Will the Amnesty Bill Lead to Gun Confiscation in 2035?

Turning America “blue” could lead to California-style gun control

boston bombers
One million people in Boston were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration ystem allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to become legal residents.
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC –-(Ammoland.com)- “Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.” — Politico, April 22, 2013

In 1984, California was sufficiently conservative so that it cast its electoral votes for President Ronald Reagan. It was not fiercely pro-gun, but, then again, it wasn't New York.

But, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration amnesty bill, called Simpson-Mazzoli. The bill was small compared to the current amnesty bill. Three million illegals benefited.

But that was enough to change California from a sometimes “swing state” to a state almost wholly controlled by Leftists. Within 20 years — and continuing to this day — California couldn't pass enough gun bans, gun registration, ammunition limits, and ammunition registration.

So it is with some concern that Chuck Schumer’s amnesty bill (S. 744) which is currently on the table would cover 11,000,000 to 20,000,000 illegal aliens — four to seven times the size of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill.

We predict that, if the bill is passed, by 2035, the American electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!

We know you're tired. We have just fought a hard-fought battle over explicit gun control in the Senate — a battle which we won.

But it does strike us as interesting that the same gun control crazies who pushed gun control want to slam immigration amnesty through the Senate quickly so they can redirect their fire against us again.

Who are the chief architects of forging a more anti-gun electorate? Well, the chief sponsor of S. 744 is Chuck Schumer, and he is joined by other Second Amendment haters such as Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and compromiser John McCain (R-AZ).

Over the next week or so, we'll let you in on some of the anti-gun specifics of Schumer's “amnesty bill,” as it’s correctly dubbed. But for starters, the bill would push us towards a biometric ID card, which is something that GOA has opposed for years — given that a de facto National ID poses a huge threat to gun owners’ privacy.

But then there’s the fact that Schumer’s “amnesty bill” requires the government to give its okay — in a Brady Gun Check-type procedure — before you could get a private job in America (section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii)). Does anyone not see why this might be a problem?

We've just gone through excruciating pain to stop the expansion of Brady Checks for guns. Now we turn around and the same parties who were pushing that are now pushing Brady Checks for private jobs.

It’s ironic that those pushing for background checks are adamantly against ID’s for voting because that would disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, and minorities. Hmm, so they do understand that background checks — as a prior restraint — are a fundamentally flawed concept?

But this is where the real fun starts. You feed the potential employee’s info into a government database and, according to Senator Durbin, “up pops a picture.” And, says Durbin, “if that picture doesn't match [the one on your ID], you may not be employed.”

The Brady Check deals with a list of names which is in the millions. It deals only with things like names and social security numbers, not pictures. Yet it gives “false negatives” 8% of the time. And if you’re one of those 8% who are illegally denied a gun, the FBI’s response, more often than not, is “So sue us.” If this weren’t bad enough, the system breaks down for days at a time — normally the times when the most people need it.

Do we really want to expand this flawed concept to other areas of our lives?

If this weren't bad enough, we know that, once the government has to give its approval before you can do something, it’s an almost iron-clad guarantee that it will exercise that power in a political manner. Under the Brady Check system, 165,000 law-abiding honorable veterans have lost their gun rights, not because they have done anything wrong, but because they sought counseling from the VA on the basis of a traumatic experience in the military.

Watching Schumer explain on the Senate floor why those veterans should lose their constitutional rights without any court order — while he vigilantly defends due process for foreign terrorists — is like watching a dung beetle drag its “prey” back to its lair.

So we know 165,000 non-politically correct veterans lost their gun rights under Brady Checks. Who will become politically incorrect unemployable non-persons under Brady Checks for Jobs?

Now, one would think that the fact that one million people in Boston were put under house arrest last week because our current immigration system allowed two asylum-seekers from terrorist-filled Chechnya to become legal residents and, in one case, a citizen of our country, will put the skids on the “inevitability” of Schumer’s amnesty bill. After all, gun control was “inevitable” too.

