In light of clear moves by many Democratic Members of the House of Representatives to consider impeachment proceedings against President Trump, Bob Barr has written a White Paper titled, “Presidential Impeachment in History and Procedure.” The paper is published by FreedomWorks and co-authored by Jason Pye, the Vice President of Legislative Affairs at FreedomWorks.
Presidential Impeachment in History and Procedure
So-called “no-knock” search warrants — a tool used with increasing frequency since the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded their availability — have proved extremely dangerous to civilians on the receiving end of such actions. A scandal involving the use of such a warrant earlier this year in Houston, Texas, however, illustrates just how dangerous these situations can be to everyoneinvolved, including the law enforcement officers executing such warrants; especially if undertaken with little or no regard for truth or accountability.
In January, 59-year old Navy veteran Dennis Tuttle and his wife were suddenly shaken by the sound of their front door being smashed in. What happened next left both Tuttle and his wife dead from gunshot wounds, and five Houston police officers injured. The police had been hoping to find large quantities of heroin in the Tuttle’s home. What they came away with — in addition to two human beings shot dead, five officers injured, and one pet dog killed — was a small amount of drugs.
Most tragically, however, is the fact this surprise raid appears to have been based not on facts, but on false statements made by Gerald Goines, the officer in charge of the operation, in order to secure permission from the judge to carry out the no-knock operation. The human tragedy of this operation is compounded in the refusal by the Houston Police Department to admit error, accept responsibility, and improve procedures going forward. Moreover, and in a move clearly designed to further shield the police department from responsibility, Police Chief Art Acevedo used the tragedy as a pretext to blame insufficient “gun control” in testimony before a congressional committee just days later.
Standard and constitutionally-based procedures for executing search warrants require the officers involved to announce their presence before entering the premises to be searched or in which a suspect is to be arrested. Furthermore, and in order for the suspect or suspects opportunity to challenge the constitutional propriety of the search, the police are required to leave a written inventory of items seized.Exceptions to these rules appropriately address circumstances such as when pre-entry announcement would pose a clear danger to the police or a hostage, would result in vital evidence being destroyed, or would put at risk an important and continuing investigation.
No-knock exceptions to standard search warrant procedures, however, have been expanded statutorily by the USA PATRIOT Act and by police procedures in many jurisdictions that have come to rely increasingly on SWAT team-type searches, even in circumstances that carry little if any expectation of violence. While the avowed purpose for such expansion has been to address searches conducted within the context of terrorism investigations, in recent years, the exceptions have come to swallow the rule.
Criminologist Peter Kraska estimated in 2006 that over a 25-year period, the use of no-knock warrants increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000. The New York Times also found that no-knock raids from 2010 to 2016 resulted in the deaths of at least 94 people, including 13 police officers. This data suggests the incident in Houston is far from unusual.
As Washington Post columnist Radley Balko, a dogged watchdog of police abuse, noted in his column last month, the dangers of no-knock raids “create violence and confrontation where there was none before…sow confusion and chaos, and thus have a very thin margin for error.” Balko concluded that this, in combination with intentionally bad information from criminal informants (along with corruption such as in the Houston incident), produce results that are increasingly dangerous for civilians and police.
Yet, instead of serving as a lesson in bad policing practices, the death and destruction from no-knock warrants have bolstered calls from many police chiefs, including Houston’s, for more stringent gun control generally. This blame-shifting makes it more difficult to correct abuses such as apparently occurred in the lead-up to the botched Tuttle raid in Houston, and thereby further endangers both police and civilians.
Mandating “universal background checks” for all firearms transactions, or making it easier for judges to issue orders seizing a person’s firearm(s) because they might in the future commit a violent act — measures currently under consideration by the Congress — have nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand; despite Acevedo’s attempt to make it appear so.
The relevant and important issue which Congress as well as state and local governments should be addressing in the wake of the tragic no-knock raid in Houston, is how to protect against the minority of police departments that refuse to hold their officers accountable, or that fail to properly train officers in how to plan and conduct search warrants in the first place.
There is a proper role for the federal government in this process, by tracking, highlighting and limiting such abuses; but it is not to further curtail the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights guaranteed to them by the Second Amendment.
