If a prosecutor has proof that you bought guns or ammunition and it is relevant, they can introduce that evidence now. And they could have 200 years ago.
The point is this: they may have had evidence in their clandestine databases all along, but could not use it in court due to privacy provisions, and honest DOJ staffers might object. Now, even if someone in leadership in the administration just has a political beef with you, they can use anything against you. That makes it unimportant whether you are innocent or guilty, it's what pressure can the state bring to bear against you, or against a list of gun-owners who don't want to play ball with the Civic Watch program, etc., to slow you down, bankrupt you, imprison you, or in this case confiscate your weapons as "evidence".
The problem with state power has always been that they can trump any charge, and you have to try to fight it.
The difference now is that they have the lists, they can identify you for one reason (in this case, the list of gun owners), and try you on another. You can be i.d.'d as a political troublemaker, then arrested for other charges, based on secret information, and good luck getting timely representation.
All they need to do is call you a terrorist, and they don't need to show you witnesses or evidence.
If that's true, you'll soon be hearing the words "gun-owners" and "terrorists" in the same sentence, building on the sniper incidents.
Trust? Government? Those words don't belong in the same sentence.
Amen. |
