Let’s Pass Another Law – What Harm can It Do? by Tom Reynolds
Beware of seemingly harmless laws. Activist governments can twist anything into something it was never meant to be. Laws are out there, lurking like Freddy in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies.
Under the so called “Charleston Loophole”, if a NICS check takes more than 3 days, the gun sale may proceed. Biden and Kamala Harris want to close the “Loophole” at the federal level. Given that the federal level also controls the NICS checks and if the 3 day rule is changed, as President they could slow down the approval process and put many gun stores out of business. (New York closed the “Loophole” but the federal government controls NICS checks – not NY State – so Cuomo cannot slow down the process. Does anyone doubt what he would do if he did have that power?) Closing the “Loophole” sounds attractive to some voters, but it would be too easily abused by gun control activists like Biden, Harris and Cuomo.
Since the anti-gun left never stops trying, here’s an arrow they would like to have in their quiver. Suppose Congress passed legislation funding HUD and included that “States and municipalities must make positive efforts to curb violence or be ineligible for HUD funding”? Sounds like a good thing with all the riots and such. But, an Obama-like administration could interpret it to mean that states and municipalities must proactively push gun control as a means of curbing violence. No gun control means no federal dollars. The federal government could withhold money for street and bridge maintenance if the state and local authorities did not implement stringent gun controls.
Sounds far-fetched? The HUD program called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) proves this point and, besides, it’s a program you should really be aware of even though it’s not about 2A.
Almost half a century after it was enacted, Obama’s HUD “discovered” a brief mention in the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and created AFFH, which calls for “diversity” in all levels of housing in suburbs. Towns and suburbs are obligated to “do more than simply not discriminate”. They have to make it possible for low-income minorities to choose suburban living and the towns must also provide “adequate support to make their choices possible.” AFFH’s plan included building high-density housing in low density suburban neighborhoods, (goodbye local zoning laws). Suburbs would have to look like the city they surround or lose federal aid. Under this program, suburbs are viewed as fundamentally unjust communities because they prevent taxation from flowing into the urban cities they surround. Suburbanites are selfishly keeping their own money from less well-off people in the cities.
Don’t worry about AFFH - for now. Clinton lost in 2016 and Trump’s HUD Secretary Ben Carson stripped away Obama's AFFH Rule. (In response, the left-wing media played the race card. Ignoring that Ben Carson is black.) Joe Biden has said he will reinstitute AFFH.
What are the lessons in this for gunowners? First, because the federal government is now funding so many local projects, the feds only need to threaten to withhold funding to trample on constitutional rights. (The founding fathers warned about what a too powerful central government would do to individual rights.) Second, laws are subject to misinterpretation, especially if the judiciary does not follow “original intent”. (Amy Barrett is an “original intent” justice). Third, charge racism – even when unfounded - and weak-kneed politicians take a knee. Fourth, it’s not enough to be neutral, you must actively support a government program or you will be punished.
Who knows what minor part of some federal law is sitting in obscurity waiting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to resurrect in order to attack the Second Amendment that they pledged to destroy.
The outcome of the November election will determine if AFFH is resurrected. Oh yeah, the election will also decide if the 2nd Amendment is alive or just the walking dead.