Sue baby sue

At The Truth About Guns Larry Keane has an article about a disturbing situation entitled Privatized Gun Control: The Civilian Disarmament Industry Wants to Know...What's In Your Wallet?

Giffords, the gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), and GunsDownAmerica, an activist gun control group with links to far-left Washington, D.C., think tanks, are supporting an effort to have credit card companies create special purchasing codes for firearms and ammunition. The idea is that credit card companies would monitor individual purchases by law-abiding citizens and if they seem to out of the norm, those purchases would be reported to law enforcement for investigation.

GunsDownAmerica wants credit card companies to stop categorizing firearm and ammunition purchases as “sporting goods” and create a new code.

Of course, private groups are free to request other private groups to do anything that is legal for them to do. And those private groups, banks credit card companies for example, are free to accept or reject these requests. So, that is not what Keane is talking about here. The issue is rather when government gets involved. Government getting cozy with private parties and forming so called "Public-Private Partnerships" is one problem. In this case, the City of New York wants the credit card companies to make this change, and then hand the list to the City so that they can know which of their citizens is buying what firearm from whom. And frankly, if Giffords succeeds, the ATF will no doubt wnat a copy of that list too. That is illegal, of course, but as we have seen time and time again, the law is no impediment when the ATF wants to do something. Increasingly, it seems the law is no impediment to anyone in the federal government.

We learn recently that Moderna has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Phizer and BioNTech over mRNA Covid- 19 vaccines. Again, nothing wrong here. Moderna claims to have a right to mRNA technology and wants Phizer to pay a royalty to use it. The problem? The government also has patent rights to Moderna's mRNA technology. Yet the government will also decide this case. Thus the government has an automatic conflict of interest.

And there it is. The government, which is supposed to be the neutral arbiter between two sides in private disputes is not neutral. Our Constitution establishes three functions, each equal to the other two: The Executive, the Legistlative, and the Courts. the Courts are supposed to be the neutral arbiters of which side is right in a case, applying the laws written by the Legislative branch and the Constitution, the highest law in the land. But when the government engages in so-called "Pubic-Private Partnerships," the government puts its thumb on the scale of justice. It has a built in conflict of interest.

We have, for some time now, had state and local governments establish so called "sanctuary" states and cities against the law.  Again government actors are putting their thumbs on the scale against the law.  If you or I openly diobeyed the law, what would happen?  Would our disobedience be ignored by those whose duty is to enforce the law?  Why do I not think so? 

The Department of Justice, along with agencies like the FBI and ATF have not followed the law, but have instead followed their personal beliefs about what the law should be.  Mostly, those beliefs seem to be Leftist.  But that is not the job they signed up for.  At all levels, public servants, whether appointed or elected, should obey the law.  Elected officials may change the law, to some extent, but even they are not supposed to outright break it.  In the process of all this flouting of the law, our governments, at all levels, are turning what should be domestic tranquility into absolute chaos.

May I suggest to gentle readers that the problems can not be solved by defunding the FBI, or the IRS, the AFT, or any other governmental organization.  Rather, there need to be serious consequences for breaking the law.  That includes elected officials who break the law by deliberately not enforcing the law.

Clearly this is a complicated problem.  How do you force a prosecutor to enforce laws with which he or she disagrees, though that is the job he or she signed up for?  We need to allow citizens to sue in court to force compliance with the law.  In the case of sanctuary cities, civilians in the city could sue to force a return to lawful behavior.  The penalties, in this case would be actual jail time, and they could not use tax dollars to defend themselves.

I realize that this, like everything, can be abused, and knowing Leftist, probably will be.  And it down't begin to solve the school indoctrination issue.  However, what do gentle readers think?