Well thanks to Steve Kelley and the staff of Kelley and Co. for letting me spend a few minutes with them today. Now if we can just get Steve, Bill, and Murphy into a CHP class…
There were about 900 topics that I wanted to get to, but obviously there’s only time for 1 or 2. Here’s today’s rant – I promised it was coming and here it is.
But here are some of my additional thoughts on the President’s 23 Executive Orders (you can read them here:http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-actions-obama-will-be-taking-on-guns/)
– After reading them multiple times, there really is very little actual “meat” in any of this. Several deal with hypotheticals (see #6), many are total fluff (#s 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 23), and some have nothing to do with guns whatsoever (20, 21, 22).
– Look at #s 5 and 6 – are these meant to apply to private gun sales? The wording of #5 (text: “Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.”) seems to apply only to seized guns (bizarre that this would be in here) and #6 merely talks to letting the ATF know how private sale background checks WOULD work if they actually existed.
– Let’s spend some more time on #6 to look at the intent. Here’s the text: “Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.” If at some point it becomes a requirement for private sellers to pay for background checks for private buyers, there’s likely a hidden agenda with this one: universal gun registration. Bear with me on this one. In order for the government to know that when I sell a gun to my neighbor that I followed the law and paid for a background check for my neighbor, they then have to be able to track the progress of that gun as it changes hands… which means that they would a) have to know that I was the lawful previous owner and b) that my neighbor is now the lawful current owner of that gun – and those 2 things you can’t get without a comprehensive registration program. So this may be a backdoor to our worst fears.
– More on #6: much like how guns covered under the National Firearms Act are currently treated (suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, etc.), the guns must be specifically registered to ONE PERSON (or a trust, but bear with me), and if I owned such a weapon, failing to provide evidence that the gun was adequately registered to me could be a felony. That process might now be intended to extend to Executive Order #6. So think about how this would actually work if it were implemented.
– #7: Text: “Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.” Trust me, I’m all for responsible gun ownership. I wouldn’t be doing this job if I didn’t feel that way to my core. But having the government wedging itself into that process terrifies me.
– #8: Text: “Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).” All new guns already come with a lock, by law. But this is so vaguely worded that it could apply to anything. What’s the point of this, exactly?
– #12: Text: “Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.” The term “active shooter” is already misguided and misleading. *I* am an active shooter – I practice every chance I get. Adam Lanza was an ACTIVE MURDERER. Let’s call him that, ok?
– #13: Here’s the text: “Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.” GOOD! But why aren’t we doing that now, exactly?
– #16: Text: “Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” Ok, here’s where this thing starts to get really crazy. I know that this President’s calling is to get government in the business of running each of our lives, but can I please keep my relationship with my doctor private? What are the penalties if I lie to my doctor, or if my doctor lies to the government? Then what? Is the intent here to actually DISCOURAGE me from seeing my doctor?
– #17: Here’s the text: “Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.” Excellent. But in all seriousness now, name me 1 health care provider who was made aware of threats of violence who then did NOT report that to authorities. Why is this even here?
– #18: Text: “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.” Umm… wait, didn’t the NRA recommend exactly this? Is the President now supporting the NRA? To quote Massad Ayoob for a minute (he’s much more eloquent at these things than I am): “One New York tabloid devoted its front page to a headline that said something like, “Gun Nut: NRA Loon In Bizarre Rant.” Yet this morning, our President said one of his own priorities was to put cops in schools in hopes of preventing a repeat of the Newtown Atrocity. Will the same New York tabloid run a headline tomorrow that reads, “White House Loon In Bizarre Rant”?
Somehow, I doubt it.” Brilliant.
– #19: Text: “Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.” I’m sorry, but that’s the responsibility of the schools, houses of worship, and institutions of higher education – not the federal government.
– #s 20-22: What do these have to do with gun control or curbing violence, exactly? “Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.” Someone please help me understand how this helps keep our children safe.
– #23: “Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.” Well, I’m looking forward to that one.
Some other notes – what happened with all these meetings that Joe Biden had with Hollywood and video game executives? They amounted to all of NOTHING? Really? Well I’m glad that you and I paid for all those discussions.
Here’s the bottom line: very few of these Executive Orders amount to anything and personally, I’m not worried about anything like these being enacted at the national level. None of these mention “evil assault rifles” or magazine bans or anything of the sort. Rand Paul has already vowed to introduce legislation that makes these null-and-void. And one Texas US Rep. is threatening impeachment hearing if this administration tries an end-around of the US Constitution. But in Colorado, it’s an entirely different story. All of these and more are already making the rounds in the Colorado legislature. Know who your state senators and representatives are and make sure they know you.
One more tip: let’s talk about “words that work.” When I bought my last AR-15, it came with a 30-round magazine, and I’m guessing yours did too. So how is a STANDARD magazine suddenly “high capacity?” No – it’s a “STANDARD CAPACITY MAGAZINE.”
Next, most people will agree that I have a right to defend myself. Therefore, I also have the right to use efficient tools to defend myself. The fact is that an AR-15 is a marvelous self-defense tool – and so are semi-auto handguns. Let’s focus on the problem and shift the conversation away from banning certain types of guns. Gun control doesn’t work: it’s more about the control than it is the gun.
And I’ll leave you with more words from the wise Massad Ayoob from his blog yesterday:
“Cannily, the President surrounded himself with kids from early elementary school when he gave his “gun control” speech today. Since he speaks for the symbolism-side of this polarized debate, that was hardly unexpected.
It was a shame the young ones didn’t get the chance to discuss it themselves. Suppose you asked a second-grader, “Kids, if a bad boy in your class took crayons and wrote all over the walls of your classroom, would it be right to take the crayons away from the boys and girls who behaved?”
I suspect the children would unanimously answer, “No! That’s not fair! Take them away from the boy who did the bad thing, not the rest of us!”
And of course, they might also ask, “Where was the teacher? Why didn’t the teacher stop the boy who did the bad thing with the crayons?”
THERE is the logical question: why wasn’t someone there in Sandy Hook Elementary School who could stop Adam Lanza? Because we’re not talking crayons here, we’re talking innocent lives. The school custodian can scrub crayon graffiti from the school walls. We can never wash away the innocent blood that was spilled at Newtown, never paint over the grief of the bereaved.”