Slippery Slope

In this Deseret Morning News article, the News' editorial board has it completely wrong.

The board advocates for the ability of local law enforcement officials to "use information gleaned by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to help track gun dealers who have a habit of selling guns to criminals."

It sounds like a good idea, right? Wrong. This is merely further opening the door to future legislation that will end in the disarmament of the citizenry as a whole.

Luckily Congress put a quick end to this one. The News decries Congress for its actions in holding strong to the 2nd Amendment by stating "Not every new law has to be a slippery slope that erodes basic rights. Sometimes, common sense measures can be put in place without leading to abuses."

To which I say, show me where a curb to constitutionally protected rights has not slipped down that slippery slope and then maybe I'll agree to something that constitutes a "common sense measure." Until then, I'll side with the NRA-influenced Congress in holding fast to the 2nd Amendment protections.

Take a look at a brief history of the erosion of our constitutionally protected rights through the "activists' asterisks."

If the we don't fight against laws such as this, we'll find the 2nd Amendment in a similar situation as the 1st - In McCain-Feingold, the Court recognized spending money as speech and then upheld the law that abridges that speech in direct contravention of the 1st Amendment.

For the 4th Amendment - Terry vs. Ohio opened the door to pretextual stops where a police officer can pull you over and then "progressively" discover "new evidence" to allow him to essentially search your car, your trunk, and your person all with just a suspicion - California vs. Ciraolo allows police to enter areas of your property if it falls outside the "curtilidge" and then defines curtilidge in rather fluid terms.

The rights under the 5th and 6th amendments have also come under assault, although to a much lesser extent.

The 10th Amendment has arguably suffered the most - Congress has dipped its hand into just about every aspect of life regardless of the limited powers granted to it by us through the Constitution.

So, I'm sorry if I just don't trust Congress to draw the line between my constitutionally protected personal right and "public safety" appropriately. There is little proof to demonstrate that Congress' minor abridgments of my rights will not end up like a toe in the door that ends up as an unwanted guest sitting in my living room.

The article ends with these two thoughts:
"The NRA is a powerful lobby. In many cases the organization has stood convincingly on principle. But not on this one. This move was simply emblematic of overreaction and unnecessary anxiety. It's fear mongering."

See above - "fear mongering" is appropriate where there is reason to be afraid. Noah was likely seen as a "fear monger" but, as it turns out, it was his detractors that were all wet.

"This was a classic debate between public safety and personal freedom. Public safety should have ruled the day. It didn't. And the nation less safe because of it."

Let's not forget that the Constitution was designed to create a government and the Amendments to the Constitution were designed to protect us from that government! The Founders had seen what unchecked centralized rule could do to the rights of the people and sought to create a system that prevented such unchecked tyranny. While our government is not tyranical, if we continue to welcome it's forays into constitutionally protected areas of our lives, we are only inviting that which we truly do not want, and that which we have been warned against.