Several recent columns have decried opposition to supposedly “reasonable” restrictions on the possession and use of firearms. There is a good reason for this opposition.
There is a long history of bad faith on the part of those who want to restrict the ownership and use of guns. Most of these people are prohibitionists whose ultimate purpose is to outlaw private ownership of guns of any description. To do this, they propose laws that usually do, in fact, appear “reasonable.” However, they include fine print designed to enable eventual confiscation.
Proposals for “universal background checks,” for example, create registration that can be combined with later “reasonable” laws to identify owners and confiscate guns previously declared legal.
Read the fine print on laws designed to create prohibited classes of citizens who cannot own firearms. Who decides who is unfit? Is there due process before designating a person unfit? Is there an open appeals process? Can the system be abused for political purposes? There is a long history of such abuse in other countries, not to mention the bad old days of Jim Crow in this country.
John Ashby Morton