Gun Control the new Jim Crow

John Steinreich has a piece up at American Thinker today that takes as its thesis that Gun Control is the New Jim Crow. Only the enemies of the Left are not merely poor blacks, whom their policies routinely kill in record numbers through abortion and inner city crime, but have expanded to Christians, gun ownwes, NRA members and...well...the list is long, let's leave it at that. Steinreich:

Like vultures, the gun-grabbing left (including the full body politic of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives) has pounced on the awful death scene in Orlando in the wake of the most heinous Islamic jihad attack on America since 9/11 in order to conduct its latest sickening feast at the trough of human suffering. Demonstrating once again an utter inability to modulate their views according to the facts, which in this case should have awakened liberal America to the very real and present danger of Muslim terrorism, leftists instead have chosen for the umpteenth time to ignore the bellicose ideology of the Islamic canon that propelled the murderer to do his despicable deed. Doggedly persistent in their straw man arguments against gun rights, leftists revel in foisting blame for this act of war against our nation on law-abiding gun owners, the NRA, Republicans, Donald Trump, Christians, and the Constitution. Their willful ignorance of history, their disdain for liberty, and their gross misuse of the victims and the grieving families in order to pursue their hate-America, anti-Second Amendment agenda is beyond disgraceful.

Once again we see gun grabbers figuratively dancing in the blood of victims, which is unseemly. Add to it the fact that our Representatives chose to take a common street action move, the sit in, on the floor of the House of Representatives, shows their utter disdain for American republicanism, the Constitution, and the people they represent. But how does all this tie in with Jim Crow? For that, Steinreich takes us on a trip through history:

When the Second Amendment was enacted, the ordinary citizens of each state served as a de facto "well-regulated militia," which checked the potential advances against civil liberties by an avaricious central government. There was little need for crime prevention departments or standing armies in America's founding period because those first Americans took responsibility for the policing and defense of their own communities. But the left argues: because our 21st-century society currently has well developed professional police forces, those 19th-century militias are unneeded; there's a cop just a phone call away, so what does the Second Amendment actually do for us now other than to give ne'er-do-wells a legal right to get a killing tool?

...snip...

The irrationality of the left's position on guns is put into stark relief when juxtaposed against their vicious anti-police attitude. On one hand, the left demands a the disarming of the general public so that only trained law enforcement professionals on the public payroll have guns, and on the other hand, they lambaste the police as a uniformly racist, anti-minority posse eager, willing, and able to shoot to kill unarmed African-American men because of their skin color. If we understand the Second Amendment as a hedge against government tyranny, would it not make sense for minorities to have legal access to firearms to protect themselves against the Klan-like men in blue patrolling minority neighborhoods, salivating over the opportunity to pick off the first available black man?

Furthermore, are not thousands of young black men and women in these neighborhoods dying on an annual basis at the hands of lawbreakers who have no regard whatsoever for gun laws? Since the police themselves present a threat to black Americans, shouldn't the innocent citizens in minority communities have the right to arm themselves against the urban terrorists who shoot and murder them at will? Ask the families of Jamiel Shaw and Hadiya Pendleton if they wish they could turn back the hands of time in order to put a firearm in their hands when these innocent teens were murdered in cold blood by violent gang members while merely walking through their own neighborhoods. Such killings mean nothing to the left other than to serve as a cudgel against the constitutional right to bear arms.

And there we are.  Modern day Jim Crow.  But go read how we got here, because it is an interesting story in and of itself.  I had always thought that the Second Amendment should be supported by both the Left and Right, since either side could become tyrannical.  But if you think about it, the side that wants to eliminate your right to keep and bear arms wont abide by those laws.  Neither should you.

Christianity and Islam: Day and Night

Glenn Fairman has an article today over at the American Thinker  today entitled The Jihadi's Dilemma that effectively shows the difference between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. While most people's idea of fundamentalist Christianity is the "hand wavers" and the snake handlers, I contend that it is Orthodox Christians. The article is somewhat long, and the style is decidedly literary, but it is worth the read. Fairman:

It is in the curious paradox of fundamentalism that the twin monotheistic religions of the planet Earth distance themselves. For the humanity that embraces each, their spiritual and temporal fates mimic their founders’ first principles. The more like Jesus a man is, the better sort of man he becomes, while the emulator of Mohammad’s deeds is heir to the burdens of: pride, savagery, discrimination, injustice, and fatalism -- fundamental Islam’s quintet of anxious alienation. Conversely, men whose spiritual arc travels away from Christ’s virtues find themselves materialistic, hedonistic, self-absorbed, and bound to the cares of a world that is even now passing away.

