June 2019

Watch Out! Eric Swalwell is making his move. The Congressman — who represents a district not far from the epicenter of 21st-Century liberalism that San Francisco has become — has yet to accomplish anything of note that would distinguish him from the large pack of Democratic Party presidential wannabes jockeying to win attention in these still-early months of the 2020 election cycle. He is attempting valiantly to change that equation by pressing a gun control platform that puts to shame Michael Bloomberg’s long-running campaign to make himself America’s Gun Control King.

One of the problems Swalwell faces in his drive for relevance, is that every one of his Democratic teammates has made gun control a central plank in their platform. The party appears once again to have concluded that gun control will be pivotal in wresting control of the White House away from the GOP.

Swalwell’s attempt to leapfrog to the head of the gun-control class actually garnered him a headline last November; though not really the type a serious candidate relishes. Responding on Twitter to a comment about how his proposal to ban “assault weapons” and force their “buy-back” under penalty of arrest could provoke a war, Swalwell pompously chirped “it would be a short war” because “the government has nukes” and “they’re legit.” Ever since, banning firearms in America has been Swalwell’s default sound-bite.
In spite of the Congressman’s laughably superficial knowledge of firearms, and his cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons, Swalwell’s laundry list of proposals actually offers an accurate perspective on how Democrats really feel about the Second Amendment.

Last week, for example, at an event in front of the NRA’s Virginia headquarters just west of the nation’s capital (attended by less than 20 supporters), Swalwell unveiled a comprehensive gun control “plan”; extending far beyond his original ban-and-buy-back proposal. While “nuke gun owners” did not make Swalwell’s newest hit list, and notwithstanding that he did not call explicitly for the banning of pump-action, 20-gauge shotguns, if it was something that would limit exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, it was on the laundry list.

Swalwell’s unabridged plan can be viewed on his campaign website. While it would be enjoyable to debunk each element of his plan to thus save America, in the interests of brevity, here are a few stand-outs:

“Criminally prosecute any person caught defying the [assault weapon ban].” This is his calling-card proposal, seemingly made with no regard for the collateral damage to occur when attempting the mass arrest of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

“Establish standards for safely storing firearms including smart tech, mandate that all gun owners comply with those standards.” One supposes low-income gun owners should prepare for arrest if they cannot afford the high costs of gun safes and other “smart” equipment that meet these new Swalwell Standards.

“Implement background checks for all firearm and ammunition purchases.” Considering the fact that the existing background check system already is overwhelmed and repeatedly has failed to flag multiple criminals intent on mass shootings, adding additional checks for every box of .22 cal. rounds sold will surely help, right?

“Limit ammunition sales for individual purchasers to 200 rounds per 30-day period”and “prohibit individuals from hoarding ammunition in quantities exceeding 200 rounds per caliber or gauge.” Ignoring the impossibility of actually enforcing this rule without mandatory, routine home searches by police, apparently Swalwell considers it inappropriate (indeed, unlawful) for gun owners to own sufficient quantities of ammunition so they might practice and more safely exercise their shooting skills.

“Mandate evidence-based ballistics identification techniques, such as microstamping.” This is pure science fiction. Such techniques do not exist and repeatedly have been proven unrealistic.

“Prohibit the manufacture and sale of hollow-nose bullets for civilians.” That is, make illegal the type of bullet safest for use in self-defense since it is designed not to carry through soft targets or walls.

Again, endless pages could be spent debunking the preposterous, bordering-on-childish nature of Swalwell’s proposal. The point, however, is not that Swalwell’s proposal is ridiculous, but that he and other Democrats consider it to be entirely reasonable, if not generous toward firearms owners. That millions of voting-age Americans buy into arguments that such limits on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not only constitutional but reflect “common sense,” is the truly frightening aspect of what he and his colleagues are proposing. And it is why Republican and independent voters must take the proposals and their advocates seriously, even though they do not constitute serious ideas.

We Must Stop Knee-Jerk Responses That Undermine the Second Amendment
Townhall.com

6/12/2019 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

To say that Donald Trump is a far better President than would Hillary Clinton have been is a truism too obvious to bear repetition. This particularly is the case with regard to the Second Amendment; not only in terms of broad policy direction, but with regard also to the regulatory actions and day-to-day decisions by bureaucrats. Were we living in the third year of a Hillary Clinton presidency, damage wrought by her and her minions already would have seriously undermined the ability of every law-abiding Second Amendment supporter to actually exercise the rights guaranteed thereunder.

While he may not be a policy wonk immersed in the minutiae of firearms regulations (which is a good thing), Trump does understand the need to defend the right to keep and bear arms against its detractors at all levels of government. This was on display most recently in late April when the President signed an executive document on stage at the NRA annual meeting in Indianapolis that erased the Obama administration’s signature affixed in 2013 to the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty.

Despite Trump’s sincere support of the Second Amendment and for what it means in practice, there are blind spots that have manifested themselves in both policy and practice; and which set precedent for serious mischief by future presidents more attuned to Obama or Clinton than to Trump. These deficiencies reflect not so much an anti-Second Amendment predisposition as a desire to “do the right thing” in the immediate aftermath of mass shootings; and without fully understanding the consequences of such actions in the long run.

Following the murderous rampage by a deranged gunman in Las Vegas in October 2017 — an incident in which a “bump stock” was used by the shooter — calls went up to ban the devices.  The Trump administration joined in that effort, which resulted in bump stocks being outlawed under federal law, not by proper legislative action, but by regulatory sleight-of-hand.  Following the president’s broad endorsement of a call to action against bump stocks, then Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed that the federal government definition of a “machine gun” be changed so that a “bump stock” henceforth would be considered as a machine gun, and thereby unlawful to possess. The precedent set by this regulatory trickery will assuredly manifest itself in later years by administrations less sympathetic to the Second Amendment than the current one.

