Category: Anti-Gun Folks

There’s nothing the lame kids in junior high school ever wanted more than to have one of the cool kids acknowledge them, or say something nice. Such was the power an acknowledgement or kind word, since it might offer a path out of lameness and into coolness. It is in this context that our opponents behavior seems to be increasingly falling into:

“The president should stand up” on gun issues, Bloomberg said in an appearance Tuesday on “The Rachel Maddow Show.” He added, “It’s one of the issues he can build a legacy on.”

Strategically, I’m pretty indifferent to how this goes. If Obama tries to “build his legacy” on gun control, I can see a path to devastate our opponents. If Obama says nothing, that in itself will devastate our opponents. While we certainly do not have them check mated, I think it’s safe to declare “check.” There is a path forward for them, I think, but it’s one they won’t take, probably because they can’t take it.

So says the Arizona Attorney General:

“According to the most recent F.B.I. statistics, violent crime in New York City increased significantly in 2010 compared to data from 2009,” he said. “Robbery went up 3.9 percent, forcible rape rose 13.9 percent, aggravated assault increased 8.8 percent and murder rose 12.3 percent. Clearly, the good men and women of the New York City Police Department have more pressing crimes to investigate than alleged violations at a gun show 2,400 miles away.”

He criticizes the investigators for not contacting the Arizona State Police, and suggests their failure to do so makes this sting a transparent publicity stunt.

There seems to be some argument over whether the sales were lawful. They were not. Even if the investigators were Arizona residents, and not prohibited from possessing firearms, the sellers were violating 18 USC 922(d), which prohibits transfer to “any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person” is prohibited from possessing a firearm. Whether they actually are, or not, is immaterial to the legality of the sale. It’s what the seller reasonably believed. Judging from some of the videos, there’s also a strong case to be made for a violation of 18 USC 922(a) as well, for engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license.

The way Bloomberg seems to have set up the sting is legal from the point of view of his investigators, but the sellers were committing felonies. If his investigators had been actual prohibited persons, they also would be committing a felony, just under 18 USC 922(g). The prohibition on buying a firearm out of state only applies to the buyer if they transport the firearm back to their home state.

From American taxpayers. Interior seems to have rolled over on this. And none of our civil rights lawyers have gotten paid yet.

The Washington Post is reporting up to 30%. This is, naturally, making our opponents quite upset. Times are tough, and cuts have to be made, and I think it’s fine for taxpayers to demand they get their money’s worth from federal law enforcement dollars. As previously mentioned, I don’t think gun laws qualify.

The Philadelphia Stinkquirer is joining the New York Times in demanding funding for anti-gun research. This is one case where my opinions on this issue are driven entirely by the motivations of our opponents. Ideally I think better information is a positive thing, and transparency in government is certainly a worthy goal. In a different world, a world where the Courts took Second Amendment rights seriously, and made a habit of striking down stupid gun laws, I’d have little issue with trace data being public, or public money going to fund neutral research into what policies were effective and which ones weren’t.

But the people who want this the most are looking to undermine Second Amendment rights to the greatest extent they can. Since we have the political power to deny them the data and funding they need, we’d be foolish not to do it. So the answer is no, we can’t allow “health experts cannot study ways to reduce the risk of deadly gun violence,” because too many people have a fore drawn conclusion as to what the answer is.

Says Gibbs:

“I wouldn’t rule out that at some point the president talks about the issues surrounding gun violence,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said aboard Air Force One on the way to an event with Obama in Wisconsin. “I don’t have a timetable or, obviously, what he would say.”

That sounds committed. Maybe he’ll say something about puppies and kittens too, at some point of the future. Maybe. Yeah. I’m pretty sure there will be a puppy and kitchen speech in there somewhere. Even the Washington Post reporter notes:

Obama’s silence is hardly surprising. Former president Bill Clinton attributes some of the party’s defeat in 1994 to gun control. After 2000, when then-Vice President Al Gore lost states such as Tennessee as he espoused his support for gun control, Democrats completely abandoned the issue.

Fortunately for the the other side, they have the GOP to pick up the slack.

Like jilted lovers, the Brady Campaign is pretty clearly reeling from Obama not mentioning gun control, with only some vague promises from Administration officials that gun control is coming in a later speech, no doubt to a much smaller and more politically focused argument. Just keep looking at the pictures of Bill Clinton you keep on your desks, and dreaming of better days. That’s my advice. Remember the good times.

In the mean time, it has to hurt even more that Chuck Schumer, of all people, is defending the President for leaving gun control out, saying “One of the reasons there’s less impetus for gun control is the success we had in the ’90s.” Which I think he’s exactly right about. They’ve moved the issue forward to the point where the vast majority of Americans are comfortable with where the law is, and to the extent they might think certain other measures are a good idea, they aren’t really motivated to do much to drive those measures forward. Perhaps the Brady Act was all they were ever meant to achieve.

Sad Panda Icon courtesy of Sharp as a Marble

Looks like MAIG has been busy trying to recruit from the victims of Tucson. This is a classic tactic of gun control groups, because without victims, where would they be?

If your mayor is on this WaPo ad, e-mail him or print him out a copy, and ask why he’s appearing in a major national newspaper supporting new gun control. I’d bet money that Bloomberg never got their approval to use their names. Let’s turn the pressure back up on this weasel group. There are a LOT of Pennsylvania mayors on this list, and no politician liked being used this way.