Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category
Gabby Giffords’ NYTimes op-ed is disheartening because it’s based mostly on emotional blackmail. Here’s a perfect example of her emotional blackmail:
SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer’s reply puts things in proper perspective :
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The question is: Would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you’re going to make all these emotional appeals — he’s saying you’re betraying the families — you’ve got to show how if this had been law it would’ve stopped Newtown. It would not have. It’s irrelevant.
I wouldn’t have objected, I might’ve gone the way of McCain or Toomey on this, but it’s a kind of emotional blackmail as a way of saying, ‘You have to do it for the children.’ Not if there’s no logic in this. And that I think is what’s wrong with the demagoguery that we’ve heard out of the president on this issue. (Special Report, April 17, 2013)
The Manchin-Toomey Amendment wouldn’t have prevented the tragic shootings in Newtown, CT or Aurora, CO. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was the last part of President Obama’s sweeping gun control legislation still left standing.
The rest of the Obama-Feinstein bill went up in flames because people noticed that the Obama-Feinstein bill wouldn’t have prevented these shootings. For once, the American people insisted on genuine solutions to real problems. They rejected the Democrats’ surely-we-must-do-something legislating style.
The American people said that we don’t have to do something if it isn’t a solution. Doing something for the sake of doing something is mostly about people feeling guilty.
Here’s more from Ms. Giffords’ diatribe:
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
Expanded background checks wouldn’t have prevented Newtown. It wouldn’t have prevented the Tuscon shooting. Both shooters, Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner, had mental health issues.
Rather than focusing on mental health issues, the gun confiscation crowd focused on confiscating guns:
The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.
Dianne Feinstein attempted to use the same emotional blackmail in justifying her legislation. Thankfully, Sen. Cruz, (R-TX), stopped that emotional blackmail dead in its tracks. Sen. Feinstein attempted to justify her gun confiscation legislation by talking about seeing a mayor shot down.
Horrific events don’t give people permission to ignore the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein and Ms. Giffords don’t agree with that principle. Their approach is to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Finally, this is disgusting:
Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo, desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation, to go on.
Shame on Ms. Giffords. The “gun lobby” that she’s decrying are mostly made up of ordinary citizens paying $35 a year for membership. These aren’t high-powered K Street lobbyists. They’re your neighbors and co-workers.
As for “the wrong these senators have done,” they voted against an amendment that wouldn’t have solved any problems. God help us if we think voting no on amendments that don’t solve problems is a wrong that needs correcting.
Tags: Gabby Giffords, Dianne Feinstein, Emotional Blackmail, Andrew Cuomo, Gun Confiscation, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, Newtown Massacre, Mental Health, Democrats, Second Amendment, Ted Cruz, NRA, Bill of Rights, Constitution
Thursday night, I was flipping through the channels at about 10:30. Lou Dobbs was discussing gun violence with Bill O’Reilly so I thought I’d take a moment to hear what they’d have to say.
O’Reilly said that background checks were good but that it was necessary for legal gun owners to register guns. Then he said something that frightened me and angered Dobbs. O’Reilly said that there should be a law that gave a 10 year mandatory sentence to people who didn’t register their guns. Here’s O’Reilly’s explanation/’justification’ for his law:
O’REILLY: But if you had the registration and the cops went out and stopped and frisked and grabbed the gun, that’s a 10 year penalty.
Later, he said that this would be done as a preventative measure. There’s just one sticky problem with O’Reilly’s law. It’s unconstitutional. The first time it got challenged in the Supreme Court, it’d be ruled unconstitutional with a near-unanimous vote. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches of this kind. Here’s the text of the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I’m not a constitutional attorney but I’d argue that requiring probable cause to be proven prohibits ‘preventative searches’.
Imagine police being able to search a person without obtaining a warrant. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, law officers would be able to go anywhere and search for anything at any time for any reason. That isn’t American. That’s what Third World dictators do in a police state. It’s what they did in the former Soviet Union or Saddam’s Iraq. It’s what they’re doing in China and North Korea.
I don’t doubt that Mr. O’Reilly’s intentions are sincere. There’s no question in my mind that he genuinely wants to protect children from gun violence. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. O’Reilly is a reactionary. He doesn’t think things through. It isn’t likely that he ever will.
Democrats defensively say that they’re defending the Second Amendment but that isn’t the truth. If they were, they wouldn’t make the statements like this:
“What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners’ right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?” he asked.
