EO, EO, No!

President Biden and the left’s quest to disarm Americans

Old man Biden had a pen, EO, EO, No! And with that pen he banned some guns, EO, EO, No!

It is said that “a rock in the hands of Cain killed Abel; a rock in the hands of David killed Goliath. The problem isn’t the rock.” For anyone unfamiliar with the references (though I can’t imagine), in the Old Testament book of Genesis, Cain’s jealousy of his brother Abel led him to rise up one day and bash in Abel’s skull with a rock; he murdered his own brother. David went into battle when the Israelite army feared confronting Goliath, and David, using his sling, hurled a rock that sunk into nine-foot-tall Goliath’s forehead. The concept is clear: a tool in the right hands can be used for good, and a tool in the wrong hands can be used for evil. The tool itself is irrelevant; the person wielding the tool is key. Rather than recognize this reality, gun-control advocates will argue that David was on the battlefield, so he had a perfectly good reason to wield military-grade masonry. Cain, however, was a civilian and should not have had access to stones of war, but should have been restricted to possessing pebbles or pea gravel (in limited quantities), and that only after passing a background check. After all, a citizen walking around with a concealed slab is very dangerous.

It is in this vein of thinking that the President, in response to a January shooting in Monterey Park, California, is once again corralling us on to the gun control carousel. Can you hear the calliope playing? It is dizzying listening to the spin and rabid repetition of ideas that not only have no chance of accomplishing the stated goal (which is not the real goal), but that blatantly violate the rights of the citizens of the United States. As if to whirl the carousel faster, the President is attempting to implement his (and the left’s) agenda by fiat, circumventing (while feigning acquiescence to) the authority to legislate that belongs solely to Congress. That’s right - the president has issued an Executive Order, signed on March 14, allegedly intended to reduce gun violence.

According to a “fact sheet” on the White House website, the Executive Order directs the President’s Cabinet to:

• Increase the number of background checks by ensuring that all background checks required by law are conducted before firearm purchases, moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.

• Improve public awareness and increase appropriate use of extreme risk protection (“red flag”) orders and safe storage of firearms.

• Address the loss or theft of firearms during shipping.

• Provide the public and policymakers with more information regarding federally licensed firearms dealers who are violating the law.

• Use the Department of Defense’s acquisition of firearms to further firearm and public safety practices.

• Help catch shooters by accelerating federal law enforcement’s reporting of ballistics data.

• Accelerate and intensify implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA).

• Improve federal support for gun violence survivors, victims and survivors’ families, first responders to gun violence, and communities affected by gun violence.

• Advance congressional efforts to prevent the proliferation of firearms undetectable by metal detectors.

Addressing all of the ways this Executive Order violates the Constitution, violates citizens’ rights, and how none of these initiatives will do anything to reduce violence (gun-related or otherwise) would require tomes. It would be good, however, to at least look briefly at a few of these items. We’ll begin with background checks.

From time immemorial, the left has advocated background checks as the pinnacle preventative for firearm-related crimes. I’m not exactly sure how the President expects his Cabinet to increase the number of background checks, or to ensure that all such checks required by law are actually performed. Firearms dealers (who are required to possess a Federal Firearms License or FFL) must, under severe penalty for failure to comply, perform a background check on anyone to whom a firearm is sold. According to data in an article published by Mother Jones, not a particularly firearm-friendly website, almost 70% of mass shootings from 1982 through 2023 were committed with weapons purchased legally after passing a background check (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/).

President Biden’s own (in)famous son, Hunter, lied on ATF form 4473 (Firearms Transaction Record), which is the form completed by a purchaser for the purpose of conducting a background check. The FFL, upon Hunter’s background check clearing, sold Hunter a .38 caliber handgun. The field Hunter falsely filled out on the form was Section 11e which reads:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
Warning: The use or possession of marijuana remains unlawful under Federal law regardless of whether it has been legalized or decriminalized for medicinal or recreational purposes in the state where you reside.

