2016 – Page 21 – Shall Not Be Questioned

A Sign Things May Not Be Going Well on Capitol Hill

We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. Â The NRA’s position on this issue has not changed. Â The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period.Â Anyone on a terror watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. Â If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.Â At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed.Â That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.Â Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.

The thing that worried me from the get go is when you start arguing on constitutional grounds, people either don’t understand or their eyes glaze over. That’s why it’s always, “Politician is going to take X from you.” It’s a sad state of affairs, but most people are not ideological. They don’t care about higher principles. What motivates them is whether their ox is going to get gored by this or that. That’s why Trump has done well among non-ideological voters in the primary. People will burn down phone switches if they think their ox is getting gored. Abstract principles appeal to fewer people. So it is incumbent among us who do get and do care about due process to call our Congressmen and Senators and tell them no new gun control laws. Keep it that simple.

Both the ACLU and NRA are opposed to the Terror Watch List, but don’t expect that to get in the way given that civil liberties are out of fashion among progressive lefties, and “law and order” populists have never been very concerned.

A Strategy for Opposing Terror Watch List Legislation

Charles C.W. Cooke is onto something here, in his very Glenn Reynoldsesque suggestion:

I shanâ€™t re-rehearse my case against the civil use of terror watch lists here;Â those interested can read my three offerings from last year here and here and here. But I will suggest a modest course for those in Congress who remain opposed to this folly: Why not amend any bill so that it covers the entire Bill of Rights? Hillary Clinton is on record suggesting that the United States should impose some censorship on the Internet so that would-be terrorists cannot communicate with one other. Well, if the prospect of terrorists using the internet really is that dangerous â€” and if those who oppose Clintonâ€™s coveted reforms are just dogmaticallyÂ wedded to outdated concepts such as â€œfreedom of speech, et cetera . . .â€ â€“ then there shouldnâ€™t be any problem with the federal government preventingÂ anybody suspected of terrorism from using a modem, should there?Â Sure, at one point in American history it made sense to require due process before we stripped core rights. But that was back in the days of pamphlets and printing presses, not now when one can spread information across the world in the blink of an eye.

Read the whole thing. He also has clearly read his Alinsky: make them live up to their own standards. The arguments the Dems will make against this will destroy their own arguments for the gun portion of it.

Chris Murphy Filibustering for Gun Control

So says Roll Call. He started at 11:21. In this case he’s not filibustering to prevent a bill, but continuing to hold the floor in order to hold up the Senate’s business until it agrees to do some gun control, namely “Terror Watch List.” Personally, I think Senator Murphy can keep bloviating until he’s blue in the face. Holding up the Senate’s business? As far as I’m concerned, the less those people do the better off we all are. Senators, I say let him have his say, go out to Bullfeathers for a beer, and wait for him to finish his grandstanding.

Inquirer Reporter Commits Federal Felony

Reporter Helen Ubinas set out to show the world how easy it was to buy an AR-15, but then committed a federal felony, and violated a number of state laws. You see, Ms. Ubinas paid for the AR-15 with her company card, while answering “Yes” that she was the true buyer of the firearm. You see, if the company is buying it, then it’s a purchase by that corporation, and that corporation is what needs to go on the paperwork. If you put yourself up as the person buying, and the money is being fronted by your corporation, then that is a straw purchase.

After that she says “No need for a concealed carry permit.” Actually,Â transporting firearms in Philadelphia is illegal except under exceptions. One of those is having a License to Carry Firearms. Another is going directly from the place of purchase to your home. My Jersey readers are quite familiar with this type of transportation regime. It’s the same in Pennsylvania for handguns outside Philadelphia, but applies to all firearms in the City of Philadelphia. The only difference between New Jersey laws and Pennsylvania laws, is that licenses to carry are not difficult to get here, and they exempt you from all these transportation laws. But Ms. Ubinas admittedly drive around the city for a bit (not excepted, and thus illegal) and then drove to the police station (also not excepted, unless you’re under an order to).

I mean, I get that whipping out the company AMEX is an innocent mistake, but there’s no innocent mistake exception to what you put on a 4473. I’m actually surprised the dealer would run a corporate card through the machine without noticing. I hold out the possibility that this is all wistful fiction, and the reporter in question is a liar rather than a felon. But none of this stuff is as unregulated as the reporter leads us to believe. When dealing with guns, it’s very easy for uninitiated people to commit serious crimes without realizing it. Maybe Ms. Ubinas can have some sympathy when we argue that each new regulation, while seemingly well-intended, can often put well-meaning people in prison for understandable mistakes. If you’re going to be a serious gun owner and stay out of trouble, you have to know your law.

