New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's forcible citizen disarmament group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (of which St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay is one of Missouri's only two members), likes to claim that they're not opposed to gun ownership.
We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.
An attentive reader might note that the Second Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, applies nationwide--in big cities and small towns.
That's not what I want to talk about today, though. Instead, let's talk about what Mayors Against Illegal Guns claims to actually oppose--not the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, they say, but just illegal guns.
But just what is an "illegal gun"? Guns that are very tightly controlled for civilians, like machine guns and cannons? Well, no--apparently not, because not only are such weapons almost never used criminally in the U.S., but the various gun laws MAIG advocates, like closing the "gun show loophole," and denying gun sales to anyone the Attorney General designates as a "suspected terrorist," have nothing to do with such weapons.
No--"illegal guns" are simply guns that are illegally owned, by virtue of either the owner being a "prohibited person," or a lack of the required paperwork (for jurisdictions that require such things). The interesting thing about that is that many of the same people who claim only to be against "illegal guns," rather than against the Second Amendment, claim that proponents of tough immigration law enforcement are "anti-immigrant." In fact, if one looks through the list of cities that MAIG claims as members, and compares that to a list of "sanctuary cities," where city employees are instructed not to cooperate with federal enforcement of immigration laws, one will find quite a lot of overlap.
When looked at in that light, it becomes apparent that those who claim to be fighting against "illegal guns" are actually fighting "undocumented firearms" (while also wanting to add to the required documentation).
I guess "Mayors Against Undocumented Firearms" just wasn't catchy enough.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Well, since neither a person nor a gun can really ever be "illegal", since any "laws" making them so are counterfeit, I'd say it's a good comparison.
Great points!
Well isn't the issue here whether a person who is in possession of a illegal/undocumented firearm themselves committing a crime? I don't really get what one issue has to do with the other, other than the word illegal itself.
Well Scarlett, it could be because you either haven't really thought it out, or your hypocrisy meter is broken.
Why are they illegal? Well? The Constitution says that firearm ownership is a right. It says nothing about any right to invade our nation.
Then there is that whole prohibited person thing. Based upon ex post facto law? Or mere suspicion? Perhaps an angry ex spouse using orders of restraint when in actuality there is no threat?
Bloomberg is in fact a straw purchase felon himself. Irrespective of what some bought and paid for Judge said.
Patrick- "The Constitution says that firearm ownership is a right. It says nothing about any right to invade our nation."
The main point is that the Constitution does not authorize the government to regulate immigration. Anything not specifically authorized by the Constitution is prohibited for government to do (not that the government ever obeys the law).
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!