The true test of whether Democrats are advocates of a citizen’s right to protect himself, his family or his business is whether they’ll fight for Chicago shopkeepers’ rights to protect themselves with a handgun. Unless they’re willing to tell fanatics like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg, John Hickenlooper and Andrew Cuomo that their policies are anti-constitutional and dangerous, then Democrats shouldn’t be given credibility during Second Amendment conversations.
I’m not interested in finding ‘common ground’ with Constitution-hating zealots like Andrew Cuomo or Rahm Emanuel. Politicians like them are far beyond the mainstream on the Second Amendment. If they want to admit that they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment and that they’re changing their position by 180 degrees, then there’s room to talk. If they aren’t willing to change their position, there isn’t much to talk about.
When Rep. Paymar and Rep. Hausman introduced their gun grab legislation, they thought they’d get sweeping (that’s code for unconstitutional) legislation signed into law by a smiling Gov. Dayton. Then reality set in. Rural DFL legislators started saying no in droves. Pretty soon, the discussion shifted to closing the mythical ‘gun show loophole’. Then it shifted to background checks.
The problem with background checks is that they aren’t that straightforward. That’s best illustrated in this exchange between Chris Wallace and Gabby Giffords’ husband:
WALLACE: Captain Kelly, what do you think that showed?
KELLY: Well, you know, we went in there, my executive director and ours, the executive of our organization, and in five minutes and 36 seconds is the time it took to fill out one piece of paper. You only have to fill out one side and for it to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and get an answer. Five minutes and 36 seconds.
So, what it shows you is that it is not the burden that the NRA leadership says, what a background check is. I mean, it’s a simple, common sense thing we can do to make sure the criminals and the mentally ill can’t have access to firearms.
WALLACE: Well, let’s talk about that, because in Gabby’s tragic case, the shooter, Jared Loughner, had been suspended from college because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and to others. He went to a gun store, he got a gun, passed a background check. And, yet he was able then of course to go out and shoot Gabby and 18 other people.
And, the NRA says the problem, the problem with the background check is that, the kind of mental health information, for instance in Loughner’s case, doesn’t get passed on, so it doesn’t get to be part of the background check.
Noel Sheppard’s commentary is noteworthy:
Not surprisingly, much of the media are ignorant of something called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which established very strict security guidelines concerning the dissemination of individual health records.
Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights announced that it will soon publish a request for information on barriers related to HIPAA that could prevent states from making certain information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
In other words, HIPAA’s security provisions make background checks ineffective. The background check legislation would make legislators think that they’ve done something without doing anything meaningful.
That’s typical surely-we-must-do-something legislation. In the activists’ minds, it isn’t whether the legislation solves a problem. It’s important because it shows ‘we cared enough to do something’. It’s time politicians figured it out that people want solutions. People aren’t interested in busywork legislation that doesn’t make their lives better.
It’s understandable that Capt. Kelly is a gun control activist. His wife was nearly killed by a gun-wielding violent man. That said, we shouldn’t pass legislation based solely on a person’s emotional experiences. Legislation should be written after going through a thoughtful analysis of what will improve public safety within the limits of the Constitution.
Whether it’s federal gun control legislation that Capt. Kelly prefers or whether it’s legislation crafted by Reps. Paymar and Housman, gun control is a tricky issue complicated by HIPAA and the Bill of Rights.
This video shows how in the tank and/or stupid MSNBC is about the Constitution:
Here’s what Andrea Mitchell said about the shootout at the I’m not a sixth grader corral:
I brought my handy pocket Constitution with me today just to make the point that this (the fight between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein) was not a fair fight because Ted Cruz thought that, somehow, he was going to take on Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who began her career in politics facing the bloodshed in San Francisco when she was elevated to become the mayor after the assassinations there.
Ms. Mitchell is a blowhard and a political hack. Notice that she didn’t address the arguments Sen. Cruz made in belittling Sen. Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee. Here’s that video:
Here’s what Sen. Cruz said that ripped Sen. Feinstein’s arguments to shreds:
My fourth and final point is that the Constitution should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws and it’s up to the courts to determine constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the Constitution and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body.
There has been a suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out that I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case, having been an active part in litigating and winning it 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court said in Heller — it did say there are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissable. For example, it specifically identified the current ban on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as, in that case handguns were the principle issue being discussed, and the same arguments that are being suggested about why assault weapons could be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller why handguns could be banned.
The Supreme Court said “No, if they’re in common use for self defense, they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.” We have heard testimony that there are some 4,000,000 weapons that would be covered by this legislation. I would suggest that, by any measure, 4,000,000 weapons qualifies as common use. So, under the terms in Heller, they can not be constitutionally prohibited.
