Oath Keepers Can Take Lead on Protecting Public from Mandatory ‘Smart Guns’
Washington Ceasefire Director and citizen disarmament proponent Ralph Fascitelli says there’s “one thing the president can do now to reduce gun violence,” and Oath Keeper peace officers are in a unique position to bring some rationality into consideration. That’s because his proposal subjects officers to becoming guinea pigs for “smart guns” in the field, and a preemptive refusal can stop such moves before they’re made.
“The president can make his move by encouraging the various federal law enforcement groups, from the FBI to the Secret Service, CIA, TSA and U.S. Border Patrol, to test and ultimately validate smart guns,” Fascis… uh, Facitelli volunteers (others). “Overall these various federal national security groups represent well over 100,000 officials and can generate irrefutable legitimacy to smart guns. Such validation should in turn stimulate state and local law enforcement across the country to use smart guns and eventually a consumer swap out of traditional firearms to safer smart guns.”
Notice how ultimately, choice is eliminated. It’s also curious how Facitelli makes much of his case using suicides — as if personalizing a gun would have any impact on that
As for his grand strategy, it’s not like he’s proposing anything original. The first attempts to make personalized firearms were prompted by police takeaway incidents, with a National Institute of Justice grant to Sandia National Laboratories to look into using radio frequencies to come up with a “solution.” But even though that was the impetus for experimenting with the technology, state laws requiring “smart guns” once marketable products are available pointedly exempt police.
Typically, I’ve opposed such special exemptions for law enforcement, considering them part of an “Only Ones” phenomenon that denies essential rights to We the People and further widens the “us vs. them” mentality divide. In this case, due to an admitted plan to exploit officers in the field in order to ultimately outlaw non-compliant firearms, such an exemption can actually help thwart that by denying the anti-gunners the “validation” they seek.
Any chair in a bar fight, I always say.
Oath Keepers who are members of any representative organization, such as the National Border Patrol Council, or of a police union, can urge leadership to issue resolutions opposing putting members and the public at risk by deploying with “smart guns.” Oath Keepers who are in “management” positions can likewise encourage the administrative hierarchy to adopt similar protective measures, as can Constitutional sheriffs and peace officers.
If you refuse to be test subjects for some anti-gunner’s not-so-bright idea, they won’t be able to impose it on your family members, relatives, friends, neighbors and countrymen who don’t wear a badge. Your leadership now can help thwart another infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.
Conversely, your silence will allow the antis and their media allies to continue promoting the idea to gain public acceptance followed by demands. And while they’re playing coy using a “reliability” rationale, National Association of Police Organizations Executive Director Bill Johnson, and James Pasco, Executive Director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s Washington advocacy center, haven’t said “No.”
If you’re aware of a department or representative organization that has come up with a definitive statement rejecting “smart guns” in the field, why not share it so others can template off it? If not, and if you were asked to write a model resolution, what would you say?
NOTE FROM STEWART RHODES:
We are proud to announce that the exceptionally talented and courageous gun rights/liberty writer and blogger David Codrea has joined the editorial staff of Oath Keepers, as an Associate Editor and Staff wrwiter. David, along with Three Percenter Founder Mike Vanderboegh, was instrumental in exposing the infamous ATF Fast and Furious “Gunwalker” scandal.
David is a good friend of mine, going back to before I founded Oath Keepers, and he has my full confidence and trust as a writer with conviction, courage, and intellectual integrity. Therefore, he has full discretion to publish here on any topic related to fighting for liberty and defending the Constitution, and unlike The Examiner, we will NOT be micro-managing him or attempting to censor him and cram David into a politically correct box that doesn’t offend the delicate sensibilities of Second Amendment quislings. David still writes on his own War on Guns blog (which should also be a daily stop for you) and he will likely be writing for other outlets (if they are smart, they will jump at the chance to have him write for them). I am just happy we here at Oath Keepers can do our small part in helping to keep this excellent liberty journalist in the fight, where he belongs. – Stewart Rhodes