Category: Guns

This is great!

The New York Daily News reported Thursday that Michael Battle, director of the executive office for United States Attorneys at the Department of Justice, sent the letter warning Bloombe rg’s administration that it could face “potential legal liabilities” if such sting operations continue. Battle also said the Justice Department will not be filing criminal charges against any of the 15 gun dealers targeted by Bloomberg’s 2006 lawsuits over alleged “straw man” purchases. Such operations lack “proper law enforcement authority,” Battle’s letter stated.

UPDATE: Original NYDN article here

According to a letter sent to City Hall, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and various U.S. attorneys’ offices have determined the city’s findings against the 15 dealers “do not rise to a level that would support a criminal prosecution.”

Great right? Well, maybe not:

Asked if the Bloomberg administration plans to stop conducting the sting operations, Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler said, “Not necessarily.”

“The city hasn’t violated any laws,” Skyler said defiantly, adding that the city will continue to pursue its civil lawsuits against the gun dealers.

I think the ATF needs to start arresting people if they try this stunt again. Starting with Bloomberg. It would seem hs administration isn’t taking this letter as fair warning.

Rudy has a terrible problem with the Republican base on a number of issues. He could probably get away with being pro-choice and pro-gun, or pro-life and anti-gun, but he has a huge obstacle to overcome with two powerful Republican coalition partners in being pro-choice and anti-gun. Glenn Reynolds points us to a post over at the Jawa Report:

Gun control is a landmine for Rudy Giuliani. When it comes to guns, Rudy’s got a terrible track record to deal with. So far, his message sucks. Based on Rudy’s messaging on guns, I’ll guarantee you most gun owners are still actively shopping around. If Rudy doesn’t get some solid advice on guns and start listening to it, gun control could be the issue that sinks his candidacy.

This is spot on. Rudy is a candidate who, so far, offends me little other than on this issue. I think his leadership post 9/11 was exemplary. I agree with his views on Iraq and fighting militant Islam. I’m perfectly fine with him being pro-choice, because I don’t think abortion should be illegal. I’m comfortable with his position on gay rights, because I am in agreement with him here as well. I don’t like that he had an affair, but if that disqualified you from public office, we’d be without a government (maybe that would be a good thing). The gun issue, however, it’s enough to keep me from voting for him.

My advise to Rudy would be to first look at what he really thinks. Where’s his heart on the issue? That’s the first question that he needs to answer before he can take the next step. So if his heart is with restricting gun ownership, which I suspect it is, he needs to say it this way:

As someone who is a native of New York City, I have never been a fan of guns. I certainly governed that way as Mayor of New York. I know that my personal opinion on this issue is not popular among the party faithful, but you have my assurance that I will not pursue a gun control agenda as president, and I will veto any legislation from Congress that infringes on your second amendment rights. You also have my assurance that I will nominate judicial candidates that faithfully interpret our constitution and the Bill of Rights. I may not ever agree with all of you on guns, but I’m not a stupid politician, and you can rest assured that I will defend your interests as president.

There will always be the question of credibility with this kind of spin, and it might not be enough to overcome my distrust of Giuliani on this issue, but it’s still a better statement than he’s making right now. I’m looking for some honesty out of Giuliani; he’s not going to get anywhere with me by weaseling around his record. I can accept that politicians can feel one way personally, but understand their personal views don’t make for good politics. I’ll never be convinced that Bush is really, at heart, any more pro second amendment than Rudy is, but Bush knew being Republican and anti-gun was political trouble, so he tried to play the middle, while throwing us a few bones here and there. Rudy has a record though, and it deosn’t speak well to us. There’s no slithering around that.

What if Rudy is really of the opinion that gun control really doesn’t accomplish anything? Unlikely, but not impossible. If Rudy, in his heart, really isn’t in favor of gun control, here’s another way to distance himself from his record:

As Mayor of New York City, I would never have gotten elected if I ran on a pro-gun platform. In New York, you have to be anti-gun. Just like you’re not going to be pope if you’re a protestant, New York City is the Vatican of gun control, and I would have been failing my constituents by pushing a pro-gun agenda. I’m not personally a gun guy. I don’t shoot, and I don’t hunt, because – hey – I was born in Brooklyn. But I don’t plan on making gun control part of my agenda as president, and I will veto any new gun laws that come out of the Democratic congress. I will also nominate judicial candidates that faithfully interpret our constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment.

I could buy that line of reasoning, but I think Giuliani really does personally believe gun control is a useful and positive thing, and that’s really the heart of the problem. What you believe on this issue tells me a lot about how you view government, and it’s relationship with its citizens. Giuliani might be able to approach the gun issue in a way that will make me vote for him as a “lesser of two evils” choice on guns, but there’s little chance I’ll ever really trust him on it, which is a shame, because he’s someone I could enthusiastically get behind otherwise.

Much like Ed Rendell, Rudy Giuliani is another big city politician, who has ambitions for higher office, trying to convince us that he won’t infringe upon our second amendment rights, except for, you know, where it’s reasonable to infringe upon them. Let’s see what Rudy has had to say about guns in the past:

“My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed? We’re talking about all dangerous weapons.” – Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

“We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions — and really stronger ones — that exist for driving an automobile.”

“This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. What’s worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed.”

“The more guns you take out of society, the more you are going to reduce murder. The less you take out of society, the more it is going to go up.”

“Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues.”

“I’m in favor of gun control.”

But now that he needs our votes?

“It’s part of the constitution. People have the right to bear arms. Then restrictions have to be reasonable and sensible. You can’t just remove that right. You got to regulate consistent with the second amendment.”

And which part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear? I don’t need a license to start up a blog, because you don’t license or regulate a right. Giuliani is dancing around the issue, and it’s not impressing me. I think there are ways Giuliani could shed this liability, but I’m not buying the way he’s going about it.

I alluded to the fact that the gun ban movement was desperate to keep gun control on the radar screen. What I suspect has been happening, is the anti-gun folk expected the Democratic Congress to give them some real traction on their issues, and, are now finding themselves shut out, with a few sympathetic ears in the leadership, but a leadership who nonetheless aren’t willing to do anything.  This has thrown them into a bit of a panic.  While I don’t think we can safely call the Democrats our friends on the gun issue yet, far from it, I do think it’s good to point out when some Democrats do things that warrant our praise.

Sure, we have two faced Democrats, like Ed Rendell, who have a long and glorious history of doing everything they can to crap all over our right to bear arms, then suddenly give lip service to us to win elections, while undermining us behind the scenes. To be fair, we have more than few Republicans that fit into this category as well.  But we do have some Democrats that are really on our side.  Max Baucus of Montana is a good example of a Democrat who is willing to take up leadership positions on outdoor sporsman’s issues and work to preserve our rights.  I point you to this press release by Max Baucus, where he announces he’s heading up the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus along with Mike Crapo (R-ID):

2nd Amendment Protection: Baucus said he will fight any attempts to erode Montanans rights to keep and bear arms.

Now, we’ve heard this line from Democrats before.  We should be skeptical of any Democrat who says this, and doesn’t put his money where his mouth is.    One could point out that the CSC is mostly a pro-hunting caucus rather than a pro-gun caucus, and this would be true.  But he’s cosponsoring S.388, the National Reciprocity Bill, and that speaks loudly.

I may have problems with Democrats on other issues, and even the National Reciprocity Bill I oppose as it’s currently drafted because of federalism concerns, but I think it’s good to highlight Democrats who are willing to fight for us and thank them for their support.