Here’s an idea. Let’s have every new purchaser of a firearm fill out the following form:
1. State and County in which firearm was purchased
2. Age of purchaser
3. Gender of purchaser
4. Race of purchaser
5. Years of education of purchaser
6. State or foreign country of residence of purchaser
7. Total number of previous firearms purchased
8. Number of firearms sold or given to others
9. Number of firearms lost or stolen
10. Number of firearms still in purchaser’s possession
11. I am purchasing a firearm because I:
             like to make noise and destroy things
             want to intimidate politicians at rallies
            enjoy killing animals for sport
            believe in vigilantism as a means of law enforcement
Then, let’s post this information on the internet for everyone to read. What do you think?
Do you think there might be a problem with that? Do you think it might be considered a violation of privacy? Do you think some firearms owners might consider it an attempted infringement of their Second Amendment rights? Do you think that some might consider it a form of intimidation, or an invitation for anti-gun activists to harass the purchasers? Do you think they might believe that their motivation for exercising their right might not be any of the government’s business?
If so, I agree with you. So let’s not do that, okay?
OK.
Speaking of OK . . .
Oklahoma just passed a law remarkably like the one I posted above, and it came into effect on November 1, but it is not about firearms – it is about abortion. A temporary restraining order is in effect until challenges to the law can be ruled on in a February 19 hearing. But if the law is upheld, here are some of the questions which every woman who has an abortion in the state must answer, and which will by law be published online.
1. County in which abortion performed
2. Age of mother
3. Marital status of mother (married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
4. Race of mother
5. Years of education of mother (specify highest year completed)
6. State or foreign country of residence of mother
7. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
8. Number of pregnancies that ended in live births
9. Number of pregnancies that ended in miscarriages
10. Number of pregnancies that ended in induced abortions
11. I am having an abortion because having a baby:
              Would dramatically change the life of the mother;
              Would interfere with the education of the mother;
              Would interfere with the job/employment/career of the mother.”
In all the form is ten pages long and has 37 highly personal questions doctors are required to ask and women are required to answer.
There is no compelling medical need to collect and publish this information – nor does the law attempt to claim one. Women are not asked, for example, if there is a medical need for the abortion – medical factors are of no interest. This is simply a means of making information easily available to anti-abortion activists to use in lobbying and harassment of women who chose abortions. Women are not required to include their names, but particularly in smaller communities it is often possible to identify women – or misidentify them — based on the information provided.
There is a growing and nasty tendency in this country for people to stand up only for those rights they would exercise themselves. The notion that “I disagree with what you say (or do) but will defend to the death your right to say (or do) it,” seems all but dead.
Do you think there might be a problem with this law if it applied to a right you cherished? Do you think you might consider it a violation of your privacy? Do you think you might consider it an attempted infringement of your right? Do you think you might consider it a form of intimidation, or an invitation for people who don’t agree with you to harass you? Do you think your motive for exercising your right might not be any business of the government?
If not, why not?
Related Articles |
Mike said:
Thank You, Frank! I’m glad that SOMEBODY besides myself still has a good operating knowledge of the principles that this country was founded on. Individual liberties have never been under greater assault in the USA than today, in the so-called “Information Age”.
I found myself almost under physical attack just the other day, for expressing my views to my wife. The attack came, not from one person, but from a trio of older, allegedly “mature” men, who questioned, not only my opinions, but my patriotism. (I am a “left-wing, bleeding-heart, gun-toting Liberal…heh, heh) As to my “patriotism” or the lack thereof, I put in 10 years of my life into America’s armed forces. The “questionaire” you pointed to is a clear violation of one’s rights to privacy as outlined in the Bill of Rights…a document that the officials of the state of Oklahoma either have never read, or hold in the same regard as toilet paper…or both. The ACLU should be made aware of this abominable requirement…and I hope that the state of Oklahoma is prepared to make any number of prospective mommies into millionaires from the pending Class-Action Lawsuits.
January 29th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Mike, thanks for your comment — and, of course, for agreeing with me.
January 29th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Barton said:
This commentary on politics does NOT belong on this site, this site should be about military history not current politics.
