By
Gun Owners of
INTRODUCTION
Our statute books
are littered with nasty, overly broad statutes which were supposedly enacted
for innocuous purposes, but which turned out to have dangerous technicalities. In some cases, these technicalities became
apparent only after many years, when an administration with a new political
agenda decided to use them for its own purposes. Federal racketeering laws are a preeminent
example of this phenomenon, although efforts to turn the Brady Law into a
federal gun tax also come to mind.
SPECIFIC
PROVISIONS
SECTION 3052: NATIONAL ID CARD. Section 3052 would take the final step toward
establishing the driver’s license as a de facto national ID card.
Our opinion on
this section reflects those of virtually every organization which has seriously
looked at it. Attorneys from groups
ranging from the conservative National Taxpayers Union to the liberal American
Civil Liberties Union have reached conclusions similar to ours with respect to
the “national ID card” ramifications of section 3052.
In fact,
supporters of the provision concede the same:
On October 4, one congressman urged support of the bill “[b]ecause state-issued driver’s licenses have become de facto
national ID cards...”
While it is true
that most states require many of the standards contained in subsection (b) –-
and many go even further, requiring “biometric” identifiers like fingerprints
–- the important point is that it is currently the STATE’s
decision, not the decision of some “Janet Reno” in Washington.
Many laymen miss
the language in subsections (b), (c), and (d) stating that the enumerated
standards are “a minimum.”
[Emphasis added.] Who decides
what additional drivers’ license requirements can be imposed? The answer is in paragraph (a)(2), which makes it clear that “[t]he Secretary shall
determine whether a State is meeting the requirements of this section...”
Those who have
religious objections to social security numbers would already be made
“non-persons” by the language of section 3052.
In the hands of a
“John Kerry-” or “Hillary Clinton- administration,” we expect the first
tentative steps to extend ID problems to “politically incorrect” groups: terrorists, child molesters, drunk drivers, and,
ultimately, gun owners, who are already dangerously close to be classified as
“terrorist groups” under current statutory provisions.
Anyone who
traveled in the
SECTION 2173: NATIONAL DATABASES. The section would explicitly authorize an
enormous national database on private information on American citizens.
Bureaucrats
within the administration have already attempted to set up such a database
(CAPPSII) WITH NO STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AT ALL comparable to that contained
in section 2173. At the very beginning,
the administration’s proposals would have included confidential financial
records and, potentially, medical records.
And -- to the very end –- regulators fought to maintain this database on
every American, not just terrorists.
Hence, we believe
you have to look at section 2173 very skeptically. In particular, we are not comforted by the
words “all appropriate records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the Federal Government.” What would be “appropriate” would be within
the exclusive discretion of the bureaucrats, but could include medical records,
confidential financial records, library records, and gun records. Moreover, there is NO language in section 2173
limiting the scope of this watchlist; and, once this
statute becomes law, details with respect to its implementation will be wholly
within the discretion of the Transportation Security Administration –- an
agency which, in its treatment of airline passengers and armed pilots, has not
demonstrated itself to be a paradigm of restraint or good judgment.
SECTION 2142. This section would authorize the Attorney
General (AG) to approve or disapprove private sector employment applications by
performing “criminal history background checks.”
The system is
superficially packaged as a “voluntary service” to private employers. But it is significant that the AG alone would
determine, by regulation, who would be required to have his name, background, and
fingerprints (or other biometric identifier) submitted to the government as a
condition of employment [28 U.S.C. 534(f)(1)].
And there is NOTHING in the section prohibiting the AG from REQUIRING
the submission of applicants.
The section
states that “[n]othing” in the language “preclude[s]
the Attorney General from ... requiring [background] checks on individuals
employed ... in positions vital to the Nation’s critical infrastructure or key
resources...” [paragraph (a)(6)] Does anyone seriously believe that, having
determined that an industry is “vital to the Nation’s critical infrastructure
or key resources,” that screening would remain voluntary? If so, they may want to refresh themselves on
checks which are ALREADY being done in the transportation industry.
Section 2142’s
background check would “ensure that a prospective employee is suitable for
certain employment positions.” But the
AG alone would determine, by regulation, what the ramifications of an
“unfavorable” background check would be –- and, in particular, whether an
individual would be barred from employment based on a governmental veto.
The check would
explicitly “includ[e] ... detentions, indictments, or
other former criminal charges...,” but is not limited to these. Presumably, the fact that the applicant or
employee is a “person of interest” would be disqualifying. But there is nothing in the section to
prohibit a Hillary Clinton administration from blacklisting gun owners or any
other person who holds non-politically correct views.
Two final points:
(1) Although we
are a Second Amendment organization, many of our members and staff, as
individuals, support tightened restrictions on illegal aliens. Our attorney fought the Motor Voter law as a
Senate staffer; and, had Republican Manager Mitch McConnell followed his
parliamentary advice, it would not have become law. In addition, many of our members and staff
opposed the amnesty contained in Simpson-Mazzoli and
oppose the current administration’s efforts in the same direction. Finally, many, as individuals, publicly
supported a presidential candidate in 1996 who favored much tougher physical
security measures on the nation’s borders.
This is a
different proposition from dangerous and short-sighted ideas which would take
away the freedoms of law-abiding Americans in the myopic hope that they achieve
the same goals “by the back door.”
(2) We are a
country governed by a Constitution –- and, in particular, by Article I, section
8, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Although the government has a far-from-sterling record in using its $2
trillion+ to achieve the extra-constitutional tasks it has attempted, even if
government were efficient in achieving unconstitutional goals, it would be
unwise to allow it to pursue them.