Even though the Constitution of the United States recognizes and codifies your right to keep and bear arms—without infringement—your state and federal governments declare that you may under no circumstances keep or bear arms unless you and your arms are compliant with many, many infringements upon your God-given rights. And then only if those who manufacture the arms you might purchase can successfully navigate the intricate web of tyrannies upon their activities and operations.
Truly, this state of affairs seems strangely tyrannical for The Land of the Free.
The United States of America existed as a Constitutional Republic for 143 years—becoming during that time the greatest, freest nation on the face of the planet—without a single federal gun law. Then, in 1934, the federal government began perpetrating an unending series of federal tyrannies upon firearms models and configurations, firearms manufacturers, and the individual liberty of those who keep and bear firearms.
It should surprise no one that this tyrannical process of infringements began with legislation written by a Democrat from Connecticut, Attorney General Homer S. Cummings. This Act of Congress—the National Firearms Act (NFA)—was enacted by the Democrat-controlled 73rd Congress. From that point on, the U.S. federal government never looked back. It then proceeded to continually infringe on every individual’s God-given right to keep and bear arms; the only right referenced in our Constitution with the explicit warning that it “shall not be infringed.” In short, our government lacks authority to infringe upon our rights, yet members of state assemblies and U.S. Congress write and pass these infringements, Governors and Presidents sign these infringements into law, and these infringements remain and pile up, illegal law upon illegal law.
The Current State of Tyranny
Fast forward to today where, at the current end of a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object, the most recent human-liberty kerfuffle surrounds homemade and 3D-printable guns. Even though many Americans have no interest in making their own firearms (something that is now and always has been legal in the United States) or 3D printing firearms, the legal debate surrounding these issues is highly instructive and it exposes some key tyrannies and infringements that Americans may not have been aware of or may have long ignored.
A prominent argument against printed guns is that they are perhaps undetectable. And this is important because, according to U.S. Code, the only reason, apparently, that the US government allows citizens to keep and bear firearms today is that years ago someone invented the metal detector. I guess that was a fortunate event?
The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not as detectable by walk-through metal detection as a security exemplar containing 3.7 oz (105 g) of steel, or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image before standard airport imaging technology.
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 was introduced by William J. Hughes (D-NJ) and it easily passed the Democrat-controlled 100th Congress. It was signed into law by everyone’s favorite Republican President, Ronald Reagan. This tyrannical and illegal law infringes on every individual’s right to keep and bear firearms if the model they prefer is not detectable by a walk-through metal detector.
Our Constitution places no limitations on our rights to arms and it grants no authority to any branch of the government to do so, but our government sees fit to do so anyway. But what if the metal detector had never been invented? It’s quite clear that government tyrants would have negated your God-given rights. Eric at Gunmartblog.com wrote a compelling piece about this very thing:
So seriously, what if metal detectors were never invented? Would the simple fact that we didn’t have the technology to detect firearms at airport checkpoints be a justifiable reason to completely end the inalienable right to keep and bear arms? Would we really outlaw all guns in an effort to ensure that we kept them off airplanes? Would we be willing to give up the second amendment in its entirety to ensure our safe passage on airplanes? I mean if we can completely secure our airplanes and make sure that these bad guys don’t hijack anymore planes, then we should definitely ban guns, right? We can’t detect them, so what else are we to do!
But wait. Even in Bizzaro World a complete and total ban on guns would not stop airplane hijackings. Not having guns on the planes did nothing to stop 9/11. That all went down rather easily without the need for one single firearm… 3D printed or not.
So why ban 3D printed guns? It certainly doesn’t solve the problem. Terrorists have proven that they certainly don’t need to sneak some 3D printed gun parts and one lone bullet onto an airplane to hijack it. Why would we let this ridiculously low level of justifiable “need” go forth and set such a dangerous precedent? And if we are not willing to apply it to everything, across the board then why are we so quick to throw 3D printed guns under the bus?
The danger with throwing 3D printed guns under the bus is that it will have a catastrophic impact on every aspect of liberty in this country… it will be an incredibly dangerous precedent going forward for any and all pieces of technology. We are not just talking about second amendment rights here either. We are talking about giving our overbearing, ruling class politicians the A-OK going forward for any piece of future technology that may come along that might affect any of our unalienable rights. ‘Well, we can’t fully oversee it and control it, so we must ban it‘… is now going to be the standard going forward for everything…
Read the whole article: Bizzaro World: What if metal detectors were never invented?