Last year, in the immediate aftermath of the horrendous school shooting in Parkland, Florida, there arose a cry for states to enact so-called “red flag laws.”  While designed to give courts the authority to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals exhibiting clear propensity to commit crimes with those firearms, such procedures seriously undermine guarantees of due process as applied to an individual’s Second Amendment rights.  Yet, their surface appeal has led many Republicans in the Congress to carelessly endorse their imposition; and the president has indicated a predisposition to support such unfortunate effort.

Pending now are calls to ban sound “suppressors” on firearms, commonly and in Hollywood-speak often referred to as “silencers.”  This move has gathered momentum because the murderer two weeks ago in Virginia Beach decided to use such a device during his rampage. Immediately after that fact became known publicly, calls to “ban silencers” rose in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, President Trump last week lent his voice to this ill-advised movement – stating that he would “seriously look” at a ban similar to that which he approved regarding bump stocks.

Unlike bump stocks, which never served a useful purpose for those who understand and properly use firearms, suppressors serve a valuable function for firearms in a number of settings.  The device, which does not come close to actually silencing the report from a rifle or handgun to which it is attached, nonetheless noticeably reduces the sound of firing a rifle and thereby aids in protecting the hearing of hunters.  Because of the manner by which suppressors reduce noise levels when firearms are discharged inside homes and other confined spaces, they serve importantly to reduce the disorienting effect on persons using firearms in self-defense in homes, offices and vehicles.

The fundamental “right to keep and bear arms” enshrined in our Bill of Rights is far too important than to be whittled away every time a criminal abuses the right. Moreover, it is essential that the long-term consequences of measures reacting to a mass shooting – ramifications often not readily apparent at the time – must be considered carefully and fully before regulatory or legislative steps are undertaken.  The Second Amendment is too valuable to be subject to knee-jerk policy responses, no matter how well-intentioned.

Northam Genuflects To The Gun-Control Movement

The Daily Caller

In a move to burnish his already well-known anti-firearms credentials, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has unveiled a list of gun control measures he will press the commonwealth’s legislature to adopt in a special session as early as late June. Predictably, his proposals miss the mark widely.

While Northam’s announcement came within days of the May 31st shooting rampage in Virginia Beach by a former municipal worker, the proposed measures reflect steps that already could have been taken by government officials, or consist of proposals that would not have prevented the murderer’s actions. Unsurprisingly of course, facts and substance took a back seat to political and emotional triggers.

Unlike the mass murderer in Parkland, Florida last year – who exhibited clear evidence of mental problems and of an intent to commit murder by firearms – Virginia Beach killer DeWayne Craddock appears to have had no known or visible history of violence or of intent to engage in such horrific acts as he did. The “red flag law” Northam demands – which seriously undermines fundamental guarantees of due process as embodied in the Bill of Rights – would not have been applicable to Craddock.

Northam predictably includes mandatory “universal background checks” among the proposed solutions to mass murders such as committed by Craddock. However, by all accounts, there was nothing in Craddock’s background that would have prevented him from legally acquiring – as he did – the pair of handguns that were the instruments of his evil.

The governor takes aim also at “high capacity” magazines and “silencers” (one of which apparently was used by Craddock) among the “common sense” prohibitions deemed necessary to prevent mass shootings. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of firearms understands, a “silencer” or more accurately a “sound suppressor” affixed to the barrel of a handgun or rifle lessens but does not come even close to deadening the report from the firing of a gun.

Furthermore, proposing a ban on magazines of a certain capacity – which always is among the “solutions” for which the gun-control movement clamors – has been regularly shown to have no real effect on a person armed with a gun and intent on murder.

Not surprisingly, Northam included banning “assault weapons” and “bump stocks” among his proposals. Apparently missed by Northam were the facts that bumps stocks already are banned under federal law, and that Craddock did not use a rifle, much less an “assault rifle” to carry out his murders. As any gun-control advocate worth the title knows, it is not the substance of such government actions that carries the day, but the language of the proposals. And there are few phrases better primed to win votes restricting Second Amendment rights than “assault weapons,” “high capacity magazines,” or “silencers.”

Strangely, however, the governor included in his gun-control laundry list, measures “allowing localities to ban guns from municipal buildings.” This is odd because municipal officials in every one of the 50 states and the District of Columbia already are able to install metal detectors designed precisely to detect and prevent firearms from being brought into government buildings.
Perhaps the governor was not aware of this fact at the time of his news conference, but such measures already were widely in use at government facilities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. One wonders if the officials in Virginia Beach who had decided such devices were not needed at the municipal buildings in their jurisdiction, will be questioned about or disciplined for their decisions.

Northam’s proposed list included other, similarly ineffective measures, and it might very well be lengthened as he and his advisors have more time to consider the matter, and to be swayed by anti-firearms organizations and individuals like Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety.”

Sadly, however, it is highly unlikely Northam will instead turn his support to measures that actually and meaningfully could aid in dealing with deep-rooted social problems and deficiencies that are birthing an increasing number of persons bent on committing mass murder.

If Northam and his colleagues truly were serious about improving the ability of law enforcement officials and health care professionals to deal with mental health issues that increasingly appear to be among the factors giving rise to mass shootings, they would increase funding for and access to mental health facilities in Virginia; Currently, the state ranks 42nd in terms of access to mental health care.

Bob Barr (@BobBarr) represented Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He currently serves as president and CEO of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation.