It's no one's business whether or not you have a firearm. In fact, considering that one of the steps on the road toward totalitarianism is disarming the population, there's really no reason for anyone to know.
But California doesn't just want to know who has guns, but they want to make gun stores keep surveillance records to help them with that.
Yeah, seriously. They don't even see the whole 1984 vibe this kind of thing gives off or, if they do, they don't care because it's just gun owners. Who cares about them, right?
Well, it seems the Ninth Circuit has some questions about that.
A Ninth Circuit panel on Monday questioned the need for continuous audio surveillance of firearm transactions as required by California to aid law enforcement investigations.
Gun dealers and the Second Amendment Foundation are aiming to revive their challenge to a part of California’s penal code that forces licensed firearm dealers to maintain digital audio and visual surveillance on the premises. They claim the statues violate First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, saying the surveillance amounts to “a continuous warrantless search without probable cause.”
“This case is not whether the government may regulate a licensed entity,” appellants’ attorney Anna Barvir told the three-judge panel. “It is about whether the government may require private parties to carry out a suspicionless government surveillance program."
Barvir argued the constant recording of conversations and movements during firearm transactions chilled speech. And U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee seemed to agree.
“The audio is troubling, because I don’t think you need that information,” said Lee, a Donald Trump appointee. “There is a lot of core political speech … and it will have a chilling effect if they think the government can have a year’s worth of everything you say, you will be deterred from saying things.”
And folks wonder why gun owners are so paranoid.
I mean, it's not necessarily paranoia if you're right.
The idea here is that if gun stores keep video and audio surveillance records, authorities can just walk in and monitor transactions as they want. This can then be used to punish, among others, gun stores that prosecutors operating with the benefit of hindsight decide should have recognized a straw buy was taking place. This is bad enough on the surface, but the fact that they're making people pay thousands for the equipment that might be used to incriminate them is even more wrong.
So yeah, it's a violation of those three amendments, but it's also a Second Amendment violation in my book, because it can create a chilling effect on more than just free speech.
It's bad enough that you have to jump through countless hoops in California if you want a gun, but with this law, they also know everything about the sale, which can also be used against you down the road. For example, imagine asking if a firearm is good at putting down an attacker. The clerk says it is, you buy it, then later on, you have to use it to protect your life.
A prosecutor could decide that asking that question is evidence that you intended to kill someone.
Yeah, it's stupid, but have you seen California lately?
Here's hoping that even the Ninth Circus can see the problems here.