Too many people, put off by the radical morality of the one religion, and by the deliberate misunderstanding of the other, draw a moral equivalence between the two. But make no mistake, the moral equivalence is an illusion. Christ offers the radical interpretation of moral precepts to show us that in our natural state, we have already been convicted. But then if offers a way out: Follow Him, become His disciple. Pick up your cross and follow Him. Turn over your life and your will to Him, and your life will be amazing,  What does Muhammad offer? Myriad rules which the devotee must follow, and can never know if he has been saved. The follower of Islam must submit to his cold, angry moon god, and hope to be taken to his heavenly reward of endless virgins. We are left to guess what heaven is like for the virgins, or the wives for that matter, who, like Stockholm victims are often the ones who instill this nonsense into little boys.

Fairman starts his essay with a question:

I wonder if in the cool and quiet of the evening, long after the muezzin’s final call to prayer, the jihadi mulls over the actions he either perpetrates or gives assent to in the name of his cold and distant deity? Does he pray as I do? Does he attempt to strip off the veneer of self-righteousness that whitewashes the ego and feeds that most loathsome core of sinful pride? Does he really believe that the acts of immolating an iron cage filled with Yazidi girls or smashing the skulls of children in their mothers’ arms renders him as a shining pearl -- a holy offering to his god? Is the immersion of perceived apostates in a fountain of acid or the crucifixion of Christians in the town square – in full view of their own young children -- proof of some iron semblance of moral superiority? Does he ever get beyond the rote babble to a place where he wonders – far beyond the wary eyes of his dead-eyed brethren: "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" "And if I am the latter, then what manner of hellish Master do I serve?"

What sort of hellish master indeed? But the devotee of Islam dare not ask, for if he does, he risks hellfire from his inscrutable boss.  Contrast that with the patience of the Creator of the Universe, who even before man came into existence, had already prepared His plan of Salvation to reconcile fallen man to Himself.  Fairman makes the differences clear for those who want to see.

House Democrats Cynically Use Orlando Shooting as a Fundraising Opportunity

So, now it comes out why the Democrats were having a sit in on the House floor. They wanted money, and were cynically using the sit in as a fund raising gag. Of course there were no votes to be done, so this was just a publicity stunt. Paul Ryan was probably right not to have them dragged off the floor, no doubt in front of the cameras. That would have just made it worse.

The Lying Liars who Lie constantly, and the Republicans who enable them

Two posts today deal with the "No Fly, No Buy" meme that has popped up all of a sudden in the media.  No doubt the media folk think this is very clever, and in a sophomoric way, I suppose it is. There is just one problem.  The proposal takes away our fundamental rights as listed in the Bill of Rights, and of course puts to the lie the Supreme Courts belief in the idea that if the legislature does it, it must be Constitutional.

First up will be the more staid, lawyerly post of Judge Andrew Napolitano writing over at Townhall entitled No Fly, No Buy Means No Freedom. Even Grassley's amendment to the bill is not enough due process, but at least it meets Napolitano's criteria of having to come into court and proving to a judge that you should be kept from buying a gun. The problem is that you still have to hire an attorney to give your side of the case and dispute the prosecutors. That Democrats don't even want to be bothered with this amount of due process says they just want the guns, and don't give them any lip over it.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights and when the inalienability of our rights was codified in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the United States was wedded to the Judeo-Christian principle that our rights stem from our humanity. This was expressly recognized recently by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it held that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental personal right, not a gift of the government to a group.

A fundamental personal right is the natural ability of individuals to make meaningful choices without a government permission slip. May the government ever interfere with fundamental rights? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that it can only do so if it can demonstrate a compelling governmental interest -- served by the least restrictive means, and only after due process.

Stated differently, if the government wants to silence your speech or deny you the right to self-defense, it must meet a very high burden in a public courtroom. It must demonstrate to a judge and jury that its need to silence or disarm you is compelling, and its goals may not be attained by any lesser means. Americans need not demonstrate a compelling need to speak or bear arms; the government must demonstrate a compelling need to prevent us from doing so.

Emhpasis is mine.