While far from the only recent example of a no-knock raid gone tragically wrong, the Houston example should serve as a clear warning sign that no-knock raids are in need of immediate and serious reform. And these efforts must not be permitted to be obscured by disingenuous efforts by the gun-control lobby or by the few “bad apples” like Goines and Acevedo, to further the gun-control agenda always lurking in the shadows of any tragedy involving the use of a firearm.
There is a video of Bernie Sanders and his wife on their 1988 honeymoon in the USSR, in which a shirtless Bernie is shown singing “This Land Is Your Land” with a bunch of drunk communists. It is a vignette apparently welcomed nowadays by the Senator from Vermont, who proudly represents true, “old school” socialism. Sanders’ doctrine is a far cry from the “bubblegum socialism” eagerly embraced by many 21st century Millennials, including the Congresswoman from New York’s 14th congressional district; but it must be taken just as seriously, if not more so. Today’s socialism is no laughing matter.
Socialism is socialism; and in whatever form is completely at odds with free political and economic enterprise that are at the core of our system of government. This holds true whether one considers the dry and pedantic old-school variety hawked by Sanders, or the bouncy, bubble-gum iteration gleefully spouted by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And while it is easy to dismiss the latter, with its inane talk of “farting cows” or “garbage” capitalism, we do so at our peril; for the appeal of such nonsense is finding an easy mark in much of today’s American youth.
With socialist Venezuela visibly dying under the burden of a dictatorial socialist government, we might properly expect that “socialism” should be getting trounced in public opinion polls; yet the concept continues to draw voters to its siren song, especially younger ones.
At the most basic level, this phenomenon is actually not difficult to comprehend. For more than two generations, Americans have come of age being told that government is the solution to every one of society’s ills (real or perceived). The process of turning to government to solve every problem faced by the citizenry has created the fertile breeding ground in which today’s Millennials embrace precisely what this is — socialism.
Dismissing the antics of Ocasio-Cortez with snarky rebuttals or superficial jokes misses this key point. She is not the problem. She is merely the face of the far deeper malady infecting American culture and western civilization generally. It is a cultural problem an inch deep but a thousand miles wide. Notions of socialism now reach far into our political system and the American business sector; its tentacles have entwined the entertainment industry, and it has sucked the lifeblood from our once-outstanding educational system.
Dealing effectively with socialist tropes like “capitalism is irredeemable” or that incremental change to the status quo is simply shifting around “garbage,” requires far more than the superficial sound bites many in the GOP throw back at socialism’s minions like Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Kamala Harris (who claims not to be a “democratic socialist” but refuses to define even what that means to her).
Rather than the easy road of responding to today’s American socialists on their level of superficiality, conservatives must define and focus on the moral superiority of capitalism. That debate begins with defining free enterprise as the very foundation of American economic and political freedom; and moves on then to asking of Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and their socialist compatriots why they prefer a system that crushes human freedom in pursuit of collective mediocrity.
We must aggressively and publicly support the efforts being led currently by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to make education great again. Copies of the Constitution of the United States must be distributed in schools to every student in every grade; accompanied in high school by a copy of the Federalist as required study. Policy debates among adults about the proper role of government — whether in the context of Roe v. Wade or President Trump’s declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border – are largely wasted if not truly understood in the context of what our government is, was supposed to be, and has become.
In October 1964, then-private citizen Ronald Reagan birthed a political movement and stirred a nation to action, with his nationally-broadcast speech declaring a “rendezvous with destiny.” Reagan identified the existential dangers facing American civilization (including the burgeoning growth of government and the threat from socialism’s bigger brother, communism). Drawing then on the reservoir of goodwill, patriotism and education bequeathed to us by our predecessor generations, Reagan warned that without girding for and meeting head-on the battle already looming, we would doom our children and grandchildren to a “thousand years of darkness.”
Bernie Sanders was 23-years old when Reagan delivered that speech. In his heart, Sanders knows the power of words such as Reagan’s; he witnessed the Soviet Union he so warmly embraced crumble in the face of the strategy unleashed against it by the forces to which Reagan gave voice. Eloquence and reason such as uttered by Reagan, if backed by actions consistent therewith, candefeat socialism in whatever form it marches; but only if we fight it with substance and understanding – two commodities in far too short supply in this year 2019 A.D.
