It’s no exaggeration to say that the right to bear arms is a strong predictor of how a politician views other foundational freedom. If a politician is bad on the Second Amendment, they’re likely bad on issues ranging from the respect of private property to free speech. Overall, this kind of mindset is that of a busybody politician who wants to arbitrarily control the lives of law-abiding citizens.
The latter case is instructive when dealing with the likes of David Chipman, the seasoned civilian disarmament advocate who Democrats are currently nominating as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
Since he was nominated for this position, Chipman’s entire resume has been placed under the microscope. Apart from his gun-grabbing, Chipman is a huge First Amendment hater. During an interview surrounding the topic of “hate speech” on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) from two years ago, Chipman had choice words for the right to free speech which is explicitly safeguard by the First Amendment.
“The frustration is in the United States, the freedom of speech and to say things largely cannot be regulated,” Chipman declared during the BBC interview. “But yes, we have to do more to monitor hate speech on the internet.”
Chipman was specifically referring to how law enforcement agents do not have the power to seize lawful American citizens’ firearms based on comments they made. For “hate speech” micromanagers, these words could constitute an imminent threat that allegedly justifies a firearms seizure.
In sum, Chipman believes that the police should have the power to seize firearms from lawful citizens simply because they make unapproved statements. Even worse, Chipman believes that federal law enforcement agencies should intervene in these cases to remove firearms from individuals who use “hate speech.”
“The FBI and other federal agencies have a tough job responding to these threats when they don’t currently (emphasis added) have the authority to remove weaponry just because people are saying hateful things,” he said.
The concept of “hate speech” is nebulous and could be expanded to encompass any discourse that goes against the establishment narrative. It’s ultimately a pretext that petty authoritarians in Washington, D.C. can use to justify full-blown confiscation of firearms.
Chipman’s long anti-Second Amendment track record and his views on free speech should be sufficient causes for any sane gun owner to oppose his ATF nomination. A bureaucracy like the ATF that has zero electoral accountability cannot afford to have such a power-hungry official leading it.
Second Amendment proponents should do everything in their power to oppose Chipman’s nomination. The first way they can do so is by calling on their Senators to reject Chipman’s nomination.