Editor’s note: This commentary is by John Klar, a Vermont grass-fed beef and sheep farmer, and an attorney and pastor who lives in Irasburg.
[R]ecent calls for universal background checks for all sales of guns in America have come from Hillary Clinton and, here in Vermont, from Sue Minter and David Zuckerman. This issue bears some examination, because the ease with which many Americans are being drawn into such a change of our laws reveals how little they understand about their Constitution.
Both the federal and Vermont constitutions shield the right to bear arms from government regulation. The federal Constitution even states that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Our U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (in Heller v DC) that this right includes an individual right to bear arms (not just for a well-organized militia).
If the government insisted that because of the risks associated with abortion all women contemplating an abortion must first obtain government approval, there would be a shrill outcry. But universal background checks seek to do exactly this to would-be gun owners, and have more widespread implications than people perceive.
Consider, as an example, the medical marijuana registry. The Vermont Department of Public Safety assures citizens that the list of approved medical marijuana users is safely protected: It states on its website that “… the Vermont Criminal Information Center … has as one of its missions the protection of the confidentiality and privacy of the personal identifying information contained in these databases.” In fact this is a flat-out lie. Our Vermont Department of Public Safety provides this list to the federal government, which uses it to prohibit Vermont citizens on the medical marijuana registry from purchasing a firearm: no hearing, no judicial appeal, no due process. This last part (no due process: that is, a right to challenge the government’s action taking away a specifically protected right) is itself an additional constitutional violation. Those who oppose guns do not appear to care one wit that such violations occur – which is why the Second Amendment was enacted to begin with.
Interestingly, a Vermonter on the medical marijuana registry is not banned from buying a gun legally from a private citizen. But if our state were to enact a “universal” background check system, all such private sales would fall within government oversight, and no marijuana registry member could ever legally buy a gun again – to buy a gun from a private citizen without going through the registry would be a serious crime.
Some readers may say, “Too bad for the potheads.” True, people can drink alcohol regularly and not be banned from their constitutional freedom to defend their home; and true, alcohol abuse results in vastly more violent crime and domestic abuse than marijuana. But aside from this glaring incongruity, Americans must see where this slippery slope leads. The government may well decide eventually that any alcohol use is grounds to prohibit gun ownership: too bad for the drinkers. Similarly, the government may decide to ban those who have seen a psychologist or psychiatrist, who have taken antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications, or who have complained of PTSD symptoms. Our veterans are likely to be targeted for exclusion from the enjoyment of this clearly-protected constitutional freedom: They are already being deprived of their guns in some cases based wholly on government speculation (Connecticut has practiced such due process violations).
Soon it will be users of many medicines besides cannabis that are banned from gun ownership – Prozac, Wellbutrin, Elavil, Xanax.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that the federal government could ban all marijuana registry members from purchasing a gun through a federally licensed firearm dealer; with universal background checks such people will never legally be able to own a gun again. What if no pot smoker could have an abortion? – they may be violent or lack judgment, don’t you know.
Some bristle that I compare the “right to bear arms” with the “right” to abort a fetus. But both rights are squarely acknowledged in our law (though the “right” to an abortion is an implied right, whereas the right to bear arms is expressly shielded); to favor restricting the right to own a gun via methods which would be objectionable if directed toward abortion is indeed two-faced, and invites a lack of respect. Liberals may chuckle when they denigrate the rights of others to defend their persons and homes – but they invite similar future attacks on other rights they may hold dear. All of us suffer when our mutual respect for the rights defined by our laws deteriorates.
Maybe a young woman considering an abortion and suffering from depression should have the government prevent her from doing that? Of course this would be an “infringement” of her “right to choose.” If the objection is interposed ”Guns kill people: abortions don’t kill others,” I would observe that, whether or not abortions kill others, the distinction between these rights does not exist in our Constitution or law. When Americans placed the right to bear arms squarely within the Constitution’s specific protections, they knew full well that guns could hurt others.
As Hillary Clinton and Sue Minter (backed by out-of-state interests) attempt to pedal the deception of universal background checks, it is worth noting also that such background checks would have done nothing to prevent the two chief events employed to justify them – Sandy Hook and Orlando. In the case of Sandy Hook, the perpetrator obtained the weapons from his mother. In the Orlando attack, the perpetrator had purchased the guns despite a background check.
So the federal government (the Ninth Circuit) has ruled that the federal government (the ATF) can prohibit people from owning guns if they use a medicine called cannabis. What a surprise! With a registry, this restriction (infringement) will be fully “universal,” and the infringement will become a prohibition – no hearing, no right to object. Already the federal government is targeting others for exclusion based on mental health or other issues (through information released under HIPPA, which “protects” private information in the same way that Vermont’s marijuana registry doesn’t). Soon it will be users of many medicines besides cannabis that are banned from gun ownership – Prozac, Wellbutrin, Elavil, Xanax. Such people could be dangerous to themselves or others, and should be banned from owning a gun ever. A right to appeal such administrative determinations? – nope.
Our U.S. Constitution is in tatters. I wonder whether any cannabis users will challenge Vermont’s violation of their due process rights and right to own a gun under the Vermont Constitution? But then, our state government and police are very quick to serve the federal powers that they are charged to shield us from – that’s why Keith Flynn provides the medical marijuana database to the federal government for its use, while promising citizens on the Department of Public Safety website that the information is protected. Only citizens who comprehend the Constitution would care.