Now, recall how Obama kept saying that no one wants to take away your guns.  Obviously a lie. Which brings us to the other post today by Kurt Schlicter enitled They will never lie away our God given rights. While I look at some of this as political theatre, designed to rev up their base because, let's face it. Hillary is just not that exciting, this sort of lying makes me want to go out a buy an AR-15 even if I have no use for one.

On June 20, 2016, this mainstream media maven tweeted, “Guns don't kill people. The gun lobby does.”

This is a lie.

Sen. Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, is also a liar. On June 20, 2016, after voting against Sen. John Cornyn’s bill to bar persons on terrorist watch lists from buying weapons because it contained due process protections for such people, he said, “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”

This is also a lie.

These men are liars. And liberals have chosen to celebrate their lies.

Schlicter goes on to state that:

Now, it is generally good policy to attribute false statements to stupidity instead of malice. It is very easy to unintentionally say something that is untrue, whether because of haste, ignorance, or a simple brain-mouth discombobulation. But standard issue stupidity does not explain these statements. They are simply too transcendently false to be mere error. In fact, as Murphy admits, they are deliberate attempts to achieve a political result that liberals cannot achieve through honesty.

They are lies. Conscious, deliberate lies offered not by some random idiot on the street but the senior political columnist at National Journal and by a sitting United States senator. Their provenance as planned prevarications is beyond debate. As a matter of objective reality, the “gun lobby” has never killed anyone. It has never murdered even 1/49th the number of people the adherent of the radical branch of The Religion That Must Not Be Named did in one night in Orlando. Nor have the Senate Republicans ever decided to sell a single weapon to ISIS. We normal people have a word for such inaccurate statements made knowing they are inaccurate. That word is “lie.”

And the worst of it is that some in the Republican party are doing the Democrats' bidding. Susan Collins and Kelly Ayotte have a "compromise" that would take away our rights, and as "due process" demand that we on our own initiative, and at our own expense, would have to prove to Government that we are indeed worthy to have these rights. Talk about a reversal of the burden of proof. They would turn God given rights into Government issued privileges.  And all of this because an unknown and unelected bureaucrat placed your name on a secret list.  What is to prevent them from placing all the names of NRA members on the list?.  And even by the Democrats' own admission, "No Fly, No Buy" would have done nothing to stop any of the mass shootings.

Update: This from the WaPo  Gun control backers are really really sick of playing nice to which David Codrea over at the War on Guns writes "Us too." Heh.

Two...no Three Posts Today on Guns

There are two unconnected posts, that I want to highlight.  Both deal with gun control.  Both are unexpected, though welcome additional voices in the fight to maintain gun rights here at home.

First up is a piece by a trans gendered male who joined the Pink Pistols, entitled Pink Pistols: We're Here, We're Geared, Get Used To It! in which he presents some very practical advice for anyone who is different, and in the end, isn't that really everyone? I have always maintained that the active homosexual lifestyle goes against God's word. But I do not hate gays. Indeed, I have friends who are gay. One can disapprove of the behavior but love the person. In any case, as a practical matter, homosexuals need to be armed to deal with people who would kill them. I have been aware of the Pink Pistols for many years, and I hope Orlando helps them to publicize their group because they desperately need it.

Let’s imagine a different scenario in Orlando. Let’s say 10 percent of bar-goers that night were CCW holders and half of them were armed. That’s about 15 armed people already inside the club. The shooting happened fast, maybe too fast to have stopped it midway through. But after the initial shooting, what if half of those 15 people survived, and upon realizing what happened, fought back? Could innocent people have been hit? Yes. But could the gunman have been taken down? Yes. Ask yourself how many of those people would still be alive if they’d gotten immediate medical attention.

0I used to have reservations about concealed carry permit holders carrying in bars. But that was a perception based on an emotional reaction, and not fact. CCW holders have proven themselves to be among the most lawful in America. Studies have found them to be more law-abiding than the general public, and even more law-abiding than police officers. I encourage everyone to consider this fact. Gun owners are just like you and I – except they have guns.

Next up is a piece by Thomas Sowell entitled The Gun Control Farce. Sowell points out that the debate is often carried on an emotional basis, sometimes floridly so, when in fact there is empirical evidence out there. Indeed, this empirical evidence has been analysed, and it doesn't support the gun control crowd.

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?

