Updated: May 20, 2020
(Note: read the article. It’s NOT calling for a “Gun violence national emergency”, it’s pointing out how quickly some will just start policing other people and get into others’ business because an emergency has been declared and busy bodies feel empowered. Gun grabbers are all for declaring an “emergency” to attack the 2A under “public health” and have stated though themselves. Put things into perspective, as those same gun grabbers are also all for hardcore enforcement under penalty of law and strict lockdowns due to COVID-19 ).
It’s very interesting that so-called constitutionalists are 100% fine with enforcement of the measures some states and municipalities are enacting to combat COVID-19. “Hey you, 6 feet apart”, “Hey there, that‘s more than 10 people gathering. I’m calling the cops”, “I’m so tired of my neighbors sitting outside and chatting, I better call the police so they can break it up.” “Bob down the street is sick and out cutting his lawn, I better notify the health department.” We’ve all seen it and we’ve even have people complain about people out buying non-essential items (here’s a prime example). It’s a national emergency, after all. These people are doing their civic duty. It should be celebrate.
Well, not so fast.
The truth is that yes, we are in a national emergency (COVID-19) and people need to take the proper precautions. But the actions and reactions of some should send shivers up your spine. Haters of freedom and personal responsibility have another “national emergency” they want to enact:
THE TWELVE victims killed in the Virginia Beach massacre were the people who knit the sinews of a society together, who plot the course of overhead wires and underground pipes, who set the course of roadways and sidewalks. They were municipal engineers and administrators, account clerks and agents, all of them making sure in some way or another that the essential connections and pathways everyone relies on would keep functioning. One of the victims had come simply to follow the rules, and file for a permit.
That they were murdered in cold blood at their workplace on Friday afternoon is another sign that our society is notfunctioning properly in the face of an awful scourge. Mass shootings at schools, newspapers, concerts, nightclubs and factories have become a threat to public health and safety in the United States, an epidemic of violence resulting in hundreds of deaths every year. Would the nation’s politicians be mute and paralyzed if, say, 199 people were killed by food poisoning, a defective toy, or an automobile part malfunction? That is the number who have died in mass shootings so far this year (along with 643 nonfatal gunshot wounds), according to one group that keeps track. Sadly, sensible gun control generates headlines for a few days after each massacre, but then nothing happens.
The reason for this inaction is no mystery: Politicians are intimidated by a gun rights movement, led by the National Rifle Association, that has for too long stood in the way of action. There are promising signs that this year’s crowded field for the Democratic presidential nomination might generate some long-overdue commitment to gun control, and some Democrats in Congress are devoting fresh attention to the crisis, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has suggested is a national emergency. But the hour is late. The answers are not rocket science: universal background checks for gun purchases; banning semiautomatic assault rifles, which are weapons of war; putting limits on high-capacity magazines, which allow mass shooters to take more and more lives (these magazines were used by the Virginia Beach shooter) and other measures.
Just an “opinion piece” you say? Well, there are those that are digging around to find out just how this can be implemented here:
Trump is unlikely to declare a gun violence emergency, but with more Americans supporting stricter gun laws today than at any other time in the last 20 years, it's worth asking the question: What could a president actually do, without congressional consideration, during a state of emergency declared over gun violence?
The U.S. is awash in firearms: There are more guns than people in the country and, according to a Harvard University-Northeastern University study published in 2016, half the nation's firearms are concentrated in the hands of some 3 percent of American adults. These adults are mostly white, rural, male, and overwhelmingly conservative, according to demographic information analyzed by the Pew Research Center.
Could a president take federal action to seize their firearms?
Perhaps, under the Insurrection Act of 1907. In a masterful Atlantic magazine assessmentof America's emergency powers, Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice notes that, despite the restrictions on deploying U.S. troops on American soil, the Insurrection Act of 1807 gives the president the explicit constitutional authority to send U.S. troops into American cities "either because he determines that rebellious activity has made it 'impracticable' to enforce federal law through regular means, or because he deems it necessary to suppress 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy' ... that hinders the rights of a class of people or 'impedes the course of justice.'"
Goitein identifies various instances in which presidents have used the act: Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957, to enforce school integration, George H.W. Bush ordered troops into Los Angeles after 1992 Rodney King case verdict.
Does gun violence in the U.S. pose the type of "domestic violence ... [that] impedes the course of justice" that permits action under the Insurrection Act?
Trump seems to think so, at times. As Goitein notes, following a spike in homicides in Chicago in 2017, Trump tweeted that the city must "fix the horrible 'carnage'" or he would "send in the Feds!"
Now, I don’t think Trump would ever do that. Hell, today (4/6/20) when asked by reporters if he’d be for or if he would implement a national lockdown, he said there’s “constitutional issues with that and the states are taking the actions that they think are necessary.” I agree with him. He’s letting the states handle their own affairs in the response and the federal government is providing support for what the states are requesting they need. However, there are those that want power that would declare “gun violence” a “national emergency,“ or a “public health crisis”.
The list goes on. Now, in the current “national emergency,” I came across this poll on NextDoor. It’s not scientific, but it does show a mindset:
So, if you’re a gun owner, are you ready to be targeted for “not following the rules” of a “national emergency” or local restrictions? Remember, “gun violence“ is an “epidemic“. Your neighbors with different beliefs very well could rat you out for not following the rules and guidelines. “I think Bob has an AR-15”, “That NRA sticker on that car is a dead giveaway that that person is a potential threat”, “SEAN! WHY ARE YOU PUTTING A RIFLE CASE IN YOUR CAR?!?!?!?!? I’M CALLING THE POLICE”, “Dan and Mary have gun and two little kids. Do they practice safe storage? I don’t think they do. I’m calling the police.”
Case and point: 2 months ago, did you think we would all be in the situation we are now? Was “social distancing“ even a thing (and were people policing others on it)? Did you think people would be cheering on a complete shutdown of the country “for our safety“ and cheering on restrictions of free movement? I sure as hell didn’t, and I sure as hell am appalled by some of these nosy people not minding their own business and thinking it’s their civic duty to rat out their neighbors and fellow countrymen. Mind your own business do your part, don’t worry about others. This is still the United States of America (for now).