the NRA is aware fully that Obama caught the gun sentinels asleep at their posts
Eric LaMont Gregory
In a phrase: if you beak it: you own it. Colin Powell
All other aspects of Obama's recent executive order on guns, pale into insignificance, when weighed against the far-reaching and fundamental game changing nature that research within the Department of Defense on smart - bio-metric - gun technology will have on how guns in the future can and cannot be used and by whom.
This is why the NRA, who normally scoffs dismissively at such attempts at gun legislation has had to rethink fundamentally its game plan for the 2016 election cycle and beyond.
The NRA is aware fully that Obama caught the gun sentinels asleep at their posts.
On the 10th of January 2016, on the Sunday morning Fox News program, while interviewing Obama’s chief of staff, the moderator flashed a graphic of the article of the US Constitution which enumerates the legislative powers of the congress. The intent, of course, was to chastise Obama for his nearly two-term-long series of legislation by executive order, including his most recent foray into the realm of guns.
Naturally, on the Fox opinion network there would be no mention of the fact that the politics of obstruction, the main legislative program of the Republican majority in the House for the past five years, stands as testament to the fact that ballyhooing under Boehner’s delft leadership replaced the development of laws and programs to deal with the very real problems the American people have faced since the advent of the Great Recession, which coincides with the dawn of the Obama administration.
Boehner’s replacement, Paul Ryan, has an opportunity, albeit a brief one, to return the congress to its constitutional role as the principle legislative body within the four-pillared structure upon which the American Republic is structured – an executive, a legislature, a judiciary and the people themselves.
Since President Obama penned the gun executive order, the majority party in congress has again lambasted Obama for trampling upon their constitutional sphere of influence, a sphere which the congress has abandoned voluntarily these many years in favor of promulgating anti-Obama hysteria.
Just as the nonsense-speak from the congressional majority about how Obama was trying by executive order to undo the right to bear arms was reaching a crescendo, a humble cleric from the south side of Chicago suggested that we should make gun ownership absolute and the responsibility of gun ownership absolute.
This is exactly what Obama has instructed the Department of Defense to pursue with bio-metrics.
Whereas, it is beyond the scope of this contribution, one should understand that a bio-metric smart gun is capable, in addition to restricting the ability to fire the weapon to those who are permitted to engage the trigger mechanism, of determining the physiological state of the shooter at the time the trigger is engaged, percisely.
For example, physiological state can distinguish whether a shooter fired a gun in anger or out of fear. Autonomic reactions (not subject to voluntary control), such as fight or flight, produce distinct breathing, heart rate and blood flow patterns, which can be precisely and readily recorded by bio-metric sensors. And, from the physiological information, the psychological state of a shooter can be inferred to a high clinical standards. And, thereby provide clinically specific evidence as to the state of a shooter, should such evidence ever be called upon.
All guns, the cleric proposed, should be titled, in the same way that all vehicles on our roads are titled, and the title holder of the gun is just as responsible for its use, as is the title holder of a vehicle for its use, in fact and in law.
It is not beyond the realm of the imagination or technical feasibility that ammunition would bear unique serial numbers or markings, and when purchased those identifiers would be associated to the gun of the title holder. If that ammunition is used subsequently, outside the legal framework, the title holder of the ammunition can be compelled to explain how ammunition bought by the title holder ended up being associated with a purpose outside the remit of legal use.
In a phrase, to quote General Colin Powell, "if you break it; you own it."
Eventually, as technology develops, guns will be increasingly smart in a bio-metric sense, to an extent that they can only be fired by the gun's title holder or holders. Nonetheless, parents will still be able to instruct their offspring in the proper use of firearms, and neither the title process nor bio-metric smartness will stand in the way of that natural generational process, and therefore the ability to have more than one title holder, and more than one person who is bio-metrically capable of engaging the trigger mechanism of the same gun.
In this way, there is no infringement whatsoever of the constitutionally protected right to bear arms, and by implication the right to gun ownership, none.
If, the current Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who was elected speaker because he was the least objectionable alternative, had a scintilla of leadership wherewithal, he would seize the opportunity and spur discussions within the relevant congressional committees to begin to look into the matter of the wisdom or otherwise, of legislation to make all guns come under the provision to be titled.
At the same time, there is nothing standing in the way of the states to exercise their reserved authority in this regard.
If, the congress does not act, the president can. If, the states do not act, the people, of course, retain the constitutionally protected right to legislate through the initiative referendum process, directly.
Whether guns are titled by federal, state, local action, or by the people directly, it is a very very good idea.
One, well thought out executive order and the bio-metric gun for all intents and purposes is a reality, and now the leadership of the NRA can wake up to that fact.