On August 21, The San Diego Union-Tribune ran a column examining the way gun control burdens law-abiding citizens but gives criminals a pass.
The Tribune approaches the topic through the lens of Lt. Gavin Newsom’s upcoming ballot initiative, Proposition 63, which is designed to secure background checks for ammunition purchases and a statewide “high capacity” magazine ban. If the initiative passes, Californians will be required to pass a background check to secure approval to purchase ammunition and will be required to turn in their “high capacity” magazines, as well.
We must ask if terrorists are going to think twice about breaking some law on ammunition registration when they have long-planned an execution – at a San Bernardino Christmas party or an Orlando nightclub. We must question, if an inmate can gain access to a firearm while doing time behind bars, whether an initiative will really stop gang members from getting “high capacity” street weapons for the simple reason that it is “illegal.”
This line of rhetorical questioning simply makes the point that criminals will not obey the new gun laws. A person willing to die in an attack on innocents in a “long-planned” attack will have no concern over the penalties for possessing a “high capacity” magazine or ammunition that was acquired without a background check.
Moreover, such people will not care whether the guns they used were acquired lawfully or were modified in ways that violate the law. At the same time, law-abiding citizens will live and operate at a disadvantage having no “high capacity” magazines and cooperating with all other gun control laws.
In other words, gun control will leave law-abiding citizens immediately outgunned.
The Tribune suggests the truths surrounding both the impotency and danger of gun control are known but ignored by gun control proponents who are consumed with finding a way to end gun ownership. They focus specifically on ammunition background checks to make this point:
Central to Proposition 63 is the requirement that ammunition purchases–no matter how big or small–will be conducted just like the purchase of a firearm. All transactions must be reported to the Department of Justice for background checks. Will this stop gun crimes? No–New York tried it, and ditched it because it was too expensive, too cumbersome and just plain ineffective. In spite of this failure, we’d be foolish to ignore the true intent of efforts to regulate ammunition –after all, New York’s late Sen. Daniel Moynihan said, “We don’t need to ban guns; we need to ban ammunition.”
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.