Are firearms owners under attack by the BATFE?

Over the last few months, we've received an unusually high number of calls from people who have been legal gun owners for years, and in most cases decades, but now find themselves with firearms disabilities.

In the past week I received a call from a gentleman who was renewing his CHL. But the sheriff said he no longer qualified and he was denied. And his current CHL was revoked. Nothing had changed in his criminal record. It was something old (that was resolved years ago) that was now causing a problem.

We have also been contacted by a person who owns guns, shoots and has a CHL. He recently bought a new gun. He passed the background check and everything was fine, until a few days later when the ATF contacted him saying he was under disability and they were coming to his house to collect the gun. (And all his other guns he had.) He has never been convicted of any disqualifying offense. He has been told by several attorneys that it will cost $10,000 to fix the problem and get his rights restored. He does not have $10,000.

Are these and other cases anomalies or a new normal? Is the BATFE erring on the side of denial because they looked bad approving a South Carolina church mass murderer to buy a gun when he should have been denied? Or is this the Obama "Justice Department" targeting gun owners to accomplish the president's biggest failure, his inability to sign drastic anti-gun legislation to limit or take away our rights?

I don't know.

What we do know is that from the beginning days of "Fast and Furious" to overreaching executive orders, President Obama is the most anti-gun president we've ever had. And he is someone who campaigned as one who "believes in the Second Amendment." And some gun owners voted for him.

Unlike Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore, Hillary Clinton has campaigned on gun control. She has stated her desire to overturn Heller vs D.C. That case is not about children or safe storage of guns as she stated in the last debate. It is about your individual right to own a gun. That is what she wants overturned.

There is already one vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, and there will likely be 2 and maybe 3 more in the coming session. President Obama appointed replacements for liberal judges, so the balance of power didn't change. The next president will replace conservative judges. If they are replaced with liberals, that will change the balance of power. Heller was a 5-4 ruling. McDonald vs Chicago was a 5-4 ruling. Most of the big decisions in recent history have been 5-4. Appointing one liberal judge to the existing vacancy changes those ruling for us into ruling against us.

To those who think they are safeguarded by Senate confirmations, consider that a Republican-controlled Senate ratified both Obama appointees, against the recommendations of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and knowing they had anti-gun pasts.

If Hillary wins, she and her ilk will claim they have a mandate to enact gun control, as it has been a centerpiece of her campaign. Current predictions have her winning "by a landslide." With that, many think the Democrats are likely to retake the U.S. Senate as they did in 2008 when Obama was swept into office. Then we at least had a pro-gun Senate President in Harry Reid. This time it will be the most anti-gun and outspoken senator, Senate President Chuck Schumer. Those close votes we won over the last few years will be losses under that scenario.

If we lose our rights in the coming session, they will not come back to us no matter who we elect in future elections. Supreme Court justices, like all federal judges, are lifetime appointments. Ownership of your favorite concealed carry gun or AR-15 could become as difficult and expensive as buying a fully-automatic firearm today. That change happened in 1934, over 80 years ago.

It was said that guns could never be taken away in rugged Australia or England where fox hunting was once a rite of passage. Once they made the mistake of giving up their guns, no matter the overwhelming evidence of that mistake, and no matter how many of their fellow countrymen have died as a result, those rights are not coming back.

As the NRA states, gun owners should "Vote Freedom First." Not voting, or voting for a third party is not an option. It does not matter what good reason you had for letting someone in your house if they kill your children once they are inside. Such are the stakes this presidential election.

Failure to keep Hillary out of the White House (for whatever reason you might have) will likely result in damage to our country that our children will never recover from.

Jim Irvine is Chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association Political Action Committee (BFA-PAC). He is also Board President of Buckeye Firearms Association, and recipient of the NRA-ILA's 2011 "Jay M. Littlefield Volunteer of the Year Award," the CCRKBA's 2012 "Gun Rights Defender of the Year Award," and the SAF's 2015 "Defender of Freedom Award."