It appears that with Biden’s election, legislators are feeling emboldened and are proposing more and 
more flawed legislation that won’t make any difference when it comes to the illegal use of firearms by criminals. What really is clear is that these legislators are being overtly discriminatory in their pushing what appear to be racist policies.
To set the tone, let’s look at a couple of terms.
-
Poll Taxes – Laws requiring a fixed amount of money required to register to vote were in place until 1965. Many states had poll taxes, many did not. The point is that a poll tax was an impediment on the poor and working classes to prevent them from voting. Poll taxes are clearly discriminatory. Should policies requiring money to be spent to exercise a right, like voting, be considered to be similar to poll taxes that are meant to control individual rights?
-
Elitist Rights – This term is a little more vague, but it is fair to say that many rights are not available to poor and working classes because they do not have the discretionary income. It isn’t that the rights don’t exist for everyone, but that those rights are less available to those without money, power, or membership in a certain group. For example, home ownership might be a right, but when it comes down to it, the right to own a home is hard for many people to exercise because of their income level and credit history, which is also a function of income to a large extent. Do we, as a community, want to prevent certain segments of society from being able to defend themselves?
Thanks to Congressional Representative Sheila Jackson Lee and her proposed legislation, we see that legislation is being proposed that would require:
-
Psychological Evaluations – Please note that this would include other members of the household, not just the person wanting to purchase a firearm for their own defense. Let’s not even get into the biases of the evaluators as it would clearly make this a non-starter is many cases.
-
Insurance Payments – What level, for what guns, for what areas, and so on, are not clear, but what is clear is that there were would be ongoing payments to an insurance provider to protect yourself and your loved ones. The argument that insurance is needed for cars doesn’t hold up, as self defense is a right.
-
Government Training Courses – Certainly, these courses would not be free, and they would require people to take time away from work, as well as paying for the courses. Who would establish the requirements for passing is a whole other discussion.
-
Multiple New Licenses – The bill requires all new levels of licensing for different types of guns. Yet another cost to exercise the fundamental right to self defense.
However, let’s not forget all of those other proposed laws around the country wanting to charge increased taxes on ammunition as well as guns, making it impractical to train and making gun ownership even more of an elitist right. It is fair to assume that those that can’t afford to practice will be more likely to miss their targets and fail to be as safe as those that would be able to practice. Yes, let’s sacrifice safety to prevent people from buying ammo. We already know from the failed Seattle laws that these laws do not lead to increased tax revenue and do not lead to money invested in gun safety.
Goals?
It is clear that the goal is not increased gun safety, it is the establishment of personal safety as an elitist right and the requirement of paying the equivalent of a poll tax to prevent poor and working classes from exercising their rights.