Yes, Democrats Really Do Want to Take Your Guns — or at Least Prevent You From Owning One.

  • Post author:

Yes, Democrats Really Do Want to Take Your Guns — or at Least Prevent You From Owning One.

Written by  Steven Neill

If adopted, the 2020 Democratic Party platform would be the most vigorous attack on the Second Amendment by a major political party in our nation’s history. And in selecting Kamala Harris as his running mate, Joe Biden confirmed that failed Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s boast that “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47” was not an idle threat. The platform lays out a roadmap for subverting our gun rights by creating federal laws and using federal money to bribe the states into invading private matters.

According to section “Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence” in their 2020 platform, Democrats plan to:

“Enact universal background checks”

This is a favorite goal of liberals that would do very little to lower violent crime or suicide, as even the left-wing Vox reported: “Establishing a background check system, as the U.S. has already done on a national scale, likely affects. But making the system more comprehensive or universal doesn’t seem to have a significant effect on its own, at least at a population level.” But depending on how the law reads, it could open the door to the government requiring a background check even when gifting a firearm to a family member or friend.

“End online sales of guns and ammunition”

Federal law already requires all online gun buyers to submit to a background check, and the firearm has to be delivered to a federal firearms dealer. So ending online gun sales will only raise the cost and decrease the selection of guns a person can legally buy.

The same applies to online sales of ammunition, since, in most states, a person can buy an unlimited amount at a sporting goods shop. Eliminating online purchases will only raise the price and limit the choices a person can make on ammo. Of course, this may be the intention, since these laws are really not about saving lives.

“Close the ‘Charleston loophole’”

The misnamed “Charleston loophole” is not really a loophole, but a three-day proceed-to-sale provision. Under current law, commercial firearm sales require the buyer to undergo a background check to buy a gun. If the results do not come back within three business days, the seller has the option of completing the sale but is not required to.

The three-day provision places the responsibility of conducting a background check on the state, rather than the citizen. It prevents the state from insidiously impacting the rights of law-abiding citizens by intentionally understaffing the department running the background checks.

“Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines”

Put simply, the U.S. Supreme Court decision 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller prohibits such a ban. As the Court concluded in Heller, the Second Amendment protects firearms that are “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.” With semi-automatic rifles, often incorrectly dubbed “assault weapons,” being the most popular firearms in America, they fall into the “in common use at the time” category.

The ban on “high-capacity magazines” is far more likely, as nine states have already placed limits on magazine capacity. The Ninth District Court shot down California’s ban on “high-capacity magazines,” however, saying it “takes away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.”

“Incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms”

This statement should send chills down anyone’s spine who values freedom because the government will not stop with licensing requirements for firearms. The radical Left will push through any number of policy changes and rely on the greed of the individual states to enact them.

“Pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes”

Who decides what “safely stored” means? And how would this requirement be enforced? Are they planning to have compliance officers check each gun owner’s house for compliance? How can a firearm be “safely stored” and accessible at the same time?

“Prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability”

Democrats mean to repeal the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” which offers liability protections to firearms manufacturers. Revoking these protections will undoubtedly bankrupt several, if not all, firearms manufacturers, which is likely their intention.

Biden’s “gun safety” page on his campaign website states that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act “protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products — protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection.” Perhaps the “independent fact-checkers” forgot to remind Joe of the “National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.”

Concern over a party intent on limiting, banning, and confiscating our firearms while simultaneously demanding the defunding of the police and supporting the violent criminals in BLM and Antifa, might even cause MAD’s Alfred E. Neuman to begin to worry.

Courtesy of The New American