Ethan Lang is a Milford High School graduate and a Politics & Law Fellow at Dartmouth College.
For the last several years, Delaware’s governing majority in Dover has pursued an incrementalist campaign to erode the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Legislators have proposed permit-to-purchase schemes, attempted bans on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and successfully enacted restrictions prohibiting adults under 21 from purchasing firearms. Meanwhile, the Delaware attorney general’s office — which seems to have difficulty prosecuting actual criminals — appears increasingly focused on pursuing firearms dealers because legally sold firearms were later used in crimes, despite no wrongdoing on the part of those dealers.
Now comes the latest proposal: Senate Bill 300.
SB 300 would impose new licensing requirements on firearms dealers and require the recording of firearm transactions into government databases. In earlier drafts of the legislation, personal information associated with lawful purchases appeared vulnerable to disclosure under Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act process. Under such a system, citizens could potentially have their private purchasing history exposed — when they bought a firearm, what they purchased and where.
Supporters claim that these measures are about “safety.” But Delawareans should recognize what is really happening: a continued effort to chip away at one of the most fundamental constitutional rights we possess.
The irony is impossible to ignore, especially as “No Kings” protests occur across the country and throughout Delaware. Political leaders lecture the public about authoritarianism and government overreach, while simultaneously expanding government power over law-abiding citizens at every opportunity.
While elected officials condemn centralized authority in speeches and slogans, they routinely practice it in Legislative Hall and the Office of the Governor.
Gov. Matt Meyer recently declared that Delaware “does not bow to kings,” yet, in March, he removed a member of the Delaware Economic and Financial Advisory Council for the simple crime of asking uncomfortable questions.
History is filled with tyrants who have always sought to disarm populations. On the eve of the American Revolution, King George III ordered Gen. Thomas Gage to seize Colonial arms stores in Massachusetts, directly leading to the battles of Lexington and Concord. Acts like these directly influenced the creation of the Second Amendment.
George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights: “(W)hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually.”
Delaware’s own Constitution could not be more clear on this issue. Unlike vague interpretations offered elsewhere, Article I, Section 20 explicitly protects the right of Delawareans to keep and bear arms “for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”
Yet legislators continue passing laws they know will face constitutional challenges. The strategy appears obvious: Pass questionable laws anyway and force citizens and advocacy groups into long, expensive legal battles. Gun owners must raise private funds to challenge these infringements in court, while simultaneously paying taxes that fund the Department of Justice attorneys defending them.
The goal is not simply regulation. It is exhaustion — creating a legal and political environment where ordinary Delawareans gradually surrender their rights under constant pressure from the state.
SB 300 is simply the newest piece of that broader effort. It will not be the last.
I urge Delawareans to contact their legislators and demand that they vote no on SB 300.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
