Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (says Mike Barkley, Congressional Candidate)

Over the months since the Tucson massacre, not much has happened in Washington to address the problem, which is Too many guns, Too easy access. Inaction is understandable. They're all afraid of the big bad NRA and the gun netherworld behind it. There is another reason: following Justice Scalia's Supreme Court opinion in the Heller case, extended to all other jurisdictions under the McDonald opinion, all gun control is now in doubt. There is only one way to solve this problem and that is to take it head on: Repeal the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I propose Amendment Resolution and Legislation as follows:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the right to keep and bear arms.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid for all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States at any time after the date of its submission for ratification: 'Article--

1. Any right to keep and bear arms, whether under the Second Amendment to this Constitution, or under some pre-existing doctrine of natural law or common law or otherwise, or under Constitution or laws of any State, is repealed.

2. The privilege to keep and bear arms throughout the United States shall be under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.'

Phase 2 - A Tax; Following adoption of the constitutional amendment, a bill to tax:

1. There is imposed an annual tax on each and every firearm in any household as follows: a. first firearm, $10 b. second firearm, $20 c. third firearm, $30 d. fourth through ninth firearms, $100 each e. firearms in excess of the ninth, $1,000 each. 2. This tax is assessed and payable on each April 15 for firearms held by a household at the end of the preceding year, to be paid with a schedule listing firearm type, manufacturer and serial number, the schedule submitted along with the tax return of such member of the household as the members of the household may choose, with other members attaching a copy of that schedule to their tax returns as well indicating by which member the tax will be paid. Where firearms are owned by a partnership, if there is only one general partner the arms shall be included with the schedule of that general partner; where there is more than one general partner, the partners shall choose which partner will report the firearms. Where firearms are owned by a corporation, the corporation shall report and pay tax as if it were a household. Where fiscal years do not coincide with calendar years, reporting shall be as of the end of the previous fiscal year. Where firearms are owned by a legitimate museum, the museum shall report the ownership annually as if it were a household, but shall be exempt from the tax except for the penalties in section 4 below. Sham transfers, that is, transfers to a legitimate museum or to an entity with a different fiscal year, and then back again, shall be reported and taxed as if there had been no transfer. Sham exports, that is, export followed by reimportation shall be reported by and taxed to the exporter as if there had been no export. If a firearm has no serial number, the owner shall apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the assignment of one, and upon receipt of the assigned serial number shall indelibly engrave that number at a suitable location upon the firearm.

3. This tax may be avoided by selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer or by turning the firearm over to an official firearm collection location or by export before December 31 of the prior year. Once a month such collection locations shall turn collected firearms over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for destruction, except that the Bureau may withhold from destruction such firearms as are of historical interest for later donation to an appropriate museum.

4. Any firearm lost or stolen will incur a $1,000 penalty in the reporting year it was lost or stolen. For any such lost or stolen firearm that is subsequently recovered by the owner that $1,000 penalty shall be rescinded and refunded, except if the firearm has been used in the commission of a crime chargeable as a felony an additional $1,000 penalty will be imposed.

5. For each firearm sold by a licensed firearm dealer that is subsequently used in the commission of a crime chargeable as a felony a $1,000 penalty will be imposed against that dealer for each such year in which that firearm was used in such a crime.

6. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Internal Revenue Service shall jointly promulgate regulations for administering this Act.

Mr. Candidate, let me respond to you in detail.

First, tell me, if you don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, why is "Repeal the Second Amendment" the very first item in your platform?

Second, what do you mean it's just one leg of a 3-legged right? Are you saying the right to keep and bear arms is encoded elsewhere? Or are you saying there are three rights in the 2nd and the right to keep and bear is only one of them?

Third, do you really think natural law can be repealed? How?

Now, to your reasons for repeal:

We are shooting too many people in this country

Right off the bat, this one shows that your understanding of human nature is limited at best. First, any number of innocent people being shot is too many, and if you get your wish "we" (nice to include all 300 million of us in there, including me who has never shot or shoat at anyone) will still be shooting too many people. Why? that brings us to the second huge problem: The "we" who are shooting people are criminals. They do not care if they have a right to bear arms or not. They carry firearms they purchased and carry illegally and they use them to commit crimes against the innocent.

Here's a tip: Rapes don't occur because there's a right to rape enshrined in the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution says nothing about rape has not kept a single man from raping a woman. Similarly, gun murders don't occur because there is a right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution.

There are too many guns, too easy access.

Who says? Time and again we see shooters who have their guns illegally. The "easy access" came from ignoring the law, and they will ignore your new law.

But what about shootings where the gun was legally purchased like Tuscon, Fort Hood and Virginia Tech? In those cases (and many of the cases where the gun was illegal!) I would argue that the problem with the laws regarding involuntary committal, not with the laws regarding gun access. Loughner, Hasan and Cho should all have been in rubber rooms long before they had access to these firearms, and if the State of Virginian had taken advantage of LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST, Cho wouldn't have been able to purchase his weapons.

So, again, you think you will wave your magic fairy wand and all gun violence will go away. Puuuuhhhhleeeeeze!