(emphasis in original)

While checking the wrong box seems a trivial matter, according to the ATF, lying on this form is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Yet Hunter got his gun, and…suprise, surprise…he’s not in jail, despite his on video drug-induced antics brandishing (unsafely), while naked, the illegally purchased weapon. In light of the data, and the First Son’s freedom, it is pretty clear that background checks have little effect on the use of guns.

So-called red flag laws are another hot-button item. Known officially as “extreme risk protection orders,” these laws turn the American justice system on its head. While our standard is “innocent until proven guilty,” someone affected by a red flag law is guilty until proven innocent. This is a complete subversion of due process. In the case of these orders, a person can report another as a potential danger to him- or herself, or as a danger to others. Then a judge issues an order to remove from the accused’s possession any and all firearms. Only after the alleged predator has been deprived of his or her property does that person have an opportunity to be notified of the nature and cause of the accusation, and then attempt to prove him- or herself not to be the danger averred. How does one go about proving innocence in this case? “Your Honor, I’ve never kicked my dog or shot my neighbor.” “This is true, but how am I to know you won’t? Your resentful ex says you are dangerous.” Is this justice? How does this not violate the fourth amendment that guarantees a right to be secure in person and property against unreasonable search or seizure? Does the DoJ have a department of Precrime, employing precogs to detect violence before it happens, as in the movie Minority Report?

Some other of these points are clearly beyond the control of the federal government. How does the government expect to mitigate package theft? Firearms must be shipped to a FFL in order to be purchased by the final owner; they cannot be shipped directly to the home of someone not licensed as a dealer. So this isn’t a matter of porch thieves swiping Amazon boxes.

What point is there to informing the public or policymakers of FFLs not operating according to ATF mandates? Are citizens going to walk into a store and demand the FFL follow the law? Will the public arrest the FFL? Will a congressman fly to the location of the FFL and give the owner a firm talking to? The ATF is cracking down so hard on FFLs these days that they’re likely not to remain in business long if they violate the law.

How is the DoD’s acquisition of firearms contributing to public safety? Is it because they are attempting to buy enough to limit the market and drive prices up so individuals can no longer afford such a luxury purchase? Perhaps they wish to, at our expense, acquire all such firearms so there are none left for the public to buy. Or do they intend to use those acquired firearms against the public? The DoD has nothing to offer along the lines of protecting the American people from any gun violence other than that which originates at the DoD, and it was that concern, defending against violence from government entities like the DoD, that led the founding fathers to pen the Second Amendment.

What place does the federal government have in supporting gun violence survivor victims, survivors, or those they have left behind? In most cases, it is the government’s gun regulations, or failure to enforce other laws (see also: securing the border) that contributed or led to the attack. Cold though it may seem, it is neither the job nor within the Constitutional purview of the federal government to provide support, whether financial or emotional, for victims. That is the concern of counselors, charities, and the church.

Perhaps the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will help? Not likely. The majority of the BSCA is about healthcare. Most of the wording is dubious, and it does not in any way address the reason for, or disincentivize, gun violence. While claiming to deal with mental health issues, the bill actually provides for States “to develop proposals to participate in time-limited demonstration programs described in subsection (d)” of Section 223 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014. Other monies are allocated for Medicaid telehealth services. There is much more about health and prescription services, if anyone cares to read the text of the act (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2938/text). The act (thankfully) has minimal measures toward actual gun control. These measures include opening juvenile records to NICS examination, and changing the definition of a gun dealer in Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code by modifying language as follows:

striking ``with the principal objective of livelihood and profit'' and inserting ``to predominantly earn a profit’’…

The term `to predominantly earn a profit' means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection

We know the left loves to play fast and loose with terminology and the dictionary, but I fail to see what difference is made by this textual adjustment. As well, it makes straw purchases illegal, which is redundant, since straw purchases are illegal. To state that all of this is ludicrous would likewise be redundant. The BSCA has no chance of accomplishing anything other than making eyes roll and costing taxpayers money. 