Townhall.com
MARCH 6, 2019
‘For the People’ Legislation is Really ‘For the Government’
Bob Barr
3/6/2019 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr
In an iconic scene from the 1980s comedy classic “The Blues Brothers,” Jake (John Belushi) and his brother Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) are being chased by the police when Elwood attempts to allay Jake’s fears by asserting, “They’re not gonna catch us…we’re on a mission from God.” Today’s real-life Democrats believe themselves to be on a similar quest; one they claim is essential to “save democracy.” And, like Elwood, they believe they will not (cannot?) be caught before the mission is complete.
For the sake of our nation, they must be proved wrong.
It remains unclear exactly from whom, or from what, Democrats want to save democracy. Nevertheless, and perhaps just by coincidence, this crusade has been the Party’s obsession since being shocked by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat. Curiously ignoring the fact that this same democratic process was working fine when electing Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Democrats now are convinced the system is completely broken, and have assumed for themselves the responsibility to repair it in advance of the 2020 elections.
One such fix, H.R. 1 — the “For the People Act” — was approved by the House Administration Committee last week, setting up a likely floor vote later this month. The bill comes with much ballyhoo from Democrats, and contains numerous election “reforms” long coveted by liberals; including, for starters, automatic voter registration and expanded early voting.
There are other insidious measures lurking within the legislation’s pages. The bill includes provisions carefully crafted to undermine the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which was a major victory for free political expression during election cycles. In a gut punch to nonprofit organizations’ ability to engage in election-cycle issue advocacy, H. R. 1 would force disclosure of contributors’ names; thereby significantly chilling free speech.
A coalition letter organized by FreedomWorks in opposition to H.R. 1 (signed by me among many others) outlines other serious issues with the bill, including an expansion of the definition of “political coordination” that would severely restrict political advocacy; a reorganization of the Federal Election Commission to make it more partisan in nature; and several provisions significantly extending the arm of federal government control into state and local elections.
The degree to which H.R. 1 would “federalize” state and local elections should come as no surprise to those who have witnessed the Democrats’ contempt for President Trump and the GOP reach a fever pitch. Ever since Clinton’s loss in 2016, the Left has been engaged in an all-out war to turn America’s system of government on its head in order to grab from Republicans as much power as possible.
Calls for an end to the electoral college have gone from a largely-forgotten liberal talking point to one championed (but still misunderstood) by high-level Democrats, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, who labeled the electoral college “undemocratic” and “a vestige of the past.”
Liberals also have expressed contempt for equal state representation in the U. S. Senate, especially following the 2018 election; prompting even the liberal-leaning Washington Post to remind Democrats the “Senate popular vote” did not actually exist. This, however, did not stop Sara Jeong, an ultra-liberal member of the New York Times’ editorial board, from recently bemoaning on social media “how the state of [W]yoming has two senators and a total population smaller than [P]ortland, [O]regon.”
Such disdain for a republican form of government so presciently designed by our Founders to protect minorities from the majority, belies the true intent of H.R. 1. Despite their tiresome moralizing, Democrats’ support for “direct democracy” in presidential elections is merely a means to the end; wherein the balance of power in our country is shifted to high concentrations of liberals clustered in major cities across America, with the means to more tightly control and dictate public policy for everyone else.
It is understandable why Democrats use the term “for the people” to describe their scheme, rather than the far more accurate, “control the people.” The camouflaged nature of their effort, however, makes it all the more important for us to understand that this legislative effort is but one instrument among many being employed by the Left with which to federalize public debate and policy. For example, despite declaring themselves “for the people,” Democrats have not hesitated to enlist unelected federal judges in their effort; through mechanisms such as nationwide judicial injunctions to thwart administration actions with which they disagree.
So it is with today’s Democratic Party, which cannot bring itself to declare what it stands for but does not hesitate to impose its will on “the people.”
In an iconic scene from the 1980s comedy classic “The Blues Brothers,” Jake (John Belushi) and his brother Elwood (Dan Aykroyd) are being chased by the police when Elwood attempts to allay Jake’s fears by asserting, “They’re not gonna catch us…we’re on a mission from God.” Today’s real-life Democrats believe themselves to be on a similar quest; one they claim is essential to “save democracy.” And, like Elwood, they believe they will not (cannot?) be caught before the mission is complete.
