My perspective on a controversial issue

Some things seem to never end, like the fish wars in Cook Inlet. The upcoming Board of Fisheries statewide finfish meeting in March will see five proposals deliberated which, if passed, would reduce or, in some circumstances, eliminate personal use fishing on the Kenai Peninsula. If you care about this issue, make your voice heard at the meeting. Details can be found on the Fish and Game website.

Now, let’s look at the gun control issue. The gun grabbers are pushing to make semi-auto firearms illegal. They want to ban any magazines which can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, and ban ammunition sales to anyone under the age of twenty-one. They want to ban the sale of ammunition over the internet. The litany goes on.

I have read that the BATFE is adopting a “zero tolerance” approach to licensing or renewing Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) with the specific intent to reduce the numbers of licensed dealers. The plan is if there are few or no dealers where guns can be legally purchased, and/or folks have difficulty finding and buying ammunition, then, obviously, the public will be protected from the so called “mass shootings” perpetrated by mentally ill individuals. Where is the call for improved mental health screenings and treatment?

Banning semi-automatic firearms was tried during the Clinton administration using an Executive Order. So was the reduction of numbers of federally licensed dealers. Studies done after the ten-year ban on semi-autos was allowed to expire by Congress showed that there was no benefit toward public safety. Most of these studies were done by various federal government agencies, so any claim of pro-gun bias by pro-gun groups is dubious at best.

Prior to 1968, a firearm could be ordered through the mail and sent directly to your home with no registration or background checks. There were no “mass shootings.” Guns haven’t changed, people have!

I have further read that President Bidden has stated he will sign the United Nations Gun Control Treaty. If he does and the Senate ratifies the treaty with 67 or more votes, our Second Amendment would, essentially, be destroyed. Gun control and enforcement would then become a UN function subject to UN rules and regulations, and enforcement would be done by blue-helmeted foreign UN troops.

Many folks think, since Republicans now control the US House, there is little chance any gun control legislation could potentially become law. These folks are overlooking the president’s executive order capacity and the pending UN gun control treaty. Neither of these possible actions involve the US House of Representatives as a possible stop gap agency.

Some factors in favor on the pro-gun side include the unfortunate “defund the police” movement from a couple of years ago. Crime is still running rampant in many of these cities with the local governments doing little or nothing to correct the situation. This lack of “government protection” has millions of folks scared for their safety. The open southern border has also caused millions of folks to fear for their lives and property.

As a result of the current federal administration’s lack of support for law enforcement in many areas, the past three years have seen the largest number of new gun owners and new gun sales since records on gun sales have been kept. Estimates run as high as 10 million new gun owners who have finally realized that they are responsible for their own personal safety. The saying, “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away,” rings true here. The government and police have no requirements to protect the public safety if politics dictate otherwise.

Luckily for us, we live in Alaska, a very pro-gun and pro-Second Amendment state. I wouldn’t say we Alaskans are immune to gun grabber legislation because the so-called leftist progressive political philosophy is more extensive here than I like. We do have a pro-gun state administration and a legislature which is generally supportive of private gun ownership.

As a FFL holder, I am obligated to follow all federal firearms laws. As a result, I tend to follow potential federal firearms legislation closely and any state legislation as well. So far, I haven’t had to worry too much, although the so-called “red flag” laws being promoted at both the federal and state levels bother me. These laws are well intentioned but misguided in their structure. Taking someone’s private property based on somebody’s unproven allegation without due process under the Constitution is illegal. Since when can one violate someone’s constitutional rights under the guise of promoting public safety?