Gun Control Advocates Call For Gun Rationing In Oregon

(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

In World War II, the American people put up with a lot of stuff, stuff I don’t know they’d put up with again for any reason. One of those things was rationing.

A lot of goods were rationed to make sure there was more than enough for the military to use to fight the war. After Pearl Harbor, people were willing to put up with a lot. I don’t know that such a thing would happen again. Especially since there’s not really any need to even consider it.

Yet today, some are talking about a different kind of rationing, and it’s a big problem.

Gun control advocates said the state of Oregon should limit how many guns people can buy within a certain timeframe.

Groups supporting gun rights, however, argue limits would do nothing to change a surge in gun violence, specifically in Portland.

A recently announced federal case involving two brothers accused of buying 82 guns in 18 months, 12 of which were recovered by law enforcement in traffic stops and other searches, spurred KATU to look into state and federal laws and regulations around gun-buying.

In short, there is no limit to how many guns you can buy. A spokesperson for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) said federal gun dealers only alert the agency and local law enforcers if someone buys two or more handguns within a five-day time period.

Penny Okamoto is the executive director of the Ceasefire Oregon Education Foundation. She did not discuss the recent federal case specifically, but said it highlights issues in state and federal laws – mainly that they could buy so many guns. She said a limit would discourage gun traffickers, not legal gun buyers.

“The idea behind one firearm a month really would help cut down on gun trafficking. That’s major issue that we have with it is gun trafficking,” Okamoto said.

But is it?

Now, we covered the federal case mentioned above. Yet that is a unique example. Most straw purchases aren’t really bought in bulk. They buy one or two here and there to arm a friend who can’t buy a gun themselves. There aren’t really that many people out there buying dozens of guns just to put into criminal hands.

Most guns that end up on the black market are stolen from lawful gun owners. I’m pretty sure trying to pass a law on how many guns you can steel in a month will do just as much to dissuade criminals as laws against steeling in the first place did.

“Yeah, but won’t this at least slow down straw buys?”

Probably not. At most, straw buys will simply be spread over a larger number of people. There are always folks who will do whatever for cash and who don’t have felony records. They might not be able to make a living with it, but they’ll probably pocket the money just the same.

Meanwhile, what about the law-abiding?

You know, the vast majority of the population of the state of Oregon who did absolutely nothing wrong, but suddenly won’t be able to purchase more than a single gun a month if these jackwagons get their way?

“Why would they need more than one gun a month, anyway?”

Why do they need to justify what they spent their money on?

The truth is that some people want to buy guns when they see them and have the lawfully accrued money to do so. They don’t need to justify their desire to exercise a constitutional right any more than someone should have to justify buying two computers in a month or attending two different churches in a month.

Rights are funny that way.

Gun rationing is an idea that should never have been allowed to take root in the first place. Now that it has, though, it needs to be killed at the root so people’s rights aren’t infringed on in such a vile way.