For the sake of our nation, they must be proved wrong.
It remains unclear exactly from whom, or from what, Democrats want to save democracy. Nevertheless, and perhaps just by coincidence, this crusade has been the Party’s obsession since being shocked by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat. Curiously ignoring the fact that this same democratic process was working fine when electing Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Democrats now are convinced the system is completely broken, and have assumed for themselves the responsibility to repair it in advance of the 2020 elections.
One such fix, H.R. 1 — the “For the People Act” — was approved by the House Administration Committee last week, setting up a likely floor vote later this month. The bill comes with much ballyhoo from Democrats, and contains numerous election “reforms” long coveted by liberals; including, for starters, automatic voter registration and expanded early voting.
There are other insidious measures lurking within the legislation’s pages. The bill includes provisions carefully crafted to undermine the 2010 Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which was a major victory for free political expression during election cycles. In a gut punch to nonprofit organizations’ ability to engage in election-cycle issue advocacy, H. R. 1 would force disclosure of contributors’ names; thereby significantly chilling free speech.
A coalition letter organized by FreedomWorks in opposition to H.R. 1 (signed by me among many others) outlines other serious issues with the bill, including an expansion of the definition of “political coordination” that would severely restrict political advocacy; a reorganization of the Federal Election Commission to make it more partisan in nature; and several provisions significantly extending the arm of federal government control into state and local elections.
The degree to which H.R. 1 would “federalize” state and local elections should come as no surprise to those who have witnessed the Democrats’ contempt for President Trump and the GOP reach a fever pitch. Ever since Clinton’s loss in 2016, the Left has been engaged in an all-out war to turn America’s system of government on its head in order to grab from Republicans as much power as possible.
Calls for an end to the electoral college have gone from a largely-forgotten liberal talking point to one championed (but still misunderstood) by high-level Democrats, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, who labeled the electoral college “undemocratic” and “a vestige of the past.”
Liberals also have expressed contempt for equal state representation in the U. S. Senate, especially following the 2018 election; prompting even the liberal-leaning Washington Post to remind Democrats the “Senate popular vote” did not actually exist. This, however, did not stop Sara Jeong, an ultra-liberal member of the New York Times’ editorial board, from recently bemoaning on social media “how the state of [W]yoming has two senators and a total population smaller than [P]ortland, [O]regon.”
Such disdain for a republican form of government so presciently designed by our Founders to protect minorities from the majority, belies the true intent of H.R. 1. Despite their tiresome moralizing, Democrats’ support for “direct democracy” in presidential elections is merely a means to the end; wherein the balance of power in our country is shifted to high concentrations of liberals clustered in major cities across America, with the means to more tightly control and dictate public policy for everyone else.
It is understandable why Democrats use the term “for the people” to describe their scheme, rather than the far more accurate, “control the people.” The camouflaged nature of their effort, however, makes it all the more important for us to understand that this legislative effort is but one instrument among many being employed by the Left with which to federalize public debate and policy. For example, despite declaring themselves “for the people,” Democrats have not hesitated to enlist unelected federal judges in their effort; through mechanisms such as nationwide judicial injunctionsto thwart administration actions with which they disagree.
So it is with today’s Democratic Party, which cannot bring itself to declare what it stands for but does not hesitate to impose its will on “the people.”
Townhall.com
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
The Democratic Party’s Existential Identity Crisis
Bob Barr
2/27/2019 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr
The year before what likely will be the most contentious presidential election in modern history is not a good time to suffer an identity crisis; but that is precisely the position in which the Democrats finds themselves right now.
While the Party may try to put on a happy, unified public face in opposing President Donald Trump, the full throes of such an identity crisis are wreaking havoc behind the scenes. To describe it as a conflict of “multiple personalities” would not even explain the half of it. Democrats are in a complete existential meltdown.
Let’s start with a quick overview of where the Democratic Party is today. The two Establishment front runners for the 2020 Presidential Sweepstakes nomination are Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. The first is a former prosecutor criticized by Liberals for having been tough on minorities by locking up gang bangers; the other is a woman who employed what the Left has labelled “cultural appropriation” to portray herself as a minority in order advance her career.
Then there’s the “people’s favorite” (as measured by small donor-fundraising) – Sen. Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian socialist whose popularity soared by rebuking the Democratic establishment, represented by Sens. Harris and Warren.