“It Felt To Me Like a Bazooka”

So says this Daily News article that has been making the rounds. That’s funny, because that’s pretty much the opposite reaction I’ve gotten, even from women and children. He even goes so far as to say the first shot gave him PTSD, and insult to people who have gotten PTSD from experiencing something far far worse. This guy is a tool. To me, the bigger story is who enabled the Daily News to come up with this hit piece: Frank Stelmach of Frank’s Double Tap Shooting Range at 4730 Blakiston St, Philadelphia, PA:

â€œThere should be expanded background checks â€” extending into your family, friends and associates,â€ he said. â€œAnd there should be a mental health screening. In Europe, if you want to buy a gun, you have to see a doctor (for a psychiatric examination) to see if somethingâ€™s not right.â€

Something to keep in mind if you patronize that establishment. Psych evals? Really? At whose expense? Not just believe that stuff, but willing to say so to the media, and cooperate with the media to make gun owners look bad! I don’t really give a crap what you think as an individual, but the game changes when you announce as much to the media in a hit piece to a paper you know is doing a hit piece.

I would note that Classic Pistol is only 12.7 miles further if you live in The City. Pistol People is only 4.6 miles, and 10 minutes. Ready Aim Fire, 11 miles or 18 minutes. So really, you have no excuse.

Notice in the update the author apologized for his hyperbole about firing an AR-15 giving him PTSD. I’m glad to see our folks getting their Alinsky on: make them live up to their own standards.

UPDATE: Double Tap responds that their words were twisted by Kuntzman, and they do not in fact support any of the things the article claimed they supported.

How’s Do You Trump Supporters Feel Now?

Due process? What’s that? Anything can be sacrificed for a bit of good ol’ fashioned populist “law and order”:

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.

â€” Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016

UPDATE: To be clear, I’m speaking to those who supported him in the primary.

Color Me Shocked: Shooter Not On Terror Watch List

The Hill is reporting the Orlando mass murderer wasn’t on the FBI’s terror watch list, so this is yet another example of people immediately proposing solutions that wouldn’t have solved the problem:

â€œHe was watch-listed with the opening of the preliminary investigation and he was taken off the watch list when the investigation was closed,â€ Comey told reporters.

The shooter cleared multiple and thorough background checks because of his role as a security guard, and even if the Dems got their way and had passed “terror watch list” legislation, this guy still would have been cleared by the system. As Glenn Reynolds noted, “Itâ€™s almost like the people proposing these things are more interested in disarming ordinary Americans.”

I’ll be honest, given past guidelines from DHS on domestic terrorists, I just don’t trust the federal government with this kind of power. Sure, I’m concerned about the due process element too, but why should I trust them when that’s their guidelines?

Does it Matter That The Shooter Used an MCX?

I really don’t have high expectations when it comes to the media and guns, howeverÂ I really don’t expect the media to grok the difference between an AR-15 and a Sig MCX, which is apparently what the Pulse nightclubÂ shooter used. Yes, I get it’s not an AR. But it looks an awful lot like one, and from an end user point of view, they function the same. Any argument you’re going to make against the AR-15 you can make against the MCX just as effectively, and the rhetoric to support civilian ownership of both is identical. So practically speaking, what difference does it make?

Time to Pressure Pat Toomey

The antis are putting the pressure on Senator Toomey to embrace the terror watch list bill, or face ads saying the Senator supports arming terrorists. Be sure to call Pat Toomey’s office and persuade him. Tell him you have no compunctions about leaving him off your ballot in November if he turns. Say this even if you plan already to not vote for him because of his past sins. I believe in redemption if he rediscovers where his interest lie.

â€œPat Toomey has worked to allow suspected terrorists to buy guns in this country and that is just an outrageous position,â€ McGinty, challenging Toomey in one of the countryâ€™s most critical Senate races, said in a telephone interview. â€œOf all the kind of tough issues, this one should not be a tough call.â€

Unless you don’t believe people should be stripped of fundamental constitutional rights because of being put on a secret government list, where only the FBI knows the criteria to get on, and there is no process for getting off. I appreciate it if Senator Toomey would stand up for due process of law and for the Heller and McDonald decisions. This gets to the fundamental core of how we treat fundamental constitutional rights. Toomey can’t turn on this issue and still claim to believe in the Second Amendment. I know civil liberties are currently out of style with the American left, but someone has to stand up for them.

NRA Out With a Statement

Chris Cox has an editorial in USA Today. In the past, NRA has blacked out, but this response was pretty quick:

The terrorist in Orlando had been investigated multiple times by the FBI. He had a government-approved security guard license with a contractor for theÂ Department of Homeland Security. Yet his former co-workers reported violent and racist comments. Unfortunately, theÂ Obama administrationâ€™s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.

I still stand by my earlier observation that because our political opponents came out all over the place, rather than staying on message, they once again sabotaged themselves. When you start talking gun bans, our people listen very carefully, and then get very angry and start melting the phone and e-mail systems of their local politicians. They don’t stop paying attention just because it takes the other side a while to get on message.

I think it’s important to point out this guy was a licensed security guard for DHS. This is the kind of guy even pretty extreme gun control folks agree should be allowed to have a gun, even if the rest of the proles are disarmed. Push that point.