So does this ridiculous and illegal precedent for reliance on detecting technology clear the way for tyrannical tech-related mandates? You bet it does. And what if that tech hasn’t even been invented? There is a provable answer to this question, for indeed, they already have created law that requires compliance with a yet-to-be-invented technology—in Commefornia.
More Tech Tyranny
Tyrants in California have already written a law that requires manufacturers include in their firearms a technology that does not yet exist. Just as stupidly, this ridiculous law has been upheld by the courts.
In 2007, the California legislature approved a law, enacted as Cal. Penal Code § 31910 (b)(7)(A), on “unsafe handguns.” New models of semiautomatic handguns could not be sold unless the gun was equipped with “microstamping” technology that allowed the make, model, and serial number of the pistol to be imprinted in “two or more places” internally so that, theoretically, this information would imprinted on each cartridge case when the gun was fired. (The bill was amended to add the “two or more” requirement after it was pointed out that a single microstamp on the firing pin could be easily defeated by defacing or replacing the firing pin). Any semiautomatic handgun without this “dual placement microstamping” capability not already on the state roster of handguns was automatically an “unsafe handgun,” which exposed manufacturers, importers, and dealers to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
The law became effective as soon as the California Department of Justice certified that the technology used to create the imprint was available. When this certification occurred in 2013, the State clarified that the certification confirmed only “the lack of any patent restrictions on the imprinting technology, not the availability of the technology itself.” In layman’s terms, the state was saying that nothing was stopping someone from developing the technology, so it was “available,” even though it wasn’t.
From nraila.org – Mission Impossible: California Court Upholds Microstamping Law
That’s right; the law requires a technology that does not currently exist. For this and other reasons (detailed in the article—please do read the whole thing), it is impossible for anyone to comply with this law. Even so, as is detailed in the article, litigants appealing the law before the Court are prohibited from arguing against the law on grounds that the law is impossible with which to comply. I’m not kidding.
What good are rights when with them we have no way to comply with the law?
We citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, but arms deemed “safe and legal” may not be manufactured or used in California. Those that are non compliant and allowed (another scary bit of tyranny) to be manufactured must remain on the Roster of Unsafe Handguns. With this mechanism, for reasons that defy logic and morality, the manufacturers can be held liable for any use of these “unsafe” guns…guns that are in no way unsafe. These kinds of requirements are important components of fascism, by the way.
Oh, and this law does not apply to any firearms used or purchased by any law enforcement agency. Well played. Yet another example of something that is allowed for government and not allowed for the people; a practice known by a specific term: tyranny.
When Legal Victory Just Reveals More Tyranny
In the District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, “unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes.” There are many specific details covered in this case and its ruling—one that is mostly viewed as a victory for human rights—but there are some very scary and tyrannical precedents there, too.
Firstly, and this is more of an aside, the Second Amendment doesn’t “protect” anything. It is merely a reference to God-given rights possessed by each individual inalienably, whether our Constitution exists or not. It is moral men and armed citizens that protect everything worth protecting. The court’s ruling here invests authority in words on paper where there is none. Ahem.
The primary perversion of law in this case is that much of the reasoning referenced in the case for upholding an individual’s right to keep and bear arms was that a handgun is a firearm that is “in common use at the time” (something that emerged in the 1958 United States v. Miller case). I’m compelled to point out that there is no “in common use” clause to the Second Amendment. Rather, it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” It does not describe or limit which kinds of Arms nor does it describe under which circumstances these Arms may be kept or borne. It simply states that this right of the people may not be infringed. And yet, the highest court in the land has declared an assumption to which all Americans must adhere: that the wording is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are in common use shall not be infringed.” This is an outright lie and perversion, and court rulings and legislation that assume this lie are pure tyranny.
And this is not all, not by a long shot. There are many other state and federal infringements on your rights not detailed here; even though no government has authority to infringe on your rights, and violating your rights is a crime. So, yes, your God-given rights are infringed upon. They are severely infringed upon. The government has invoked a series of infringements since 1934 and there will continue to be more and more unconstitutional, tyrannical laws enacted until…what?
That’s the question: how will this long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object be stopped? And when? And by whom? Will Americans be able to successfully appeal to the better natures of our elected representatives to right these wrongs…or will Americans, in that proudest of American traditions, be again forced spill the blood of tyrants in order to secure our liberty?
It’s an important and very serious question. It will have to be answered, for liberty is not negotiable.