The President, in the fact sheet, also makes the following statement:

I continue to call on the Congress to take additional action to reduce gun violence, including by banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring background checks for all gun sales, requiring safe storage of firearms, funding my comprehensive Safer America Plan, and expanding community violence intervention and prevention strategies.

It always amazes me (not really - they cannot exercise unfettered control over an armed populace, as the founding fathers recognized) how vehemently the left goes after guns when so many deaths in this country are the result of other causes. Consider that CDC mortality statistics link 14,414 homicides and 486 accidental deaths to firearms (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-08-508.pdf - note that only “selected causes” are included in their statistics). Those numbers equate to far less than the numbers usually purported by gun control proponents, because they usually include suicide, bringing the total to 39,707. Most firearm homicides are by handgun (according to the FBI, only 440 or so homicides in 2019 were committed with rifles), but rifles are always the target of these measures. The CDC statistics list medical and surgical incidents as killing over 5,000. Should we outlaw medical procedures? Diabetes was responsible for 87,647 deaths. Where is the outrage at the high price of insulin? Where are all the regulations making diabetic supplies more affordable for all? Cardiovascular disease killed a whopping 869,883! Where are the campaigns for healthy living? Why instead do they push experimental and dangerous (listen to the disclaimer on any commercial) pharmaceuticals instead of encouraging eating well and exercising? “Accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances” caused 65,773 deaths. Why are these substances not illegal? What would those do in the hands of someone with intent? Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people with fertilizer. Shall we outlaw farming? It is already (unconstitutionally) already highly regulated. Falling down caused 39,443 deaths, nearly as many as all firearm related deaths (intentional, unintentional, or self-inflicted). Perhaps bathtubs should be outlawed, or people should undergo background checks before being permitted to climb a flight of steps, like those leading up to Air Force One.

Not surprisingly, the tool responsible for the first murder in human history is still an implement of violent crime: https://patriottruths.com/woman-warns-other-drivers-after-feeling-like-she-was-shot . Yes, people are still using rocks to harm other people. Shall we outlaw stones? Register Federal Rubble Licensees through whom gravel must be purchased? Have background checks to purchase pavers? Deadly landscaping will be more difficult and costly, but it will still happen, with or without the government’s knowledge.

It’s time to stop the carousel, step off, and shut down the carnival permanently. Instead of pushing for further unconstitutional gun control measures, the government needs to revert the penal system to its former deterrent glory. Watch a few episodes of Gunsmoke and you will understand what I mean. The thought of public hanging struck terror into the hearts of most would-be criminals. A perpetrator did not have to wait months for a court date. There weren’t unlimited appeals, and no one sat on death row for decades awaiting that final moment. Jail wasn’t a country club or college dorm where you got to work out, possibly have a job, take classes, watch TV, and while the time away. Cells were small, and there were no activities. If labor was involved, it was hard labor. Imprisonment was, as intended, a punishment, a rescission of the offender’s rights in return for the rights of others that the offender violated. If the legal penalty was not enough deterrent, that so many others were also armed itself was a deterrent. Most people do not want to get shot, which is a very likely scenario for anyone wishing to commit a crime with throngs of other armed people in close proximity.

Gun control is not a deterrent; it is an accelerant, like fuel on a fire. Making acquisition of firearms more difficult for law-abiding citizens violates our rights (“shall not be infringed”), and further encourages criminals who see an unarmed populace. Signs may prevent upstanding people from entering a “gun free zone” without a firearm, but words on a wall will not stop a felon intent on evil. The government knows this, which is why we know their purpose is not actually to stop crime. That they do not wish to stop crime is evident by how many violent criminals are regularly released from custody, often without bail, only to offend again. The true aim here is control. The more they legislate away our rights, the more we assent to having them trampled, the less power we the people have. Why do we allow this? As long as we do, they will strive with all their might to disarm us so they may foist their tyrannies upon the country. They know the only way to achieve their Marxist agenda is first to disarm us. Thankfully, Executive Orders are not, and (supposedly) may not be used as, legislation usurping the authority that Congress alone wields. We must maintain that separation of power, and stand up and say, “EO, EO, No! Absolutely no way Joe!”