Sowell goes on to answer that question with a resounding "No."  But, Sowell doesn't usually write about gun issues, so the fact that he only brings up Joyce Lee Malcolm's book Guns and Violence: The English Experience is not surprising. In fact, there is a wealth of such factual analyses, including the work of John Lott, Gary Kleck, and many others. But rather than admit this evidence into ther thinking, and then go on to try something that might work, they keep to the same old same old. It is always the gun's fault, never the person holding the gun.

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.

These facts make those of us who live in Realville start to wonder what the real purpose of gun control is. One can find possible hints in the early gun control efforts. Here in North Carolina, the pistol permit requirement was instituted as a way to keep blacks from getting guns. Whites were given permits without restrictions, while for a black, they were as rare as hen's teeth. In New York City, the Sullivan Act was passed in 1911 to give Sullivan's thug buddies an easier time of it, since their law abiding prey would be disarmed. But Matt Walsh lays it all out in an interview with World Net Daily in which he claims The Democratic Party is a Criminal Organization, and has been since its founding.

Then there is this: Homemade Submachine Guns Used in Tel Aviv Shooting, which goes to the futility of gun control. The technology needed to build a gun is not very high.  While the technology to produce thousands of copies of a gun design that all function with specific ammunition, and all have interchangeable parts may indeed be high, to produce one off designs is not that difficult.  Only people for whom "making stuff" is a baffling process, like lawyers and journalists, could ever think that you can put the genie back in the bottle.

The Evil Left

One of the things that I, as a citizen of "Realville," can not get through my head is how the media, the Regime, and the commentariat can constantly ignore the perpetrators of these horrific shootings, like Orlando, to focus on guns.  The people in the night club would be just as dead had the killer used a bomb.  The tools a killer uses are never the issue.  What is the issue is the intent to kill another human being.  That is the issue, the only issue. I have finally come to the conclusion that for some, who should and probably do know better, the only explanation is evil, pure and simple.

Steve McCann has a powerful article today over at the American Thinker entitled The American Left is Beneath Contempt, in which McCann reveals an autobiographical detail that is both gripping, and powerful. I won't reveal the story here. McCann can tell you, first hand.  There are people in the world who only learn by doing.  I like to call such people "finger in the light socket" types.  As a child, your mother warns you not to put your finger in the light socket, or not to touch the stove, don't play with matches, etc.  But some children don't get it until they actually do these things, sometimes repeatedly, until they learn for themselves.  I on the other hand, learn from the testimony of others.  McCann:

On the contrary, I own a handgun today because of coming face-to face-with the evil that permeates some men’s souls. I and the girl I rescued were defenseless. There were no police or armed citizens around and the death of another homeless, displaced and unknown boy and girl, buried in an unmarked mass grave, would have been just another easily ignored casualty of the post-War period. I was determined that I would never again face a similar circumstance. I have had firearms in my possession for virtually my entire life, as I have been fortunate to live in the one nation on earth that has embedded in its founding documents the right to bear arms.

However, I also recognized that this right is, in many ways, the foundational basis of preserving and protecting freedom of speech, religion, assembly and private property ownership. In order for the American Left to establish a socialist oligarchy that foundational basis must be dramatically eroded along with individual freedom.

I was at the range yesterday, practicing my draw and fire technique. Yes, I carry a gun. No, I don't want to shoot anyone. But, I will not be intimidated by anyone either. If confronted with a shooter, I might die anyway, but it will not be for lack of putting up a defense. Which brings me to A seriously sissified shooting story by Russ Vaughn over at the American Thinker. Click on the link and read the New York Daily News piece yourself. It is truly LOL funny until you realize the guy is not kidding. Vaughn:

If Kuntzmann has masochistic tendencies, then today he must be basking resplendently in the utter contempt and ridicule being directed his way from millions of American gun owners who read his article, opening with this sentence: "It feels like a bazooka – and sounds like a cannon," about a lightweight sporting rifle that is so easy to handle that it is popular enough with teenage female shooters to be manufactured in hot pink Barbie versions. But an admittedly "terrified" Kuntzmann goes on to proudly parade his ignorance by inferring that such a weapon can fire a forty-round "clip" in less than five seconds.

Right here I'll wager Kuntzmann any amount he chooses that he can't possibly fire forty rounds from an AR-15 in less than five seconds, because an AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, which requires the trigger to be pulled back fully to firing position for every individual round fired. Even with his pinky finger fully extended, Gersh just ain't that good a gunner. He simply can't operate that trigger that fast. By the way, you can always tell a liberal writer expounding on firearms because they invariably use the term "clip" rather than the correct term "magazine." And, Kuntzmann, magazines are typically configured for 20 or 30 rounds, not 40, as anyone with minimal knowledge of firearms knows.