Things are no easier for Democrats in the House, where an aging Rep. Nancy Pelosi struggles to maintain control over a crop of freshman Members who have made clear their desire to not play by the rules. Tensions bubbled to the surface earlier this month when Pelosi threw a bucket of cold water on Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “hot” Green New Deal. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Pelosi said dismissively.
Jockeying to define the tone and future direction of either of the two major political parties is typical in any presidential election cycle, but the Democratic Party’s current identity crisis goes much deeper. The utter collapse of the Clinton dynasty in 2016 following Barack Obama’s largely rudderless eight years, left a huge vacuum yet to be filled by Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, or anyone else. The glaring albatross around the neck of the national Democratic Party is “what does the Party stand for?”
Taking a cue from previous campaigns, those candidates currently “leading” the Democrat field, have chosen the easier path of defining what they are not, rather than offering a coherent description of what they stand for. Sooner or later, such waffling will catch up to them, but for now it is somewhat amusing to watch them squirm when asked if they are – like Bernie Sanders proudly admits he is – “Democratic Socialists.”
When she recently was asked in New Hampshire to define what a “Democratic Socialist” was — since she recently had declared herself not to be one — Harris demurred, smiled awkwardly and mumbled generalities about the wonderful things she would do if elected president. What should have been an easy declaration that she believes in mainstream and time-honored principles of Democratic presidents past rather than socialism, Harris instead offered a lesson in obfuscation.
Harris’ verbal floundering reveals the rocky shoals awaiting any Democrat who dares advocate even a slightly more mature policy agenda than the “free stuff for everyone” approach being hawked by Sanders and the Ocasio-Cortez youth wing of the Party. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, for example, received a heavy dose of public scorn from her fellow “progressives” recently, when she audaciously expressed a mild level of caution about rushing toward the “Medicare for all” rainbow that has mesmerized so much of the Democrat electorate. And Liberals ripped into Sen. Dianne Feinstein just last week when she lectured a group of school children and their adult chaperones against blindly buying into the absurdly costly and poorly constructed “Green New Deal” they childishly demanded.
In an environment where endorsing even slightly moderate positions is met with immediate and severe scorn, Kamala Harris will not be the last of her Party’s contenders to duck questions that otherwise would force at least a degree of substance and reasoned thought. The real danger in candidates taking such squishy stands is that the policy vacuum stays unfilled, leaving the Democratic Party itself to continue twisting slowly in the wind. Whether the GOP is sufficiently grounded in policy and principles to take advantage of that weakness, however, remains – as always – a very open question.
The year before what likely will be the most contentious presidential election in modern history is not a good time to suffer an identity crisis; but that is precisely the position in which the Democrats finds themselves right now.
While the Party may try to put on a happy, unified public face in opposing President Donald Trump, the full throes of such an identity crisis are wreaking havoc behind the scenes. To describe it as a conflict of “multiple personalities” would not even explain the half of it. Democrats are in a complete existential meltdown.
Let’s start with a quick overview of where the Democratic Party is today. The two Establishment front runners for the 2020 Presidential Sweepstakes nomination are Sens. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. The first is a former prosecutor criticized by Liberals for having been tough on minorities by locking up gang bangers; the other is a woman who employed what the Left has labelled “cultural appropriation” to portray herself as a minority in order advance her career.
Then there’s the “people’s favorite” (as measured by small donor-fundraising) – Sen. Bernie Sanders, a septuagenarian socialist whose popularity soared by rebuking the Democratic establishment, represented by Sens. Harris and Warren.
Things are no easier for Democrats in the House, where an aging Rep. Nancy Pelosi struggles to maintain control over a crop of freshman Members who have made clear their desire to not play by the rules. Tensions bubbled to the surface earlier this month when Pelosi threw a bucket of cold water on Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “hot” Green New Deal. “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Pelosi said dismissively.
Jockeying to define the tone and future direction of either of the two major political parties is typical in any presidential election cycle, but the Democratic Party’s current identity crisis goes much deeper. The utter collapse of the Clinton dynasty in 2016 following Barack Obama’s largely rudderless eight years, left a huge vacuum yet to be filled by Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, or anyone else. The glaring albatross around the neck of the national Democratic Party is “what does the Party stand for?”
