Confiscating guns

Gun control is now raising its head in the wake of the Orlando tragedy.  A couple of years ago I was watching The Five at Five on Fox News and they were talking about the gun control issue.  One of the co-hosts said it was going to be difficult to initiate a gun ban because of the gangs in large cities and other people who do not obey the laws will keep their guns.  The Democrat member to The Five, Bob Beckel, spoke up and said, "That's no problem, just confiscate the guns."

That word "confiscate" or "confiscation" seems to be voiced a bit more often among the Democrat top-ranked officials, especially when they are filibustering for gun control.  Even the President has made a statements about "using other means" within his executive powers to act if Congress doesn't.   Of course for many people that word translates into action brings mortified fears.  In fact it seems far-reaching in that it would result in placing restrictions on several rights we now have associated with freedoms regarding ownership and privacy and due process.

At first glance and on face value we might immediately agree that if bad guys have guns and are using them to kill, rob or intimidate people we want the police to confiscate those guns so law-abiding people can be protected.  The truth is, however, confiscation is the tool of tyrants, not the practice of a nation of laws under the Constitution.  Fortunately,  there is a process the police must follow that has important steps to be satisfied before that confiscation can occur.

A law enforcement person cannot indiscriminately just decide to go confiscate someone's gun from their house.  There must be probable cause that a crime has been committed or is imminently about to be committed.  It might even be a crime has already been committed and the investigation is taking the investigators to a specific person.  That probable cause must be strong enough to specifically name the individual and demonstrate that the crime is linked to that individual.  Law enforcement must then seek out a court to present the probable cause information so a search warrant can be issued by a judge.  It is on the basis of that warrant that a search can be conducted to the individual's property.  Seizure of property generally needs to be named in the warrant so the law enforcement officers cannot seize just anything they see that may not be relevant to the purported  crime that initiated the probable cause.

So when the talking points of any political party or Administration includes a process of simply confiscating the guns they must realize the process to do that will likely obliterate not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding privacy, search and seizure and court issued warrants to conduct such searches and seizures.  Once the can of Constitutional obliteration is opened, whether through Congressional actions or Executive Orders, it opens the door for many of the Constitutional guarantees to be thrown out as well.  If we are not careful we could end up living in a totalitarian state with no regard for individual rights to ownership, privacy or freedom, and of course no due process.

Politicians are not the only people who are wondering about gun ownership.  There are many people who the question, "Why own a gun in the first place, especially if you don't plan to use it as intended?"  Of course, the intended use of the type of guns many are discussing are those "long rifles" or "automatic firing guns." 

One has to wonder however, if any law-abiding citizen actually ever wants to be in a situation where he will have to use a gun for the use it was intended.  Some believe the intended use of the gun is for protection.  Protection against harm, the kind of harm we have just experienced in Orlando.  No person wants to be in that situation where there is a real need for self-protection.  In those instances, the presence of a gun in the right hands places the role of a gun in the position of being an equalizer.  By that I mean there are two persons present, one is in the process of killing another; the other is in need of protection.  When the other person also has a gun, that gun puts the two on a more equal footing.  One trying to kill; the other trying to defend.  Part of the defense of self and others present is neutralizing the person with a gun who is trying to kill people.

What prompted the writers of our Constitution to include weapons in the Second Amendment was the fear they had just experienced by living through the Revolutionary War protecting themselves against a greater power who had weapons.  The inclusion of the Second Amendment was motivated by fear.  That fear was citizens having to endure the same fate as the writers might have suffered had they not been armed.

That fear (or respect, if you will) has followed like a thread from then until now.  People are afraid today because they can see in some cases what the Forefathers warned about then seems to be happening today.  People are watching the President and a large group in his political party constantly calling for the control of the guns every time some mass killing takes place.  That seems to be the first response:  People die in mass shootings; therefore, all the guns have to be removed from the people.  That makes people afraid. 

That fear is not just imagined, it is real.  Our government would remove all guns from law-abiding citizens, barely even touching those who have no problems with practicing illegal behavior.  Fear of having ones' gun confiscated is an emotional contagion phenomenon that triggers related emotions in others when they are confronted with the prospect of being in a life-threatening situation where they must protect themselves but have no means to do so.  That fear has been reinforced many times by an Administration and an ideology of liberalism that promises to remove the Second Amendment at the first real chance they have.  The cascading effect of abolishing the Second Amendment would naturally move toward removing a cadre of other rights as well; privacy, due process, warrants, and perhaps even Habeas Corpus.  

That is why people want to own a gun.  Aside from hunting for food or sport, other reasons are simply fluff.

Jim Killebrew