But the bottom line is this: Just as we saw the gun ramifications of ObamaCare, we will also see the problems with a bill that alters the electorate in such a way that the Second Amendment will cease to exist. In doing so, we will need to make sure that we don’t have most of our guns registered or confiscated in 2035 because short-sighted politicians listened to MSNBC and turned our country blue.

But we will also make sure that we do not take bad gun law and turn it into bad employment law.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators and ask them to oppose the anti-gun Schumer amnesty bill (S. 744).

  • 6 thoughts on “Will the Amnesty Bill Lead to Gun Confiscation in 2035?

    1. Speaking of veterans loosing their gun rights because of PTSD what about the cops in Boston who are reportedly seeking psyciatric help for PTSD !! Shouldnt the same law that took away veterans rights apply to these cops as well or is their a double standard because they wear a badge?? They are human too and can snap in an instant like they claim PTSD suffering vets!! Its only far if you take away vets rights seeking help then they should loose their right to bear arms as welk too

    2. Yeah maybe a victory for nation wide 2 nd amnendment supporters but it doesnt stop individual states from infringing on our gun rights how many states enacted magazine limits? Banned guns, registering ammo or background checks on ammo. The WHOLE NORTH EASTERN STATES with the acception of Vermont have all passed new gun laws!! Maine is the newest one limiting magazine to 10 rounds and the lawmakers have just started the want to enact 19 more!! Meanwhile the states Governor is smoozing gun manufacturers and Magpul to move to Maineb( a gun friendly state!! ) what a crock!! Magpul specificly is leaving Colorado because of the 15 round limit why in heck would they want to come to Maine which just passec a 10 round limit!! He also said specific guns wouldnt be banned!! They arent reporting daily which bilks are being read or pushed because the news media here is slanted towards gun grabbing as welk as The Bangor Daily News! Which is run by Sympathetic Democrapic Liberal jag off who only report on the gun bills ” after they have passed!!) What a crock of crap that is!! By the time these democrapic liberal crusaders are done NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS!!
      Just recently Newtown Ct had a chance to vote more money to hire more cops or security guards to protect their children and was UNANIMOUSLY VOTED DOWN!!!! What happened to the ” if it saves one life??!! Ohhhhhh only if its FREE!!!!! THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE THEM PASS BULLCRAP LAWS than vote an increase to hire protection for their children!! What a bunch of double standard idiots!!: they have the GAUL TO PARADE AROUND WITH KING OBAMA and preach gun grabbing!! Boo hoo etc but when its time to vote for more money to hire more cops or security for their children ” THEY ARE SILENT!!” when the gungrabbers start theircrap again this SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP!!! They had the chance to do something Pro- active and did absolutly NADA!! They would rather take the free route and try and take our guns than pay a little more money to protect their children!! What a bunch of suck ups liberals from conbecticunt

    3. With the Democrat long term senate majority Kagan, Sotomayor, Eric Holder, Tom Perez and Caitlin Halligan will form the Dem majority of the supreme court in 10 years time. Nevada, Colorado and Florida will never have a Republican senator if amnesty passes. The amnesty will hurt Republicans in Senate and Congressional races as well. Only 20% of hispanics in Texas vote. So if you district is half white you still win with the huge turnout amongst the republican base.

      It comes down to the wishes of 5 Democrats on the Supreme Court to interpret the law.

    4. If you cannot undermine the Constitution, undermine the people instead.

      I have nothing against illegal aliens, other than the fact that they are ILLEGAL and because of their criminal activity are filling up our prisons which we pay taxes to operate. They are sucking up jobs and not paying taxes while enjoying free medical again at our expense.

      Oops I guess I DO have something against illegals.

    5. People should realize that Congress can’t vote to take our guns, PEOPLE, we’re not a Democracy, we are a “CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC” which means they can’t vote to eliminate portions of the US Constitution and even if they put it to vote of the public and got 80% of the voters voting for passage it (the bill ) would still be illegal.

    Leave a Comment 6 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *