Author: Sebastian

Looks like Sullivan’s confirmation woes are getting some main stream press coverage:

Crapo’s spokesman, Lindsay Nothern, said the senator has heard from a number of gun dealers, gun owners and others in Idaho who “have concerns about ATF policies regarding gun sales and even ownership. Maybe the federal government is getting a little too aggressive with people who haven’t done anything wrong.”

The message is getting out there folks. Ryan has done a great job of raising awareness on this issue.

Looks like the Senators from Idaho are putting Sullivan’s confirmation on hold. Now, if this is enough to make Bush withdraw the nomination, I’ll post an embarrassing picture of myself on here to offer penance for being horribly wrong about the inevitability of his confirmation. My guess though, is that they are doing it to convince him to address a lot of the abuse issues, or at least promise to address them.

This is a really promising development, without a doubt, and a good indication that things could go our way in the end. Fingers crossed.

In a different legal environment, I might be able to get behind Ahab here, but I can’t. Ahab states:

I’ll probably take some heat for supporting this, but the fact is that I’ve never supported violent felons, domestic abusers, or the mentally incompetent owning firearms. I am pleased that California made the decision to actually remove guns from the hands of people who were forbidden from owning them, instead of going after law abiding citizens to take their guns.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional for certain classes of criminals, who have exhibited a tendency toward violence to have their civil rights taken away from them as part of their conviction. The problem is, The Lautenberg Act didn’t do that. It covered people convicted of a whole host of misdemeanors, that would not have necessarily included any actual domestic abuse, from having firearms retroactively, and without any subsequent due process. A man who pushed his wife aside, because she was blocking his exiting the home in a domestic quarrel twenty years ago (misdemeanor assault), loses his rights just as much as someone who put beat and bruised his wife (felony assault). Does that seem like a just law? Is it fair to prosecute someone for gun possession when many of these people have no idea they are even prohibited, because they were told the crimes were ‘minor’? Also consider someone I ran across on PA Firearms Owners Association forum who had become a prohibited person because he plead guilty to obliterating a VIN number, which is a felony, because he swapped the dash board out on a pair of cars. Dose it seem fair to prosecute him for gun possession?

I understand the public relations value in “Enforce the Laws We Already Have”, because it resonates with a public who doesn’t really understand the complexity of the issue, and gets them out of the mood for more gun control. We can’t deny the value of that. We also can’t deny that the message the Brady’s, and their friends in the media, will put out there if we try to change any of this is “The gun lobby wants to make sure wife beaters are well armed.”

I’ll recognize the value in the rhetoric, but I think it’s a mistake to get too enthusiastic about specific programs like the one California is currently undertaking, that’s sweeping up all manner of people, without any consideration to whether they are truly violent people who perhaps ought not be roaming our streets, or victims of an unjust and overly broad criminal code, that criminalizes nearly everything.

UPDATE: According to War on Guns, The CRPA originally supported this program, not believing it would be used to round up non-violent persons. These programs are a double edged sword, and gun rights organizations support them at their peril, or, more accurately, our peril. Regardless of its public relations value, it’s kind of hard to make a case for how bad some of these laws are if it’s the program you’re supporting that’s causing these people to get reached by the long arm of the law.