Taking a cue from previous campaigns, those candidates currently “leading” the Democrat field, have chosen the easier path of defining what they are not, rather than offering a coherent description of what they stand for. Sooner or later, such waffling will catch up to them, but for now it is somewhat amusing to watch them squirm when asked if they are – like Bernie Sanders proudly admits he is – “Democratic Socialists.”
When she recently was asked in New Hampshire to define what a “Democratic Socialist” was — since she recently had declared herself not to be one — Harris demurred, smiled awkwardly and mumbled generalities about the wonderful things she would do if elected president. What should have been an easy declaration that she believes in mainstream and time-honored principles of Democratic presidents past rather than socialism, Harris instead offered a lesson in obfuscation.
Harris’ verbal floundering reveals the rocky shoals awaiting any Democrat who dares advocate even a slightly more mature policy agenda than the “free stuff for everyone” approach being hawked by Sanders and the Ocasio-Cortez youth wing of the Party. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, for example, received a heavy dose of public scorn from her fellow “progressives” recently, when she audaciously expressed a mild level of caution about rushing toward the “Medicare for all” rainbow that has mesmerized so much of the Democrat electorate. And Liberals ripped into Sen. Dianne Feinstein just last week when she lectured a group of school children and their adult chaperones against blindly buying into the absurdly costly and poorly constructed “Green New Deal” they childishly demanded.
In an environment where endorsing even slightly moderate positions is met with immediate and severe scorn, Kamala Harris will not be the last of her Party’s contenders to duck questions that otherwise would force at least a degree of substance and reasoned thought. The real danger in candidates taking such squishy stands is that the policy vacuum stays unfilled, leaving the Democratic Party itself to continue twisting slowly in the wind. Whether the GOP is sufficiently grounded in policy and principles to take advantage of that weakness, however, remains – as always – a very open question.
FEBRUARY 20, 2019
Democrats Again Chase the Holy Grail of “Universal” Background Checks
Bob Barr
2/20/2019 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr
While establishment Washington remains focused on the growing scoreboard of Democratic presidential wannabes, and the media frets about whether actor Jussie Smollett is a victim of a hate crime or of double-reverse racism, the gun control crowd on the Hill is once again striking out in search of the Holy Grail of gun control – closing the “gun show loophole” and mandating “universal background checks.”
Earlier this month, Democrats in control of the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.” With only a very few exceptions, such as the gifting of firearms between immediate family members, H.R. 8 would mandate all firearm sales and transfers be subject to federal background checks – the “universal background check” long sought by gun control zealots. Of course, as with all zealots, reality plays little role in their crusade.
The notion of mass murder and gun violence fueled by shady transactions in gun show parking lots would be hilarious if not for how deeply embedded this delusion is in the psyche of gun control advocates. The so-called “gun show loophole” has given rise to a generation of mostly Democrat lawmakers (joined by a few Republican outliers like Rep. Peter King of New York) who apparently believe that mandating government-run background checks for every gun transfer not now subject to such requirement, will quickly dry up the pool of firearms available to mass murderers. The ease with which this notion has been debunked repeatedly, however, is lost on these fear merchants.
For starters, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” Although firearm sales between private individuals do not require the use of a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) and the concomitant federal background checks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms makes it clear that there are strict limits to what can be considered a “private sale,” and what then constitutes an individual “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, which requires an FFL. Whether such transactions occur in a private dwelling, a gun show parking lot, or online makes no difference to the ATF; and, punishment for trying to circumvent these regulations includes prison and fines up to $250,000. In other words, the scenario of bad-faith gun sales at gun shows suggested to us by Democrats is already illegal.
Secondly, a review of mass shootings over the last two decades reveals the guns used in these incidents were either legally obtained through purchases from an FFL, illegally stolen from another person, or in several instances the result of failures with existing background check systems. Just last week, for example, the murderer in Aurora, Illinois obtained the firearm with which he murdered five people, from a licensed firearms retailer after he passed a background check he was not supposed to have passed, because of a prior conviction for aggravated assault; but the system failed to flag that disabling incident.
The psychopath behind the 2017 mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas was able to obtain his firearm after the United States Air Force failed to report a domestic violence charge to the FBI (the agency that actually runs the background checks). And, clerical issues with the federal background check allowed the person responsible for the 2015 mass shooting in Charleston to obtain his handgun improperly.
