For an Audio Version of this article click here:
As Democrats blunder from one false position on guns to another, the only thing that appears certain is that they want guns out of the hands of as many people as possible. But if this were sincere, why would former President Barack Obama have allowed 500,000 fugitives the right to buy a firearm? The more suspicious among us might suggest that it is only out of legal hands that the left wants guns removed.
The media is in a frenzy blaming the NRA for murders because they advocate for citizens to purchase and own firearms legally; shouldn’t the same damning logic apply to the person who removed half a million known criminals from the fugitive register? In other words, why should a known criminal be permitted to exercise their Second Amendment rights and not the law-abiding citizen?
It’s time for the leftist media to state loudly and proudly that “Obama has blood on his hands.”
Redefining Fugitives
Under Federal law, a fugitive cannot own or purchase a weapon legally. The problem arose with who should be defined as a fugitive. The FBI is responsible for the Criminal Background checks database and for 15 years, they were involved in a dispute with the ATF as to how to classify a fugitive.
The FBI position was that anyone with an outstanding warrant was a fugitive and therefore unable to pass the background check; the ATF said that a fugitive was someone with a warrant which had “crossed state lines.”
Right before Donald Trump came to the presidency, the Justice Department made a decision and sided with the ATF, removing over half a million people from the fugitive category. Many were reclassified under different headings, but not all, and it certainly made a change in their lawful ownership of firearms status.
Fast and Still Furious
Add to this debacle the still embarrassing Fast & Furious weapons program overseen by Obama and Eric Holder that saw unregistered firearms handed over to known criminals, and what we had was an administration that appeared desperate to regulate legal gun ownership whilst expanding illegal possession.
So which is it? Did Barack Obama (and by extension his willing cohorts in the Democrat Party) really want to control all gun ownership? Or was it just legal gun ownership they wished to curb?
This “conflict” between the FBI and the ATF was first raised under George W. Bush who refused to act on it. It then sat on Barack Obama’s desk for almost eight years untouched. As an outgoing president, why would you use your last days in office to resolve a dispute that favors illegal gun ownership?
The left continues to push for an overall reduction in gun ownership through limiting purchases, curtailing rights, and even introducing pernicious laws to circumvent the Second Amendment. They seem determined and serious. Yet they follow policies that would all but guarantee known criminals would be able to get guns when others can’t. It’s time to face the facts: Democrats want you disarmed, defenseless, scared and vulnerable… only then can they be sure of retaining power.