January 29th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Pete said:
@ Barton. Politics IS history and History is often contemporaneous. It doesn’t have to be yesterdays news. Frank, the only significant difference I might see is that the OK law would invade the person per se. The gun law refers to a possession. Unless I am madly mistaken (a frequent occupation) law generally has treated matters relevant to the body of the person as more sacrosanct than the possessions of that person. For example, and i would not press too hard, we require vehicular registration but are usually forbidden from disclosing psychiatric records.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Ted said:
Good Article Frank. You should have mentioned that Roe V Wade was actually based on the protection of a Woman’s Privacy. If Roe V Wade is ever overturned be prepared to have the Government decide if you can use contraception or even if you can reproduce at all.
January 29th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Jack Radey said:
Blood pressure here quite safe. Actually, the proposal about gun ownership isn’t such a terrible idea. Just heard from an old friend that his second son, sweetest and smartest of his four, was shot four times a year ago (jaw and gut), fortunately within a few blocks of the best trauma unit in the county. Recently had a discussion with my brother-in-law about the 2nd Amendment. He insisted that there should be no restrictions of any kind on the ownership of weapons; including towed artillery. Didn’t say what kind of arms in the Constitution, so assuming flamethrowers, rocket launchers, or 105mm howitzers are excludable is not possible, in his mind. He lives in a nice community where very few if any young guys get killed by the flood of available hardware out there. I’m of two minds on the question, but…
One for the anti-abortion types out there, actually two. First, understand that besides the reawakened feminist movement of the ’70s, the biggest push for Roe v Wade’s decision came from the medical community, particularly ER docs, and GPS, OB/Gyns, etc, because they were sick and tired of having 20 something year old patients dying on them regularly from septic abortions performed in back alley’s and the like. Outlaw it, that’s what you get, because surveys done in many countries show only one effect of banning legal abortion – the rate of abortions does not change, what changes is the mortality rate of the women. Make it illegal and it skyrockets. Pro life my ass.
January 29th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Gary said:
So, tell me where I can find the word “abortion” in the constitution. Thanks in advance.
January 30th, 2010 at 11:59 am
Gary said:
“If Roe V Wade is ever overturned be prepared to have the Government decide if you can use contraception or even if you can reproduce at all.”
Already done. The Supreme Court is part of the government.
January 30th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Gary said:
If abortion is such a wonderful thing, it’s too bad Frank’s mother didn’t have one.
January 30th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
Gary, thank you for that charming sentiment and constructive addition to the conversation.
Barton: It’s true that a majority of my columns deal with the military, but that is not a policy decision of the site. If you look back in the archives you’ll find a lot of non-military articles. My column deals with current events. Most of those columns will deal with military, diplomacy, and foreign policy, but not all of them.
January 31st, 2010 at 8:48 am
LtCol said:
Since the orginial Modest Proposal suggested the fatting of Irish babies for the English dinner plate, I take this in the same vein.
February 2nd, 2010 at 9:50 am
Steve Foerster said:
I’m not thrilled with abortion either, but Frank’s point is a very good one. People always seem to forget that once you give government power against those you oppose, that power will eventually be used against you.
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:02 am
Roberta X said:
1 through 5, 6 and 7 are questions you have to answer to buy a firearm. They want to know where you were born and they’d kind of like your SSN, too. And then the seller’s got to ring up the Feds and find out if the purchase is okay with them; Uncle Sam can say yes, wait, or no. (But they only let the cops look at the info and it’s supposed to be destroyed after a day or so).
Think there would not be an outcry if abortions required the same little ritual before proceeding and some faceless cubicle-dweller had veto power over it?
It’s a big complicated weird world we’ve built and way too many people get to veto our actions. I don’t remember elections for most of them, either.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
The Forester said:
On behalf of my fellow faceless cubicle-dwellers, I can only wish I had veto power over anything.
In aristocratic governments, there is no right to bear arms. It is a privilege (Latin for private law) that is limited to the nobility. God forbid that us ordinary folk might have the means to defend ourselves against, oh, let’s say, a tyrannous government, blood-thirsty savages, or even gangs of armed criminals. The Right to Keep & Bear Arms is the right of self-defense. (Sidebar: one of my all-time favorite bumper stickers reads “I support the right to keep & arm bears.)
In regards to abortion, it is a brutal & barbaric practise. However, I can’t support any law that forbids medically safe abortions to poor women but allows the wealthy & upper-maiddle class to obtain them by traveling out of the country or paying a large fee to an unscrupulous physician.
February 12th, 2010 at 8:23 pm