So much to talk about…
Many of you are expecting this blog to be about Brett Kavanaugh and the spectacle that is taking place in the Senate.
There are other things, though, that demand our attention. Specifically, legislation that Governor Brown both vetoed and signed that directly affects our gun rights.
First, though, let me kvetch about the nonsense with the confirmation.
Senator Lindsey Graham articulated the issues with this process during last week’s sham hearing with an eloquence and passion that far exceed my communicative abilities. If you have not seen his explosive soliloquy during the hearing, I highly recommend you Google it. He laid bare the real reason the Democrats have sought to bring a delay to the Kavanaugh nomination, and the scorched-earth policy they are willing to engage in to secure their aims.
Those who think that the Democrats are standing up for women’s rights are sorely misguided. They are exclusively interested in maintaining control of the Supreme Court, and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end, even if it means the utter destruction of a family who has dedicated itself to public service.
Their indignation is hollow. Their protestations are devoid of merit. “Let the FBI investigate!”… an utterly silly request. So be it… now they have their wish and, already without any statements made by the FBI, they are demanding more time… “How can the FBI investigate in just ten days?! They must have more time!”
Please. Just say what you want: Wait until after the midterms when we have a shot at control of the Senate, and we can keep this seat unfilled until 2020.
I agree with Senator Graham. “They want power so bad, and I hope they never get it!”
We will talk about this more in depth in the coming weeks.
However, now we do need to talk about an important piece of legislation Governor Brown signed last week: SB 110 prevents anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a long-gun.
After the Parkland shooting, the collectivists lost their minds. “We need to prevent people under 21 from buying long-guns!” Yeah… that’s the ticket.
So let’s think about this logically.
Young adults achieve the age of majority at 18. With that, they become a full-fledged adults with all the rights and privileges of a full-fledged members of the polity. They are empowered with the single most important responsibility our country recognizes: the ability to vote for their own representatives. Unique to California, they also have the ability to act essentially as a representative at large; they can vote directly on propositions. Essentially, they can bypass the legislature and vote on propositions that affect our policies, as well as our treasury.
They are also completely responsible for following the admonitions of the great social contract: The California Penal Code. No longer do they have the ability to claim lack of capacity. They are responsible for their own contracts and their own behavior, for they are equal to each citizen in our State.
Well… sort of.
While we have decided they are entitled to First Amendment protections, Fourth Amendment protections (Yes, Cosmo… even Third Amendment protections), in fact, all of the protections of the Constitution… we have decided to create a “carve out.” They are now not entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Why stop there?
Seriously. Why should we limit the controls of the State to simply abrogating the Second Amendment?
Why not also restrict 18 to 21-year-olds access to the protections of the Fourth Amendment?
We already know that a massive amount of crime is committed by young men aged 18 to 21. In fact, arguably, some of the most egregious crimes are committed by this age group.
Repeatedly, law enforcement officers screw up and improperly collect evidence. Defense counsel exploits this and has that evidence excluded. Some would argue this process is an abuse of the Fourth Amendment itself. In the interest of public safety, why not simply prevent people under 21 from exercising their Fourth Amendment rights?
The right to an abortion is said to be found in the “penumbras” of the Constitution. (Yeah.. I’m still looking for those too.) Is this to be the next attack on a woman’s right to choose… the restriction on the use of “penumbras?”
And what is the social benefit we achieve by artificially limiting access to a Constitutional right? Will the inability to legally buy a long-gun prevent a massacre? What evidence exists to suggest anyone will be safer? Does a murderer have his aspirations assuaged simply because a specific method of killing has been proscribed? How did people kill each other before the advent of firearms? Oh yeah, edged weapons. Will we now seek to prevent those over 18, but under 21, from having ownership of knives? Or cars? Why not prevent those under 21 from driving? Think of the lives that will be saved! Let’s ignore that many of these young people may be serving honorably in the U.S. Military, and have actually been sent into harm’s way. Still we don’t trust them to have the same tools to defend themselves in their own homes.
But let’s not talk of substantive results! As long as we all feel good about the intentions… Well, that’s all that matters, Constitutional protections be damned.