A couple of weeks back, when news appeared of Mr. Obama's executive order to “expand” so called background checks to confirm the mental health of firearm purchasers, it seemed on the surface to be somewhat innocuous. Making it more difficult for a "mentally unstable" person to obtain a firearm does, on the surface, sound reasonable, does it not? It does until one considers two critically important factors.
First: Evaluating someone’s mental health can be quite difficult and unreliable but, more importantly, doing so is very subjective and the results are up to the interpretation and opinions of those conducting such an evaluation. Second, and of even greater concern: Under Obama’s plan it is without question that all of those assigned the authority of performing such “mental stability” evaluations will be anything but objective in their findings. One only need look at the actions of Mr. Obama’s “Czars” for proof of this.
The real threat of unchecked abuse of power in this matter comes when “expanded” background checks are tied in with one of the many mandatory requirements of so called Obamacare which requires the compilation of a medical records data base covering virtually everyone in the country. Once that information has been collected it can never be truly erased and it will always be available to those making evaluations as to who may and who may not purchase or own a firearm. Once an individual’s “mental instability” has been “declared” it will only be a very small step to move from preventing the purchase of a firearm to the confiscation of all firearms that might already be owned by said individual.
The question may well be asked, “I’ve never had any mental problems. How can my medical records be used to claim that I am “mentally unstable” and should be prohibited from owning firearms?” Simply think back about your own medical history. When you might have been going through a tough time for any reason, did you ever simply mention to your doctor that you were depressed, frustrated or anxious over what was going on in your life? If you have, your doctor probably made a brief note to that effect in your medical record. Have you ever been prescribed any medication for such a condition? No matter how mild the medication or transitory the condition might have been, that information will certainly be there in your record. Have you ever been prescribed pain medication that was needed for more than just a very short period of time? That will certainly be in your record. Even if you have no history whatever of any psychological complaints or treatment by your doctor you still may not be safe. Consider this: Have you ever sought treatment for some condition where you went to several doctors before finding someone who could help you? That could be defined as hypochondria and, as such, a “mental condition”.
Someone, the supposed “expert” whose real job it is to find you "mentally unstable", could easily use any of the above scenarios, or others, to declare you as “mentally unstable” and deny you your Constitutional right to own a firearm. This would leave you with only the option of protesting the so called findings and attempting to prove that you are, in fact, “mentally stable”. Proving one’s own “mental stability” is a far more difficult task than might be imagined. It becomes a case of a single individual attempting to overturn a claim of “instability” that was made by a team of “experts” and prove his or her mental stability. Without doubt that would be a long and very expensive legal battle.
It is quite obvious that the goal of the Obama administration and a great many Democrats in both houses of Congress is to eliminate the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution and disarm the citizens of this country. Why do these people want so desperately to do this? Disarming law abiding citizens has never protected anyone from the "mentally unstable" nor done anything but increase the number of gun related crimes as criminals do not relinquish their guns, they simply become more confident knowing that their victims are unarmed. Those are simple documented facts and they are well known by anyone with any knowledge on the subject, including the advocates for disarmament. Therefore, it is clear that protecting people has absolutely no connection whatever with the real motive of those who would disarm us. They are, to a man and woman, seekers of absolute power who know that they can never hold the degree of unlimited power for which they lust over an armed citizenry.
What can be done to prevent the above scheme from being implemented? Exposure is our strongest weapon against this travesty that we are facing. By exposing the fact that we know what this Administration is really attempting, sufficient pressure can be brought to bear on our elected representatives in both houses and both parties to ACT in favor of the Constitution. All those representatives who choose to compromise with the Administration on this totally Unconstitutional and illegal scheme must be made aware that they will pay the price when next they are up for reelection.
