What the House’s Rescission of Obama gun rule means for the Bill of Rights


As the Republican Party prepared to again reclaim power of Washington D.C., it became increasingly clear that the legacy of former President Barack Obama was in danger. In the final days of the Obama presidency, Obama sought to salvage his legacy by pushing through a series of regulations. The House of Representatives pointed to the Congressional Review Act, which gives them the power to take down regulations before they take effect.

The process has already begun, but the gun control battle has been ignited when a background check rule was rescinded.

A last minute rule passed in December gave permission to the Social Security Administration to share information with the national background check database regarding those receiving disability payments. The logic behind this move was that by identifying those with mental impairments, the government could potentially prevent gun crime by monitoring potential threats.

The problem with this rule is it is more than just about guns. This is about the Bill of Rights as a whole and the foundation of freedom.

Where is the due process of law? The Constitution guarantees that American citizens are innocent until proven guilty and that they have a right to face their accusers. Under this rule, neither applies. Government agencies will share personal information after a bureaucrat determines there is a mental health risk and constitutional rights could be deprived based on this assessment.

Thus, the controversial last-minute gun rule represents a greater battle for privacy. Like numerous times before, Democrats became weak on the Constitution under Obama for political gain. With zero regard for due process, Democrats were willing to discard the Constitution in a political crusade against gun ownership.

This is hardly the first time, however. Democrats previously sought to use government watchlists to strip American citizens of gun rights, despite the fact that those on a watchlist were never convicted of a crime. Instead, it would be unaccountable government bureaucrats calling the shots and making decisions without a case ever entering a court of law.

This is a disturbing trend.

If Democrats wanted to seek gun control, it could be sought without compromising due process. Society can have a rational debate about the merits of gun control legislation and how to protect society while safeguarding due process. This isn’t an unreasonable request, though liberty does seem to be an inconvenience to the gun control lobby.

The problem here is the increasing aggression of the American left. Diplomacy is fading out as thug tactics increase. It’s either their way or no way, while tolerance only extends to agreeable positions. When it comes to due process, the stakes are high. Any bad precedent is a dangerous one that would affect us for years to come. Bad politicians would point to it and poor judges would cite it, resulting in an even worse destruction of our legal rights.

This all appears to be lost to the Left in their desperate mission to push a political agenda at all costs. Is the American left willing to sacrifice the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights to achieve a political goal?

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.

1 Comment

  1. “Is the American left willing to sacrifice the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights to achieve a political goal?”


Comments are closed.

Latest from Law

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.