There’s a Reason Why They Call Us “Gun Nuts”

NRA Backs Indiana Gun Confiscation Bill

“[A]s one reads the literature espoused by gun nut organizations,” University of Connecticut editorialist Robert Schiering tells his readers in The Daily Campus, “the reasoning behind this term becomes startlingly clear. Gun nuts are called as such because they are incontrovertibly insane.”

“People who bring guns into public buildings shouldn't have permits,” editorial letter writer and former mayoral candidate Charles Nance tells The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “They should have their heads examined.”

How often have we heard from the anti-choice in defense crowd that concealed carry will lead to Dodge City shootouts over fender-benders?

How often have we who warn against gun control’s “slippery slope” leading to confiscation been dismissed as paranoid?

The message is clear. Gun owners are psychotic, violent, out of control. We need to be treated for a mental disorder. And if we think anyone is trying to confiscate our guns, we’re paranoid to boot.

Enter Indiana Rep. Larry Buell, R-Indianapolis, who authored a bill that “would permit law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from individuals for 45 days when an officer thinks the person is mentally ill and dangerous.”

Buell tells the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette “that he consulted with the National Rifle Association when he drafted the bill and that it supports the legislation.”

Buell was endorsed and given an "A" rating by NRA-PVF in the 2004 campaign--which means if you contributed to it, you enabled him. Buell says NRA supports this confiscation without due process scheme—which means if you contributed to them, you have helped finance this edict.

So now we’re supposed to buy into street cops having the professional qualifications to adjudicate a person mentally ill, and then empower them to confiscate guns WITHOUT DUE PROCESS? What is this, Gitmo? And NRA “supports the legislation”?

Furthermore, the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill gives the cop immunity if he makes a bad call:

“6. (a) A person who without malice, bad faith, or negligence acts according to this article and…(3) participates in…(A) a proceeding under this article for the seizure or retention of a firearm possessed by an individual alleged to be mentally ill and dangerous…is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be imposed as a result of the person's actions.”

Here are a few questions I’d like to see NRA management and their slate of candidates for the upcoming Board of Directors election address:

Does NRA really support this legislation as A-rated Rep. Buell claims?

Does Indiana have no laws providing for the restraint and arrest of someone acting violently? If arrestees behave bizarrely, are there no statutory provisions to place them into an evaluation facility? Is there no current lawful means of removing a person deemed harmful to himself and others from the general population into custodial care and treatment?

Or do we just let a cop—any cop—declare a citizen unfit to keep and bear arms, and then implement that decision under color of authority and force of arms—with guaranteed immunity?

While some will no doubt argue the bill has provisions guaranteeing the suspect individual a hearing, how many gun owners faced with such allegations are financially able to prevail against the unlimited resources of the state?

What guarantees are there, especially with the vague criterion of “reasonableness” cited in the bill, that this confiscation edict will not be exploited by anti-gun police administrations in the guidelines they establish for its execution? Is it not apparent that there is tremendous police management opposition to citizens keeping and bearing arms, that they are looking for an excuse—any excuse—to disarm them? Doesn’t the same hold true for many of their political masters?

What if a woman is hysterical because a stalker or a vengeful ex-partner is threatening her? Seeing only the snapshot of her behavior at the moment, can we be assured the responding officer will not see fit to disarm her—for her own good? But, oh yeah, she can pick her gun back up in 45 days—if she can afford a lawyer, if she can afford a battery of self-financed psychological evaluations and if she hasn’t been attacked and killed in the interim.

Or how about a devastated individual grieving over the loss of a parent, spouse or child? Might there be instances where their behavior might indicate they are not in complete control of their emotions?

Is it not manifestly evident that the mere desire to own and use firearms is looked upon by anti-choice in defense advocates as a sign of mental instability? Doesn’t no less an “authority” than the American Psychological Association advise parents “Don't carry a gun or a weapon. If you do, this tells your children that using guns solves problems”?

What do you think the APA would say about someone who believes the reason the Founding Fathers wanted an armed citizenry was so that tyrannical leaders and their agents could be lethally repelled?

It has been my longstanding contention that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, if we are to believe the Establishment Media (and, gee, why would we doubt them?), the single biggest mass murder in our nation’s history was initiated with mail room tools, the second biggest with fuel oil and fertilizer, and the third biggest with a dollar’s worth of gasoline.

How can any sane person advocate taking away a madman’s gun, but then leaving him free to wreak mayhem with box cutters and matches?

If the Buell/NRA Firearm Confiscation Bill becomes law, look for it to spread to other locales, and even to be proposed at the national level. After all, George Bush, who NRA reportedly amassed a $20,000,000 reelection war chest for, has introduced his Orwellian-titled “New Freedom Initiative,” which recommends mental health screening of the entire US population, from pre-school children on.

These are some of the reasons why I came up with my NRA BOD Candidate Questionnaire, to support those who will use their office to rein in the “Winning Team’s” baffling affinity for subverting “shall not be infringed,” and to expose those who will not.

So here’s another question for the candidates: Will you be an apologist for this outrage, or will you publicly and vocally condemn it?