Such errors are tragically commonplace. Yet, rather than conduct hard-nosed oversight hearings about why these repeated failures happen, and then mandate meaningful reforms to the system so it works better, H.R. 8 goes on its merry way to solve a problem that is not really the problem at all. In fact, the legislation may actually make matters worse by adding an even greater burden to a system that is clearly failing.
To top it all off, H.R. 8 would do nothing to prevent or reduce straw purchases, which the ATF says are responsible for nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms. A straw purchase occurs when an individual purchases a firearm not for themselves but for another person, who usually would be unable to pass a required background check if they filled out the mandated paperwork themselves.
The sponsors of H.R. 8 are so busy patting themselves on the back for supporting the Liberal shibboleth of “closing the gun show loophole,” they apparently fail to realize or, even worse, don’t care that prosecuting straw purchases remains a low priority at the ATF. H.R. 8 is silent on that score.
However, tackling the hard issues takes time, commitment, and hard work; such as demanding better performance from the federal agencies right now responsible for the federal background check system, and enforcing the laws already on the books designed to keep guns away from individuals who should not have them. Far easier is it for our men and women in Congress to trumpet a piece of feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing of substance but sounds oh-so-good in a political sound-bite.
While establishment Washington remains focused on the growing scoreboard of Democratic presidential wannabes, and the media frets about whether actor Jussie Smollett is a victim of a hate crime or of double-reverse racism, the gun control crowd on the Hill is once again striking out in search of the Holy Grail of gun control – closing the “gun show loophole” and mandating “universal background checks.”
Earlier this month, Democrats in control of the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 8, the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019.” With only a very few exceptions, such as the gifting of firearms between immediate family members, H.R. 8 would mandate all firearm sales and transfers be subject to federal background checks – the “universal background check” long sought by gun control zealots. Of course, as with all zealots, reality plays little role in their crusade.
The notion of mass murder and gun violence fueled by shady transactions in gun show parking lots would be hilarious if not for how deeply embedded this delusion is in the psyche of gun control advocates. The so-called “gun show loophole” has given rise to a generation of mostly Democrat lawmakers (joined by a few Republican outliers like Rep. Peter King of New York) who apparently believe that mandating government-run background checks for every gun transfer not now subject to such requirement, will quickly dry up the pool of firearms available to mass murderers. The ease with which this notion has been debunked repeatedly, however, is lost on these fear merchants.
For starters, there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole.” Although firearm sales between private individuals do not require the use of a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) and the concomitant federal background checks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms makes it clear that there are strict limits to what can be considered a “private sale,” and what then constitutes an individual “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, which requires an FFL. Whether such transactions occur in a private dwelling, a gun show parking lot, or online makes no difference to the ATF; and, punishment for trying to circumvent these regulations includes prison and fines up to $250,000. In other words, the scenario of bad-faith gun sales at gun shows suggested to us by Democrats is already illegal.
Secondly, a review of mass shootings over the last two decades reveals the guns used in these incidents were either legally obtained through purchases from an FFL, illegally stolen from another person, or in several instances the result of failures with existing background check systems. Just last week, for example, the murderer in Aurora, Illinois obtained the firearm with which he murdered five people, from a licensed firearms retailer after he passed a background check he was not supposed to have passed, because of a prior conviction for aggravated assault; but the system failed to flag that disabling incident.
The psychopath behind the 2017 mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas was able to obtain his firearm after the United States Air Force failed to report a domestic violence charge to the FBI (the agency that actually runs the background checks). And, clerical issues with the federal background check allowed the person responsible for the 2015 mass shooting in Charleston to obtain his handgun improperly.
Such errors are tragically commonplace. Yet, rather than conduct hard-nosed oversight hearings about why these repeated failures happen, and then mandate meaningful reforms to the system so it works better, H.R. 8 goes on its merry way to solve a problem that is not really the problem at all. In fact, the legislation may actually make matters worse by adding an even greater burden to a system that is clearly failing.
To top it all off, H.R. 8 would do nothing to prevent or reduce straw purchases, which the ATF says are responsible for nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms. A straw purchase occurs when an individual purchases a firearm not for themselves but for another person, who usually would be unable to pass a required background check if they filled out the mandated paperwork themselves.