But another question arises: When you say there are too many guns, it's too easy to get them and so we will repeal the right to keep and bear, does that mean you're planning on rounding up all the guns?

Let's say you are. Unless you thoroughly search every domicile and vehicle in the country (better repeal the Fourth Amendment while you're at it, smart guy) criminals will still have guns. And guess what? They'll keep shooting people with them because they are (wait for it)...CRIMINALS.

Oh, and that puts aside the lead that will be flying from the hands of law abiding citizens at whatever jack-booted thugs you send around to get our firearms. That is, if you can find any. I don't know many cops who have any enthisiasm for this sort of thing. Maybe you can import some guys from the Chinese Internal Security Bureau.

But let's say you aren't going to grab the guns. Well then, if all you're trying to do is overturn Heller, you won't change squat. You willpass more and more restrictive gun control laws and criminals will still kill people. Well, you will change one thing: You'll open the door for some future fascist to grab all the guns. Can you say "Sieg Heil," kids? I knew you could!

I'm sure you're sitting there smugly thinking that I have no idea what I'm talking about, and that things will change. Sure, just like they changed for Washington DC and Chicago. Both are places where owning a handgun has been illegal for a generation or more, and both of them are places where kids get shot on the way to school. Your plan is just their plan for more people. Tasty pick.

Since Heller and McDonald, all gun control in this country is unconstitutional despite the bone tossed to the gun control people by Justice Scalia in Heller.

Now, here's where it really gets fun. Scalia said that reasonable restrictions on guns are fine as long as they don't completely prevent ownership and are "not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner."

So, when you say Heller got rid of all gun control, that means one of two things:

1. You are admitting that current gun control laws are arbitrary and capricious or that any law that gives you what you want would be

2. You have no bloody idea what's in the Heller decision, but you've decided to make policy for 300 million people founded on a fat pileof ignorance.

Either way, you're not showing any intellectual heft.

New and different forms of gun control are required to cut down the inventory and access problems and those cannot be imposed without first repealing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Really? Like what? Like your $1,000 fine that would punish a crime victim for the crime committed against them? Good Lord, step away from the bong.

Lazamataz wrote,

>> Adopt the Multiple Sclerosis Anti-Discrimination Social Security Act.
>
> My mom has multiple sclerosis, and she would even oppose this. No
> ‘protected classes’ based on disease.

All of you have certain rights to Social Security Disability, provided you file your claim within a specified period after losing your employment because of disability. You might also have other rights under SSI if you file too late to receive Social Security Disability but the SSI
payments will probably be smaller. Per the Social Security Administration, “Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which is based on prior work under Social Security, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Under SSI, payments are made on the basis of financial need.”

MS can be a very sneaky devil. The victim can suffer cognitive problems, unexplained weakness, unexplained inability to get out of bed to go to work on various mornings, and so on. It can take years in some cases for some doctor to get the bright idea to look for MS. In the case of many on the MS web sites, those years between initial onset and diagnosis are often years of declining earnings or sheer inability to get or hold a job of any sort. The right to Social Security Disability at any specific income level wanes also - SSA says it “is based on prior work”, but it is really based on income from such work. As compensation declines, so does the Disability award. The longer it takes to get a diagnosis, the smaller the award. Several other diseases like MS (maybe fibromyalgia?) also take a long time to manifest. I am disappointed that you would label this as some sort of “’protected class’ based on disease”. It is more a victimized class because of disease. For many disabling diseases the right to SSDI manifests immediately. Perversely, those are the fortunate as compared with MS victims, at least with regard to SSDI.

WhyisaTexasgirlinPA wrote,

> Mr. Barkley, I was wondering if it was your wife who suffered from M.S.?
> It is a hard thing to watch a loved one suffer and I am truly sorry.
> I believe the lady I read about was named Jeanne? Was she related to you?

Thank you for your comments. Yes, we were married for 36 years before she died of “hospital mistakes” following surgery for ovarian cancer, which cancer was shielded from discovery by the MS symptoms and treatment. She was a very special lady. The hospital mistakes took her about 3 months
before the metastasized cancer would have and if they hadn’t taken her, the suffering would have been unbearable. I have mixed feelings about those mistakes, she wanted to live as long as possible, but they relieved her of the escalating suffering. It’s an unanswerable riddle.

Arrowhead1952 wrote,

> Sooooooooooooooooooooo, you are still here, but refuse to reply.

Um, actually I’ve been busy digging ditches to run underground utilities to a house. At the moment I’m writing an answer to:

“191 posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:27:42 PM by Mr. Silverback”.
and maybe
“176 posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 6:10:08 AM by aruanan “

but it’s going to take me a bit. It’s difficult to figure out which of you are looking for answers or which are just posing rhetorical questions.

For those of you looking for who I’m running against for Congress, please see post #52 for the upcoming California redistricting bug tussle. It would be interesting to see if Ms. Pelosi, for instance winds up representing the great city of Fresno. . . .

On the IBTZ question, well, it is what it is. Should the Big Z come down, I’ve listened to each of you and carefully considered your comments.

Best wishes, —Mike

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.