Mitchell’s argument is based totally on the logic that Sen. Feinstein has been in DC a long time. She’s the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Therefore, she wins the fight. Sen. Cruz’s argument is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller, which dealt with Washington, DC’s ban on handguns.
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled DC’s handgun ban unconstitutional because it infringes on people’s right to defend themselves and their families. That’s consistent with the plain language of the Second Amendment.
If Ms. Mitchell wants to argue against SCOTUS’ ruling in Heller, she has to argue against the plain language of the Second Amendment. That’s an uphill fight at best.
Sen. Feinstein’s argument, if it can even be classified as such, isn’t based on the Constitution. It’s based on the time-tested liberal axiom of “Surely, we must do something.” That axiom isn’t rooted in thinking things through. It’s based on emotion, which is basing policy on the shakiest of grounds.
Ms. Mitchell is right in the sense that this wasn’t a fair fight. Sen. Feinstein was overmatched by the freshman Republican who knew substantially more about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It’s pretty embarrassing when a freshman schools a committee chair on the chair’s supposed area of expertise. That’s what happened, though. That’s because Sen. Feinstein didn’t think about the rights protected by the Constitution. Conversely, Sen. Cruz had an intimate and thorough understanding of the Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling.
What’s most delightful is that the best is yet to come. Sen. Feinstein’s bill doesn’t stand a fighting chance in the Senate. I’d bet that Republicans won’t filibuster Sen. Feinstein’s bill because they’ll want vulnerable Democrats to vote on Sen. Feinstein’s bill.
The confrontation between Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Cruz showed how little respect Sen. Feinstein has for the Bill of Rights. When she told Sen. Cruz that she “isn’t a sixth-grader“, she guaranteed tons of publicity for her bill. Here’s the key exchange between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein:
“Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” Cruz said, speaking to Feinstein.
“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures, could properly apply only to the following specified individuals, and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the law?”
Pointing her finger and glaring at Cruz, Feinstein shot back.
“One, I’m not a sixth grader,” Feinstein said. “Senator, I’ve been on this Committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in and I saw people shot with these weapons.
“I’m not a lawyer,” she added, “but after 20 years, I’ve been up close and personal with the Constitution. I have great respect for it. … So I, you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.”
“I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit — you used the word ‘prohibit’ – it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high-powered weapons that other people use in close combat? I don’t think so.”
First, Sen. Feinstein apparently thinks that it’s ok to infringe upon people’s rights to defend themselves. Second, it’s apparent that Sen. Feinstein thinks there’s a secret exception to the Second Amendment, one where it’s ok to prohibit the manufacture of certain types of weapons as long as a pompous senator “saw people shot with” the weapons she wants banned.
Using Sen. Feinstein’s logic, she’d be fine with banning the manufacture of handguns, too. In fact, handguns kill more people than so-called assault weapons by a huge margin.
What’s frightening is Sen. Feinstein’s criteria for violating the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein thinks anything that looks frightening should be banned. Sen. Feinstein apparently didn’t pay attention to the SCOTUS rulings on the DC and Chicago bans on handguns. The text of the Second Amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Passing laws that prohibit the manufacture of certain types of guns is infringing on the people’s right to protect themselves.
What’s most frightening isn’t that Sen. Feinstein isn’t smarter than a sixth grader. It’s that she doesn’t respect the clearly written text of the Bill of Rights.
Bill Kristol’s article misses the point of Rand Paul’s filibuster. First, here’s part of what Kristol wrote about Paul’s filibuster:
On the other hand, Paul’s political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafés? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won’t they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.
This totally misreads what Rand Paul did. Sen. Paul’s filibuster was about defending the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. Had Eric Holder said that presidents don’t have the constitutional authority to use a drone-fired missile on a US citizen on US soil, the filibuster never would’ve happened. If Mr. Kristol thinks that that qualifies Sen. Paul for the “Code Pink faction of the Republican Party”, he’d better quickly rethink that opinion.
The rest of Kristol’s paragraph is based on his misreading of Sen. Paul’s filibuster. Actually, it isn’t implausible to think that playing to the TEA Party “faction of the Republican Party” is a smart tactic for winning in 2016. That’s what Sen. Paul’s filibuster was about. Finally, there’s someone willing to stand up for the Constitution. Finally, there’s a Republican who’s willing to cut spending.
