Topic: Gun control beaten back again; now what?
Gun control beaten back again; now what?
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) chats with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) about yesterday’s gun control votes in the Senate.
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images
Yesterday’s quadruple failure of four different gun control measures in the Senate was virtually a foregone conclusion, and it happened only a day after anti-gun Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) virtually acknowledged to ABC This Week that discussing why yesterday’s measures would not have prevented Orlando would be falling “into that trap.”
So, it is “a trap” to publicly admit that proposals Murphy and his gun prohibitionist colleagues were pushing would not have prevented Orlando, or, for that matter, Sandy Hook? People should take a step back and analyze what Murphy blurted: “We can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy.”
Now is a good time to ask Murphy “Why not?” If gun control proponents can’t be forced to defend their proposals, which are typically in response to some recent tragedy, should the public believe that these proposals are indefensible?
Yesterday’s Senate votes are already being used by the gun prohibition lobby to raise money. The Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility launched an email beg-a-thon late yesterday afternoon. Declaring that “The politicians in Washington, D.C. are a disgrace to the memory of the 49 victims in Orlando and the 89 people across the country who die from gun violence every day,” the group is asking for contributions ranging upwards from $5.
That was just for starters. But the fund raising effort is a signal of what will happen next. Anti-gun politicians running for re-election this fall will use yesterday’s votes as a campaign issue. Republicans could point to the votes as a victory over “rush-to-judgment” legislation that would have trampled not only on the Second Amendment, but on the Fifth Amendment’s due process provision, and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of justice.
“We can’t get into the trap in which we are forced to defend our proposals simply because it didn’t stop the last tragedy.”—Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) on ABC This Week
Losing one’s Second Amendment rights without a criminal charge, trial or due process steps all over someone’s right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” and “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Nobody knows how you get on a watch list or off a watch list, or why your name is added.
As Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, explained to WND over the weekend, “You have no way of knowing you’re on the ‘no fly-no buy list.’ You go to purchase a firearm to protect your Second Amendment rights. All of a sudden, you don’t have that right anymore, and you can’t even figure out how your name got on the list, and there’s no legal way to get your name off the list. You lose your rights forever, and you didn’t even do anything. That’s very un-American.”
Perhaps Sen. Murphy, or the legislation’s prime sponsor, anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein, might consider it “falling into a trap” if they were asked to explain why they’re so eager to deny someone’s Second Amendment rights based merely on suspicion.
Following yesterday’s votes, National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris Cox issued a statement. It was hardly complimentary to gun control proponents.
“Today, the American people witnessed an embarrassing display in the United States Senate,” he said. “President Obama and his allies proved they are more interested in playing politics than addressing their failure to keep Americans safe from the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.
“We all agree that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms,” Cox continued. “We should all agree that law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a secret government list should not be denied their constitutional right to due process. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. It is shocking that the safety of the American people is taking a backseat to political theatre.”
“This is one of the greatest abandonments of the American public by the political class and their media elite enablers that I’ve ever seen,” LaPierre said. “They all know this is a terrorism issue. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about their failures. This is an embarrassment to them. So they want to divert attention and say ‘Hey, this is all gun control.’ It is tragic that we’re not having a discussion of terrorism and how we protect this country.”
There is reportedly a compromise package in the works, but is that really what Democrats want? More likely, they want a campaign issue that, as LaPierre contended, diverts public attention away from the failures of the Obama administration – of which Hillary Clinton was a major part as the Secretary of State – to prevent the spread of terrorism.
The compromise legislation is reportedly being discussed today, and Gottlieb said that while “it appears to be a step in the right direction…the devil is always in the details.” He said the “No-Fly” list is a mess, and that some people who didn’t belong on the list have been stuck in a legal quagmire, trying to get off of it.
Expect gun control to remain an issue. Clinton has carried the gun control flag for the past year as part of her presidential campaign. Yesterday’s vote plays right into her agenda. That’s all the more reason for Second Amendment activists to be prepared to vote, not just for president, but to elect a pro-rights Congress.
Republicans and Democrats meet next month to formally name their standard bearers. The next four months are going to be lively.