They're 'Shocked, Shocked,' at the FBI's Plans
By Vin Suprynowicz
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
Nearly every day, it seems, my e-mailbox is flooded with emergency
dispatches from well-meaning but breathless defenders of the Second
Amendment, urging all their friends to write or e-mail the appropriate
congresscritter in opposition to whatever new piece of chicanery the
gun-grabbers have got up to (three-day waiting periods to buy long
guns, $16 background checks before a gunsmith can return your repaired
weapon, 1000 percent ammunition taxes, jail sentences for gun owners
whose guns are stolen and used in teenage crimes, et bleeping
Either that, or I'm supposed to frantically weigh in at the latest
on-line media poll asking "Do we need more gun control" ... with the
results thrown out and never publicized, of course, should the
majority -- as usual -- answer "No."
Last week, a pair of faithful correspondents advised:
"Senator Smith, R-New Hampshire, is apparently attempting to put
the brakes on the FBI shenanigans regarding the Brady Law. One of his
proposals is to defund the ability of the FBI to tax gun owners;
another is to defund any attempt by the FBI to use Brady 'instant
check' as a mechanism to keep gun owners' names, and requires
'immediate destruction of all (gun buyer) information in any form
whatsoever.' Another is to allow aggrieved citizens to sue the agency
and collect damages and attorneys' fees. He needs to hear from lots
of people that he is supported in his stand. Please take the time to
e-mail or fax a letter to him."
I've actually been lobbied on the phone by some gun rights
advocates I respect, this week, ensuring me Sen. Smith is the closest
thing to a friend freedom-lovers have in the Senate, and insisting his
proposal could indeed strike a solid blow for the Second Amendment, by
giving citizens some standing to get into court and challenge the
coming national background checks (and resultant national gun
registration -- precursor to confiscation in Nazi Germany, in
Australia, everywhere it's been tried.)
Maybe Sen. Smith means well. I don't know.
Regardless, I've had enough of this game. I replied to my
Hi, guys --
Pardon me, but I grow tired of running first one way, then
another, on treadmills erected by others.
"Requiring immediate destruction of all (gun buyer) information in
any form whatsoever" is too ridiculous for even a child to fall for.
Let's say these national background checks for all gun sales go
into effect Dec. 1, as scheduled. But the FBI is absolutely forbidden
by law to keep any such records, ironclad, cross our hearts and hope
Now, a weapon is found at a crime scene. (Notice the careful
phrasing. Most "weapons found at crime scenes" are stolen and thus
untraceable. Few were actually used in any crime, since shooters tend
to carry their guns away with them, rather than dropping these
expensive tools like candy wrappers. If your loser brother-in-law is
rousted out of bed at 3 a.m. and the cops find a bag of marijuana in
his cereal box, then your grandfather's First World War souvenir
Mauser in the attic becomes a "weapon found at a crime scene.")
Using the national gun registration computer data bank which they
have illegally established in West Virginia, the FBI traces the owner
-- you -- and you admit the weapon was "borrowed" by your loser
brother-in-law. You are then arrested along with him, on charges you
"allowed a deadly weapon to fall into unauthorized hands ..."
What happens? The suspects are set free -- the evidence and all
subsequent confessions disallowed under the "exclusionary rule" --
because the G-men violated the "no gun registration data-bank" law,
while the G-men (up to and including Louis Freeh) are indicted, tried,
convicted, and locked up in small cells with roommates named Butch.
Oh, sure. And if you believe this, I can also sell you an address
where you can send care packages at the federal penitentiary in
Lewisburg, where Lon Horiuchi and everyone up the 1992 FBI chain of
command are now doing their 30-year sentences for the murder of Vicki
No, I am not going to express any support for a suit who claims he
is "shocked, shocked to learn" that the FBI and BATF are proposing to
violate our Second Amendment rights ... while snickering behind his
hand that any attempt to disband the FBI and BATF, and to repeal
the Brady Bill (along with the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968) would
be "extreme, counterproductive, and politically unfeasible."
The simpering Tories. Let our GOP senators filibuster any bills
that come before the Senate, until they win a straight up-and-down
recorded voice vote on repeal of the Brady Act. Nothing else will
draw any "fan letters" from me.
We're being played like a wheezing calliope, here. We're being
set up to "thank" our masters when they "reluctantly" agree that our
gunsmiths won't have to do a $16 background check on us when they
return our repaired hunting rifles ... this year. And this process
has now been going on for 65 years! My cat can figure out there's
no way to get the little bell out of the cat toy faster than that.
Next time: what to do.
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las
Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at
email@example.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz
column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is
syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media
Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.