Nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin explained on his show Tuesday that Hawaii is “trying to expose its law-abiding, gun-owning citizens to a federal database.”
“Here’s Hawaii, through the back door, trying to expose its law-abiding, gun-owning citizens to a federal database,” Levin said. “The federal database was never intended to be used this way. So, the state, rather than protecting its gun owners and its law-abiding citizens – the state turns all their names and data over to the FBI to put in the FBI federal database.”
This comes after an introduced bill in Hawaii that would allow the state to hand over gun-ownership information to the FBI and put it into a federal database that would alert police if Hawaii residents are arrested elsewhere in the country, according to the Associated Press.
Here’s what Levin had to say:
“But here’s my concern. This just, kind of, triggered some thinking on my part. And this is what I fear, quite frankly. Certain parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. And when the Bill of Rights were originally ratified, they did not apply to the states. Did you know that? Did you know that, Mr. Producer?
“So, freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of association, freedom of the press and so forth – the First Amendment, the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights – are intended to protect us against the federal government.
“Over a period of time, without any real rationality or reason – I mean, I understand why it’s done, but no real ‘Why certain amendments and not others’ – this doctrine developed, a Supreme Court courted-doctrine, called the ‘Incorporation Doctrine.’
“And so, as the Court started to hear cases where the Court felt states were violating certain basic liberties – freedom of speech, freedom of press, due process, and so forth and so on – the Court would incorporate these requirements through the Bill of Rights and apply them to states. Is that understandable, Mr. Producer? I think so.
“Now this also applies, if not formally, informally to the Second Amendment. There’s been a couple of cases that have gone to the Supreme Court out of the District of Columbia, which the Court has upheld the right – well, one case, really, Heller, in particular, I should say – in which the Court held that, yes, a citizen has the right to own a firearm to protect him or herself, essentially.
“Where a federal district judge, Dick Leon, also in the District of Columbia, who recently ruled that the District of Columbia government’s attempt to limit access to the guns was so onerous that it too violated the First Amendment and the Heller decision.
“What happens? What happens if a 5-4 Supreme Court rules that the Incorporation Doctrine doesn’t apply the Second Amendment? … And the court says, ‘We have a new theory. Yes, the First Amendment applies to the states. Yes, the Fourth, Fifth Amendment, that applies to the states, too, and so forth, but no longer the Second Amendment. The states are free to regulate gun ownership as the states wish. And the Second Amendment is no longer a part of, in fact, or even in the breach, part of the Incorporation Doctrine.’
“And they say, ‘You know, that Second Amendment was really intended to apply against the federal government.’ I fear this. I really do, some point down the road. The court is all powerful, and this is a huge problem in this country. It only takes five justices. It only takes a majority of one to tell us what our rights are. Isn’t that absurd? And tell us what our rights are not. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.
“And this came to me as I read this article. Here’s Hawaii, through the back door, trying to expose its law-abiding, gun-owning citizens to a federal database. The federal database was never intended to be used this way, so the state, rather than protecting its gun owners and its law-abiding citizens – the state turns all their names and data over to the FBI to put in the FBI federal database.
“And what’s to stop a state from petitioning the Supreme Court and arguing, ‘We do not believe the Second Amendment is incorporated under your doctrine to the states, and the states should be free to regulate weapons as the states wish to’?”
Editor note: Levin is referring to the District of Columbia v. Heller case.