The United States Constitution, an astonishingly brilliant and concisely comprehensive bulwark against tyranny, has always been the biggest obstacle to the Left’s schemes for government and society. And there’s nothing they won’t do to try to get around it.
Bearing Arms reports that in California, Democrat state lawmaker Sen. Jerry Hill has proposed legislation (SB 464) that doesn’t directly attack Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but would make that right far more difficult to exercise by saddling gun stores in the state with expensive, burdensome new security regulations devised for the purpose of putting them out of business, because most gun stores are small businesses, the kind of establishments least likely to be able to shoulder the new burdens.
Specifically, this legislation mandates:
that all guns be kept in a secure facility with steel bars on the windows, deadbolts or a metal grate on doors, and steel bars, metal grating, or an alarm system to protect A/C vents.
Most importantly, SB 464 will require gun store owners to choose from one (1) of eight (8) additional security measures:
– Option #1: take the guns out of their display cases and lock them in a safe or vault.
– Option #2: lock the guns in their display cases with a steel rod or cable through the triggers guards and also place steel or concrete bollards in front of the store and at other critical access points.
– Option #3: lock the guns in a polycarbonate display case.
– Option #4: lock the guns in a display case that utilizes security film.
– Option #5: lock the guns in a windowless room, which has no doors exposed to the outside of the building, and which has a steel security door.
– Option #6: lock the guns behind a steel roll down door or security gate.
The stated rationale for all this is that guns being stolen from these stores is a contributor to gun violence that currently isn’t adequately prevented. However, Second Amendment defenders aren’t buying it, and with good reason:
“SB 464 ignores the plethora of security regulations with which FFLs are already required to comply with at the federal, state and local levels,” said Craig DeLuz, Spokesman for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “Even worse, it overlooks the fact that many local municipalities and commercial property owners often do not allow such property modifications.”
Further, AmmoLand.com editor Duncan Johnson explains:
Data from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) show that while 70,000 firearms have been lost or stolen in California since 2011, only a fraction of them were stolen from gun stores (797, representing about 1%). In fact, recent reports have shown that a firearm in the hands of law enforcement officers and agencies is more likely to come up missing than a firearm in the possession of licensed firearms retailers.
Reading all this, one irony in particular stands out: what liberals are doing here, technically leaving a right untouched but making it harder to exercise by targeting providers, is the exact same thing they accuse pro-lifers of doing by imposing health and safety regulations on abortion clinics. Of course, there are a couple key differences: there is an actual medical-standards crisis in the abortion industry necessitating the regulations, and gun rights — unlike the “right to choose” — are actually in the Constitution.
Do you think California gun grabbers are going to get away with this stunt? Or will the Second Amendment win in federal court? Share your predictions below!