Another bill, another trap. Gun control activist-lawmakers are relentless, and they are also good at setting traps. We have spotted another snare hanging in the branches. S.265 seemed like an innocuous and well-intentioned bill that addresses "criminal threatening." On the surface, this seems like something that would be difficult to oppose. However, as they say, "the Devil is in the details."
The first problem is that this bill creates a special class of protected citizens, namely politicians and government officials. So, while it is true that average citizens have protections against criminal threats, the political elites would like to have their own special protections.
Here is the kicker. A witness who is a State's Attorney testified in favor of this bill and wants the penalties to be harsh with a two-year prison sentence and a $1000 fine. Forget about the fine, he expressly articulated that they really want the two-year prison sentence instead of a misdemeanor for the sole purpose of taking away people's gun rights -- for good. He added that the severe jail time is needed because that elevates the crime to a federal firearm disqualifier. In other words, this penalty would now be deemed a "serious" crime under federal law and would prevent a person from ever purchasing, owning or possessing a firearm for life. Say something bad about a politician online and get slapped with a lifetime gun ban? That may not be a stretch if this bill were to clear the Legislature. There are already laws on the books that sufficiently address these scenarios. Nobody condones threatening behavior. However, to carve out a special elite class for politicians seems self-serving, and then to enhance the penalty for the sole purpose of implementing lifetime gun bans is manipulation for the sake of advancing a gun control agenda.
There were other witnesses who argued that the penalty should not be a felony and that current law is sufficient. We concur. Please contact members of the House Judiciary Committee and politely tell them that S.265 is unnecessary and should be opposed. This bill could come to a committee vote as early as tomorrow.