The sponsors of H.R. 8 are so busy patting themselves on the back for supporting the Liberal shibboleth of “closing the gun show loophole,” they apparently fail to realize or, even worse, don’t care that prosecuting straw purchases remains a low priority at the ATF. H.R. 8 is silent on that score.
However, tackling the hard issues takes time, commitment, and hard work; such as demanding better performance from the federal agencies right now responsible for the federal background check system, and enforcing the laws already on the books designed to keep guns away from individuals who should not have them. Far easier is it for our men and women in Congress to trumpet a piece of feel-good legislation that accomplishes nothing of substance but sounds oh-so-good in a political sound-bite.
FEBRUARY 13, 2019
The Muddy Waters of the Supreme Court’s Next Gun Decision
When it comes to the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court moves with the all the dispatch of a giant tortoise; slow, plodding and deliberate. After all, it took the High Court 217 years from the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 to finally figure out in 2008 that its guarantee of a “right to keep and bear arms” did actually apply; in that case, to a resident of the District of Columbia. The Court returned to the same question two years later to affirm this point clearly as against infringement by the government of any one of the 50 states. But in the decade since, it has reverted to its comfort zone and declined to tackle any of the myriad questions left hanging by these two narrow decisions.
That silence finally may be broken, as the justices recently agreed to hear a challenge to one of New York’s many absurdly restrictive gun control laws. Before Second Amendment supporters break out the champagne, however, a few observations from Supreme Court history and procedure are in order.
First, it must be kept in mind that only in the rarest of circumstances will the Court render a decision on other than the narrowest grounds possible. Thus, in its decisions in 2008 (Heller) and 2010 (McDonald), the five justices in the [bare] majority held that neither the District of Columbia government nor that of a state, could enforce laws that were so restrictive that an individual was prevented thereby from possessing a firearm in their home. The Court left for future cases all other aspects of how far the “right to keep and bear arms” extended beyond that narrow situation.
Thus, virtually the entire panoply of questions about what restrictions on the exercise of the Amendment’s guaranteed right would be considered constitutionally “reasonable” remains judicially unanswered.
Second, as an entity of government, once the Supreme Court renders a decision on a question, it will dust its hands of the issue and move on to other problems; revisiting only when unavoidable. (Congress does this all the time.)
Finally, as we know from the 2012 decision by the High Court upholding the individual insurance mandate provision at the heart of the Affordable Care Act, Supreme Court Justices do not always vote as one might expect, or as their prior decisions would suggest. The Obamacare vote made clear that Chief Justice Roberts falls into this category.
So, where does this leave us?
The particular case the Supreme Court decided to consider is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York. The law being challenged is one that is virtually unique in its restrictive provisions; prohibiting the transport of a firearm outside the home to any other location, even to a shooting range and even if the person possesses a State firearm ownership permit.
Presumably – and this is a big presumption – the Court decided to take this New York case because there is a majority of Justices who would rule against the State. But even if this happens, the majority may find, or only have the votes to thus act, on the narrowest of grounds on which to strike down the law; thereby limiting its applicability in effect only to New York pistol permit holders who then could transport their guns to gun ranges. Such an opinion would be cause for little celebration elsewhere or in other circumstances; and it might then put us back in the situation to which the Court decides not to take another Second Amendment case for an extended period.
On the other hand, if Roberts holds true to his professed constitutionalist roots, and if new Associate Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh boldly hold fast to principles reflected to decisions in which they participated while on lower court benches, and if we do not lose Justice Thomas (which would be a shock indeed) or Justice Alito (who authored the McDonald opinion), we might – just might — squeeze out a 5-4 majority opinion that the right to possess a firearm in one’s home, as recognized finally in 2008, extends necessarily to possess that instrument outside the homeplace.
Such a ruling would of course be welcome, but it is by no means the guaranteed result. And even if we turn out to be so lucky, it remains a legitimate question, why, with so many other firearms cases of broader applicability that have been presented to the Supreme Court, it has regularly refused to decide.
In the end, perhaps, we should be happy with even small victories when it comes to so fundamental a right as protecting oneself with a firearm. Still, that remains a constitutionally unsatisfying situation.