The past 2 weeks have been horrific weeks for President Obama. He tried intimidating the Republicans into another tax increase. He tried peddling the notion that reducing the size of the increase by $44,000,000,000 would cause poor children to starve, airplanes to drop from the sky and meat inspections to end until further notice.
And that’s before he cancelled White House tours that he said were the result of sequestration’s draconian cuts. Sen. Coburn and Sen. Lee have done a masterful job of highlighting the billions of dollars of wasteful spending in this year’s budget. While they were challenging President Obama on sequestration, Sen. Paul was challenging the Obama administration on the commander-in-chief’s authorities granted by the US Constitution.
As a result of these senators’ challenges, President Obama looks weaker than he did a month ago. His job approval ratine shows it, having dropped from 55% to 46%.
As for Sens. Cruz, Lee, Rubio, Toomey, Paul and Johnson, I’d argue that they’re part of the ‘picking smart fights faction of the GOP’. That’s the wing of the GOP that I’ll enthusiastically associate with.
Tags: Drone Strikes, President Obama, Eric Holder, Code Pink, Democrats, US Constitution, Rand Paul, Tom Coburn, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Pat Toomey, Sequester This, Not That, TEA Party, GOP, Election 2016
Juan Williams and Mary Katherine Ham normally get along with each other. This morning, Juan Williams accused Mary Katherine Ham of not caring about victims of violent crime:
Here’s the spiciest exchange:
MKH: It’s fairly clear that this wouldn’t help in these situations, that very little gun crime comes from the things you’re trying to regulate. Those things only impact people who are already law abiding and that’s what we’re talking about. You can’t just pass laws…well, people do all the time, unfortunately, but federal laws shouldn’t be passed, saying “Well, it might work.”
JUAN WILLIAMS: I live in the District of Columbia and I can tell you theey have extremely strong gun control laws and yet we have a very high murder rate. And why is that? Because guns flow in from Virginia, which has lax gun laws.
MKH: We have lots of guns in Virginia and yet, we don’t have a high murder rate so maybe there’s a deeper social problem going on than lone gunmen and gangs and crime in big cities.
JUAN WILLIAMS: Oh so protecting my life and protecting my family means nothing to people in Virginia and I should….?
MKH: Oh, right. That’s what I said, Juan.
Here’s a hint to Juan Williams. Perhaps it’s better to live in cities where you can protect yourself. If you don’t want to move, then get DC to change their laws.
Saying that MKH doesn’t care about Juan Williams protecting his family is downright irresponsible. That’s as irresponsible as MKH saying that Juan Williams doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. It wouldn’t be difficult to make a case that Juan Williams doesn’t put a high enough priority on protecting people’s Second Amendment rights. That wouldn’t make it easy to make the case that Juan Williams doesn’t care about the Bill of Rights.
In the end, Juan hinted that he planned on apologizing to MKH after the interview. To her credit, Mary Katherine Ham didn’t lose her cool despite Juan’s ill-advised accusations.
President Obama touted his gun confiscation agenda during his visit to Minneapolis Monday. One of the first things he touted was his call to ban “military-style assault weapons.”
He later said that it was time to limit clips to no more than 10 rounds. President Obama’s advance team didn’t do their homework because Rep. Michael Paymar has introduced HF241, which would define assault weapon as:
Subd. 7. Semiautomatic military-style Assault weapon. “Semiautomatic
1.17military-style Assault weapon” means any:
1.18(1) any of the following firearms:
1.19(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK-47) semiautomatic rifle type;
1.20(ii) Beretta AR-70 and BM-59 semiautomatic rifle types;
1.21(iii) Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle type;
1.22(iv) Daewoo Max-1 and Max-2 semiautomatic rifle types;
1.23(v) Famas MAS semiautomatic rifle type;
1.24(vi) Fabrique Nationale FN-LAR and FN-FNC semiautomatic rifle types;
2.1(vii) Galil semiautomatic rifle type;
2.2(viii) Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, and HK-94 semiautomatic rifle types;
2.3(ix) Ingram MAC-10 and MAC-11 semiautomatic pistol and carbine types;
2.4(x) Intratec TEC-9 semiautomatic pistol type;
2.5(xi) Sigarms SIG 550SP and SIG 551SP semiautomatic rifle types;
2.6(xii) SKS with detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle type;
2.7(xiii) Steyr AUG semiautomatic rifle type;
2.8(xiv) Street Sweeper and Striker-12 revolving-cylinder shotgun types;
2.9(xv) USAS-12 semiautomatic shotgun type;
2.10(xvi) Uzi semiautomatic pistol and carbine types; or
2.11(xvii) Valmet M76 and M78 semiautomatic rifle types;
2.12(2) any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the
2.13firearms listed in clause (1), and has the same action design as one of the listed firearms,
2.14and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed in clause
2.15(1), or has a slight modification or enhancement, including but not limited to a folding or
2.16retractable stock; adjustable sight; case deflector for left-handed shooters; shorter barrel;
2.17wooden, plastic, or metal stock; larger clip size; different caliber; or a bayonet mount; and
2.18(3) any firearm that has been manufactured or sold by another company under a
2.19licensing agreement with a manufacturer of one of the firearms listed in clause (1) entered
2.20into after the effective date of Laws 1993, chapter 326, to manufacture or sell firearms that
2.21are identical or nearly identical to those listed in clause (1), or described in clause (2),
2.22regardless of the company of production or country of origin.
2.23The weapons listed in clause (1), except those listed in items (iii), (ix), (x), (xiv),
2.24and (xv), are the weapons the importation of which was barred by the Bureau of Alcohol,
2.25Tobacco, and Firearms of the United States Department of the Treasury in July 1989.
2.26Except as otherwise specifically provided in paragraph (d), a firearm is not a
2.27″semiautomatic military-style assault weapon” if it is generally recognized as particularly
2.28suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes under United States Code, title 18,
2.29section 925, paragraph (d)(3), or any regulations adopted pursuant to that law.
2.30(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
2.31has one or more of the following:
2.32(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
2.33(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the
2.35(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
3.1(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the
3.2barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
3.3burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
3.4(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a
3.5fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition
During his speech, as with all his speeches, President Obama said that his political opponents are attempting to gin up fear with talk of confiscating guns. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” President Obama said. While Rep. Paymar didn’t use the term confiscate in his legislation, banning semi-automatic pistols that have standard issue clips is confiscation. As such, it doesn’t stand a chance of passing constitutional muster in the SCOTUS:
Under Heller and McDonald, it is settled that Americans have a constitutional right to possess handguns for purposes of self-defense. The overwhelming majority of handguns in the United States are semiautomatics. A semiautomatic handgun is essentially inoperable without a magazine. (I suppose you could put a single bullet in the chamber and use the gun like an old-fashioned derringer, but that would reduce its value for self-defense to close to the vanishing point. [UPDATE: As a commenter points out, even that wouldn't work with the many pistols that have magazine safeties.]) The vast majority of magazines have more than a seven-bullet capacity. There are some small pistols designed for concealed carry with magazines that limited, but any ordinary-sized pistol comes with a magazine that will hold at least ten bullets, and usually more. So a magazine that holds more than seven bullets is not “high capacity,” it is “standard capacity.”
President Obama didn’t criticize Rep. Paymar’s gun confiscation legislation during his visit to highlight the legislature’s gun confiscation hearings this week at the Capitol.
By not criticizing Rep. Paymar’s legislation, he’s opening himself up to speculation that he’s ok with confiscating semi-automatic pistols. Couple his legislative agenda to ban scary-looking weapons with his not speaking out against Chicago’s ban of handguns and it’s pretty clear that President Obama isn’t opposed to banning handguns.
This letter to the CEOs of gun manufacturers Sturm, Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson and the CEOs of TDBank and Bank of America is a delight to read:
What’s even better is Sen. Cruz’s shot at Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel:
Finally, to Mayor Emanuel, you recently were obliged to pay over $1.1 million of taxpayer money in legal fees due to your unsuccessful assault on the Second Amendment. And your city’s longstanding policies stripping your citizens of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms have, in turn, produced some of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation.
Your continued anti-gun crusade may well cause some to wonder if the interests of the citizens of Chicago are being sacrificed in pursuit of a partisan agenda.
Regardless, directing your attacks at legitimate firearms manufacturers undermines the Second Amendment rights of millions of Texans. In the future, I would ask that you keep your efforts to diminish the Bill of Rights north of the Red River.
Sen. Cruz is the next rising star in the GOP. What’s fantastic about him is that a) he doesn’t get intimidated, b) he knows the Constitution, c) he’s willing to challenge Constitution-hating bullies like Emanuel and d) he fights for law-abiding companies.
Rahm Emanuel is foolish for picking this fight. Sen. Cruz isn’t just right on this issue. I’ve seen video of him debating. He’s very quick on his feet in that setting. He’s the last guy Emanuel should pick a fight with.