The Spaghetti Phase of Gun Control

We have officially entered the spaghetti phase of gun control.

This is when those in favor of gun control introduce any manner of legislative schemes to restrict lawful citizens from purchasing, selling, making, and probably soon inheriting firearms, in the hope that something sticks to the wall.

Sometimes it’s a specific firearm, like the AR-15/modern sporting rifle or the Glock. Other efforts target broader categories of firearms, such as semi-automatic firearms.

Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and major legal opinions such as Heller and Bruen, gun control efforts have been hitting a brick wall.

That brick wall was erected in large part through the efforts of organizations like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and Gun Owners of America (GOA). Those groups have taken on cases like these, pushing them up the judicial chain to the highest court possible.

But alas, that hasn’t stopped state legislatures and candidates for public office from making up, well, effluvia. It’s as if they have a team sitting around dreaming stuff up, which they clearly do.

Going Mental

Dan Osborn, an Independent candidate for U.S. Senate in Nebraska told attendees at a town hall he would call for a “mandatory five-year mental health checks for owners of AR-15s and similar ‘assault-style’ rifles.”

The Plains Sentinel reported that “Osborn proposed a preemptive “red flag” law targeting owners of “assault-style rifles,” which would require gun owners to undergo a mental health evaluation every five years to re-register those weapons.”

Read that one more time because it’s almost too absurd to believe.

Calling for mental health checks in order to own a firearm—ownership of which is clearly protected by the Second Amendment and subsequent SCOTUS and lower-court rulings—is itself remarkable. One could argue it is evidence that the person proposing such restrictions, not the gun owner, needs the screening.

Overlooking the obvious, that this would be unconstitutional, the idea of any state or Congress imposing a preemptive mental health check requirement for one right opens a massive can of worms for targeting other rights.

Imagine imposing the same kind of requirement for those who comment online—about anything Congress disagrees with. This would be an American spin on Great Britain’s restrictive social media laws that have resulted in an estimated 12,000 arrests annually for online comments.

Or perhaps mental health screening could be required for people prescribed antidepressant medications.

The idea of establishing a database of people prescribed antidepressants for the purpose of regularly scheduled governmental screenings is a huge violation of privacy. And most recognize that.

But the same idea for gun owners is just perfectly fine according to U.S. Senate candidate Osborn. He and his ilk just don’t see this violation of privacy as an issue when it comes to gun owners.

Have You Signed Our Registry

In Colorado, the Colorado State Shooting Association is challenging, through legal action, House Bill 26-1126 which Governor Jared Polis signed into law.

The bill forces firearms retailers to maintain detailed records of purchasers, such as name, age and address. It also catalogs the make, caliber, and finish of the gun, as well as the firearm’s serial number.

David Price, an attorney for CSSA, told Colorado media, “This new law requires firearm dealers to turn over their purchase records containing information regarding their customers to a broad array of government employees who may request them without a warrant, without probable cause, without giving any reason.”

He added that, “We have carefully examined the legal authorities that govern this type of law, and firmly believe that it violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.”

Once all these records are turned over to the state government, they will be subject to any number of Freedom of Information requests—and there will be many.

Of course, a database like this would certainly prove useful if and when a state of emergency occurs and Colorado wants to locate firearm owners and take their guns. Just like New Orleans did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Again, nobody in Colorado’s government is proposing a database of alcohol or marijuana buyers. Or one of DUI convictions so those same alcohol and pot retailers can run a background check, so as not to sell to a known drunk or impaired driver.

But when it comes to guns, all’s fair in hate and war.

Every blue state is, or soon will be, rolling out its own exceptionally stupid bills designed to rein in the right to keep and bear arms. If nothing else, these measures help score points with a liberal voting base and secure donations from anti-gun major donors and Super PACs.

But most of all, these legislative attacks—which directly hinder the exercise of a Constitutional right—ultimately force organizations like the NSSF, NRA, SAF, FPC, and GOA into court in order to drain the coffers of those pro-Second Amendment groups.

Especially because those organizations continue to win key legal battles defending the right of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms.

– Paul Erhardt, Managing Editor, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network