories and ammunition.
The only way to effectively stop these scenarios is by passing the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) at the state level. This legislation nullifies federal gun control laws in practice by prohibiting state law enforcement officials from enforcing it. The feds rely on the states to enforce federal laws. By simply refusing to cooperate, states can make federal gun control laws or executive orders nearly impossible to enforce within the border of the state. Without state and local help, even the most stringent federal policies won’t work.