To some, there is no such thing as a plan by our government to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.
In fact, if you live in liberal California like I do, you would most likely be laughed at if you dare to claim otherwise. A large chunk of Americans conclude that only conspiracy theorists believe the government has a “hidden” agenda to disarm us.
Many Californians also believe that the government is trying only to keep them safe from gun violence. Any intrusion on gun rights, while allegedly making safety a priority, is tolerated as a minor inconvenience.
High Bridge Arms, the only remaining gun shop in San Francisco, is about to close down because of increased gun restrictions passed by the city. (AP/Jeff Chiu)
And California is not alone in this thinking. Many people across the nation are in favor of President Barack Obama’s multiple anti-gun proposals — even though they negatively impact their Second Amendment rights.
Thank goodness there are those who are not blind to what is occurring and are not afraid to voice the truth about what is actually happening in this country.
In an interview last week, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke spoke about his concerns regarding what he believes is the shared agenda of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in Chicago and President Barack Obama — a plan to essentially seize America’s guns.
"I was extremely disappointed when I heard that my fellow law enforcement executive colleagues had gotten into bed with Obama and his gun confiscation mission," Clarke said. "That’s really what it’s about. It’s not about reducing violence; it’s not about reducing mass murder or suicides. The real intent of Obama and these gun groups is gun confiscation, and they know they are going to have to do it step by step. They’re not going to be able to go after that today, as there would be fierce blowback. So they are doing it in stealth ways, and this IACP meeting is one of those ways."
Ask those in California who are gun owners and aware of what has been happening to their gun rights, and they will tell you the state has been chipping away at their Second Amendment rights for quite some time. In fact, many believe that the state’s shrewdness in taking their gun rights away is as calculated as Clarke describes.
The gun laws of California rank among some of the most restrictive in the nation. A “Firearm Safety Certificate” must be obtained by passing a written test before the state will allow you to purchase a firearm. Even then, you can purchase a gun from only an authorized dealer that is “California legal,” which means they must be listed on the state’s Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale. The requirements to get on the roster, as you might expect, entail paying a fee and then jumping through additional hoops.
All gun sales are registered, along with your fingerprints, with the state. You can pick up your gun, if you pass all of the tests, after a 10-day waiting period.
There is also a requirement that firearm magazines must be limited to a specific capacity, which may vary, depending upon each city’s constraints.
Most recently, Los Angeles moved to enact the most severe limitations on gun rights yet, dictating a gun owner’s rights within his own home.
Unfortunately, many in California who don’t own a gun either don’t know about these restrictive laws or have bought the state’s “gun safety” agenda hook, line and sinker. They believe the state is acting appropriately and in Californians’ best interests. They have no clue as to how their personal freedoms are being robbed from them.
And what about gun shop owners? Are they being used in a way that implicitly helps to “confiscate” our weapons?
Ask Steve Alcairo of High Bridge Arms in San Francisco, who has been the city’s sole gun shop owner since 1999.
General manager Steve Alcairo holds a Winchester 1200 shotgun while being interviewed at High Bridge Arms Inc. in San Francisco. (AP/Jeff Chiu)
Alcairo is closing his doors because the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously last week to require all gun dealers to videotape firearm sales and report sales of ammunition to police. He and any other gun shop owners would also be required to send weekly reports to police on ammunition sales.
This legislation not only intrudes upon Second Amendment rights but is an invasion of privacy, as well. How far will other cities or states go in an attempt to interfere with our gun rights through unreasonable laws?
The agenda for those wishing to take away gun rights is most often couched in terms of gun safety, but the truth behind what they are seeking to accomplish eventually floats to the top.
San Francisco Supervisor Mark Ferrell said at the recent meeting, according to Mission Local, that 'he hoped the new legislation would prevent loss, theft, and trafficking of firearms and ammo from dealers and give the police better tools to 'prevent crime and keep our neighborhoods safe.'"
However, Ferrell also revealed his true stance on Second Amendment rights and the reason he is in favor of the legislation.
“If as an ancillary effect and benefit we lose the last remaining gun store in San Francisco, I believe all of us will be better off,” said Ferrell.
Employees in the gun shop also know that the true motivation behind the legislation lies in ridding the city of guns altogether by closing down the gun shop, which will have the effect of limiting a gun owner’s access to firearms and ammunition.
Clearly, the law focuses on the guns and not the criminals.
“You could go to Daly City right down the road, South San Francisco where those laws aren’t enforced,” said Jonathan Lopez, a former Marine and an employee at High Bridge Arms. “The guns are still out there illegally, the criminals aren’t buying them here,” he said.
“Criminals don’t care about laws in general, and they don’t care about gun laws or gun restrictions. They will find a way to get around those. And that’s why I ultimately say that the chiefs’ push for more gun control has nothing to do with reducing violence. Rather, it has to do with gun confiscation,” Sheriff Clarke said at the IACP meeting.
Clarke is right, and San Francisco is just one more example of how it is being done. And in San Francisco, as well as in every city across the nation where similar anti-gun laws are passed, the order to enforce the anti-gun legislation will rest squarely in the hands of the police chiefs.
Whether it’s accomplished through impacting an individual’s Second Amendment rights directly or indirectly through putting a gun shop owner out of business due to onerous requirements, it’s all a part of the “gun confiscation mission” that Clarke correctly points out is underway in this country.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.