Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Assigning the task of national defense to a young American, and then promptly
insisting they surrender the very liberties they're prepared to lay their
lives down for, indeed requires audacity. Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat from
Connecticut, is no stranger to such audacity. His newest legislative endeavor
seeks to label every member of the armed forces as unfit to exercise their
Second Amendment rights. While these military personnel are already forfeiting
numerous freedoms to safeguard the nation, Senator Murphy, who hasn't spent a
single day in military uniform, believes this isn't sufficient. He considers
the Second Amendment freedoms of those serving in the military as an excessive
liberty.
Senator Murphy's long-standing interest in gun control isn't a secret. He
has built his career around challenging the Second Amendment and the gun
industry, earning him favor amongst gun control advocates. Now, his focus
has shifted to the Second Amendment rights of military personnel who own
guns.
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (Shutterstock)
Consider this: these individuals are entrusted by our country to handle
firearms and defend our nation against threats. Senator Murphy appears fine
with this, yet proposes these same people can't be trusted with personal
firearms.
In the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a crucial bill that
finances and sustains our military, Senator Murphy has introduced an
amendment. Like many others, this bill attracts a plethora of amendments for various
projects each year, most of which are dismissed due to their irrelevance to
defense. However, Senator Murphy is cleverly transforming gun control into a
military issue.
The proposal begins harmlessly enough, suggesting the Secretary of Defense
establish baseline training standards for all those required to carry
firearms during duty, including marksmanship, suicide awareness, and safe
storage training, which are already standardized in each military branch.
It then deviates from constitutional norms. Senator Murphy's proposal
demands training before anyone in the Department of Defense purchases a
firearm for private ownership. Furthermore, it mandates that any firearm on
a military base be registered with the base commander and securely stored at
home, with ammunition stored separately.
Military authorities typically require privately owned firearms on bases to
be registered, a policy that was already in place during my active service.
However, this legislation's prescription of firearm storage contradicts the
U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the
Heller decision.
Courtesy US Army
Moreover, the
amendment text
requires all privately owned firearms to be registered with base
authorities, even those legally bought off-base and never taken on base.
This is problematic because a base commander's authority ceases at the front
gate.
Senator Murphy proposes to institute a nationwide firearm registry beginning
with all military gun owners, irrespective of whether the firearm was
purchased on base or whether it was ever brought on base.
His attempts to push his gun control agenda don't end there. He has also
proposed an amendment
that imposes unnecessary delays on service members' rights, including a
federal seven-day waiting period for any firearm purchase and a four-day
waiting period for ammunition purchases on military bases.
Such proposals wouldn't stand a chance under regular congressional scrutiny,
which is why Senator Murphy is trying to include them in a defense budget
bill.
The process of selling firearms and ammunition on military bases complies
with the same federal and state laws as the base's location. All firearm
sales are completed using ATF Form 4473 and confirmed by the FBI's National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that the service member
isn't a prohibited individual. Any state requirements are also observed.
But it doesn't stop there; it descends into something quite Orwellian.
Senator Murphy's NDAA
amendment
would allow the Defense Secretary to
gather all gun ownership information from military and civilian
employees
if the data is needed to prevent injuries and mortality. This is the
inception of a national firearm registry, which is explicitly prohibited by
federal law.
Bigstock
Worse still,
another amendment
by Senator Murphy prohibits anyone who doesn't live on Department of Defense
property from possessing privately owned firearms that aren't related to
their official duties.
Such a provision would disenfranchise military personnel not living on base,
retirees who use on-base shooting ranges to maintain firearm proficiency,
and those who wish to hunt on military lands.
Enormous military bases employ
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
wardens for wildlife conservation. Excluding a population of hunters not
only removes their chance to practice safe firearm handling but also hampers
the use of hunting as a wildlife management tool.
This is no accident. If successful, Senator Murphy could use this as a
stepping stone to impose similar requirements on the rest of American
society, arguing that if it's suitable for the military, it should be for
everyone else.
It's unacceptable for a U.S. senator, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, to abuse legislative power to snatch away the Second Amendment
rights from those tasked with defending our nation. But, considering Senator
Murphy's track record, this move is not surprising at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment