Time For Obama To Go After Guns
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
As always, the devil is in the details and we really don’t know all the details yet.
But what generally happens in times like these is the administration makes things sound fairly routine.
But when you really drill down into them, the definitions in the regulations tend to make things a bit more dicey.
After the horrible tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary, where a deranged gunman killed 20 children and six adults, Congress balked at Obama’s attempt at passing gun laws.
So, in what appears to be an increasingly common method of operation, President Obama will just have the Justice Department issue the regulations by decree.
And while most of these new “laws” likely will not pass legal muster, it will cost pro-gun organizations bazillions of dollars to fight them. Sometimes, I’m not sure that isn’t the plan in the first place.
The dozen-or-so new regulations will range from new restrictions on “high-powered pistols” to gun storage requirements to renewed efforts to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people or people who have been convicted in domestic violence cases.
Now, as I said earlier, these things may sound fairly mundane, but we don’t know the details.
For example, gun storage laws may be simple, common-sense things with easy compliance for gun owners, most of whom already practice them anyway. Or – depending on the details – regulations could become burdensome enough to make owning a gun nearly impossible.
I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent domestic abusers. Who would? But what if the law defines spanking your kid as domestic violence?
What’s a “high-powered pistol?” If it’s a .357 mag they will be banning 10s of millions of handguns.
It’s that kind of stuff that makes it important for gun-rights organizations to track these sorts of things.
According to reporting by Tim Devaney at thehill.com, there’s a proposed law before the U.S. House of Representatives right now that’s fairly ridiculous.
Carolyn B. Malone, a New York Democrat, has proposed legislation that would require gun owners nationwide to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.
Her Firearm Risk Protection Act would require folks to prove they have the insurance before purchasing a gun.
She was nice enough to exempt service members and law enforcement officers.
Gee, I wonder where she came up with that idea?
Follow the money.
Opensecrets.org shows the insurance industry is her third-leading source of campaign cash in 2014, up from sixth in 2010.
Surely, she wouldn’t be crafting legislation at the behest of her benefactors, would she?
So stay tuned. Sooner or later all the details will come out and we can determine the relative usefulness or harm of these new gun laws.
While on the topic of guns, I thought I’d share something I spotted on some celebrity website.
Actor Vince Vaughn had some interesting things to say about guns.
He’s starring in some HBO “True Detective” show and he was being interviewed by British GQ, which released excerpts of the interview online.
When the conversation turned to guns, Vaughn had this to say:
“We have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It’s not about duck hunting; it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have freedom of speech. It’s well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.”
He had this to say about “gun-free zones:”
“Take mass shootings. They’ve only happened in places that don’t allow guns. In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these (expletive) schools because they know there are no guns there.”
And this:
“I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat.”
Wow. Don’t hold back there, Vince. I wonder if this little rant – which will undoubtedly go viral – will have an affect on his career given the liberal Hollywood community in which he works.
Time will tell.
You know, lots of times when you read things like what Vaughn said about a corrupt and abusive government, you tend to dismiss it as a little crazy.
And perhaps it is crazy.
But what if?
You’re likely never going to have a fire in your kitchen, but does that preclude you owning a fire extinguisher?
I am far from some sort of black helicopter conspiracy person and I believe the government likely never will overstep its authority.
But then I read something like this story on Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general.
"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." Allen added that the FBI's planes "are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance."
Oh, OK. That clears it up.
What is going on here?
When you read things like that, is it really too far a stretch to be concerned that a government might someday become a bit overly oppressive?[[In-content Ad]]
As always, the devil is in the details and we really don’t know all the details yet.
But what generally happens in times like these is the administration makes things sound fairly routine.
But when you really drill down into them, the definitions in the regulations tend to make things a bit more dicey.
After the horrible tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary, where a deranged gunman killed 20 children and six adults, Congress balked at Obama’s attempt at passing gun laws.
So, in what appears to be an increasingly common method of operation, President Obama will just have the Justice Department issue the regulations by decree.
And while most of these new “laws” likely will not pass legal muster, it will cost pro-gun organizations bazillions of dollars to fight them. Sometimes, I’m not sure that isn’t the plan in the first place.
The dozen-or-so new regulations will range from new restrictions on “high-powered pistols” to gun storage requirements to renewed efforts to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable people or people who have been convicted in domestic violence cases.
Now, as I said earlier, these things may sound fairly mundane, but we don’t know the details.
For example, gun storage laws may be simple, common-sense things with easy compliance for gun owners, most of whom already practice them anyway. Or – depending on the details – regulations could become burdensome enough to make owning a gun nearly impossible.
I wouldn’t be opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of violent domestic abusers. Who would? But what if the law defines spanking your kid as domestic violence?
What’s a “high-powered pistol?” If it’s a .357 mag they will be banning 10s of millions of handguns.
It’s that kind of stuff that makes it important for gun-rights organizations to track these sorts of things.
According to reporting by Tim Devaney at thehill.com, there’s a proposed law before the U.S. House of Representatives right now that’s fairly ridiculous.
Carolyn B. Malone, a New York Democrat, has proposed legislation that would require gun owners nationwide to buy liability insurance or face a $10,000 fine.
Her Firearm Risk Protection Act would require folks to prove they have the insurance before purchasing a gun.
She was nice enough to exempt service members and law enforcement officers.
Gee, I wonder where she came up with that idea?
Follow the money.
Opensecrets.org shows the insurance industry is her third-leading source of campaign cash in 2014, up from sixth in 2010.
Surely, she wouldn’t be crafting legislation at the behest of her benefactors, would she?
So stay tuned. Sooner or later all the details will come out and we can determine the relative usefulness or harm of these new gun laws.
While on the topic of guns, I thought I’d share something I spotted on some celebrity website.
Actor Vince Vaughn had some interesting things to say about guns.
He’s starring in some HBO “True Detective” show and he was being interviewed by British GQ, which released excerpts of the interview online.
When the conversation turned to guns, Vaughn had this to say:
“We have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government. It’s not about duck hunting; it’s about the ability of the individual. It’s the same reason we have freedom of speech. It’s well known that the greatest defense against an intruder is the sound of a gun hammer being pulled back.”
He had this to say about “gun-free zones:”
“Take mass shootings. They’ve only happened in places that don’t allow guns. In all of our schools it is illegal to have guns on campus, so again and again these guys go and shoot up these (expletive) schools because they know there are no guns there.”
And this:
“I support people having a gun in public full stop, not just in your home. Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat.”
Wow. Don’t hold back there, Vince. I wonder if this little rant – which will undoubtedly go viral – will have an affect on his career given the liberal Hollywood community in which he works.
Time will tell.
You know, lots of times when you read things like what Vaughn said about a corrupt and abusive government, you tend to dismiss it as a little crazy.
And perhaps it is crazy.
But what if?
You’re likely never going to have a fire in your kitchen, but does that preclude you owning a fire extinguisher?
I am far from some sort of black helicopter conspiracy person and I believe the government likely never will overstep its authority.
But then I read something like this story on Associated Press:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology — all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. law enforcement officials confirmed for the first time the wide-scale use of the aircraft, which the AP traced to at least 13 fake companies, such as FVX Research, KQM Aviation, NBR Aviation and PXW Services. Even basic aspects of the program are withheld from the public in censored versions of official reports from the Justice Department's inspector general.
"The FBI's aviation program is not secret," spokesman Christopher Allen said in a statement. "Specific aircraft and their capabilities are protected for operational security purposes." Allen added that the FBI's planes "are not equipped, designed or used for bulk collection activities or mass surveillance."
Oh, OK. That clears it up.
What is going on here?
When you read things like that, is it really too far a stretch to be concerned that a government might someday become a bit overly oppressive?[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092