The scary part is that millions of people in the New York area have never had any exposure to guns of any sort, and so this guy can write such drivel, and it merely adds to the "things they know that aren't so." It is absolutely unconscionable, and yet, there it is. One wonders if there is anything that can break through the wall of ignorance?  One also wonders whether the editors who publish this tripe are evil, or merely ignorant?

Orlando is just the start

While I have not forgotten Katie Couric and her breaking the law to expose the law's flaws, and then ironically missing those flaws, a new item of news has assailed us here in the United States, to wit: the mass attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. I have come to expect that the real story will come out later, that the media and official sources will typically get it all wrong, and only later will the truth come trickling out. This news item appears to be no different. However, with time, we learn more of the real story.

Of course the fact that the Pulse is a gathering place for gays seemed to play heavily in the mainstream news  Oh no, it must be some right wing Christian hater, they said.  Except it was not.  For some reason that fact that Christians can call out the gay lifestyle as being sinful, but actually loving gays themselves, and praying not just for gays, but for everyone to be made whole in spirit and body in Christ, seems to elude the media.  Why is that?

Then, the next thing you hear is that it was a lone wolf (Islamic) attacker, but don't blame Islam.  So, let us start with this article debunking the idea of the "Lone Wolf."  The article is from Townhall.com, wherein we learn that Wolf Dens, Not Lone Wolves, the Norm in U.S. Islamic State Plots.

Sunday's worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history prompted renewed warnings from officials of "lone wolf" attackers, a term that commonly invokes images of isolated individuals, radicalized online by violent propaganda and plotting alone.

But a Reuters review of the approximately 90 Islamic State court cases brought by the Department of Justice since 2014 found that three-quarters of those charged were alleged to be part of a group of anywhere from two to more than 10 co-conspirators who met in person to discuss their plans.

A little knowledge of human nature suggests that few people are capable of going from normal citizen to carrying out effective lone wolf attacks entirely on their own. Most people have no idea how to use cover, how to make an approach, and other tactical concepts. The military and SWAT teams train on this stuff constantly. Do you really think someone can just pick it up the first time, from the internet no less, and perfectly execute a complicated plan? Really? These so called "Lone Wolves" have more support than then are given credit for. In all likelihood, some of the people who recite this drivel do so out of fear of what might happen if the public knew the truth. Protecting the public from the truth has never turned out well. It merely allows miscreants to do their dirty work in privacy.

Then, we learn from Rosslyn Smith over at the American Thinker, that authorities knew about the attacker but political correctness prevented them from taking further action.

But, the real concern that should occupy your mind is that Worse Islamic Terror Attacks are Coming, and that Government Won't Save You. In the end, it will be you, and whomever you can ally with, who will save you and your family. Bob Owens is right about this too. Now is the time, while supplies are still on the shelves, to stock up on ammunition, spare parts, and get the training you need. And just in case you are wondering Could Concealed Carry Have Saved Lives in Orlando?: the answer is definitely "yes." Unlike the police and security guards, the concealed carrier does not have to be in uniform, wearing his gun where everyone can see it, and in general making a target of himself. Indeed, the effective concealed carrier blends in with other members of society, and doesn't stand out in any way. In such a situation, he could very likely deliver a shot while the attacker is focused elsewhere. Or, if behind cover, might distract the attacker long enough for another to disarm him.

Finally, if any readers are part of the gay community, while I do not condone the gay lifestyle, I also do not condone killing gays.  Get a concealed carry permit.  Get a gun, and learn how to use it.  Carry it. Here is the site of the Pink Pistols, a group of gay concealed carriers.  Join them, and the rest of the concealed carry community.  We welcome you.

Jonah Goldberg Weighs In an Katie Couric's Deceptions

Jonah Goldberg has a rare piece on the gun debate today.  Goldberg, being from New York, hasn't ever felt the need, I suppose, for guns,  Neither has Goldberg ever noticed the high correlation between opinions on gun rughts and conservative ideas.  But, in any case, the piece, entitled Going to extremes to start a conversation is really about the manifest dishonesty of the Progressive project.

Goldberg cites as a recent example, Katie Couric's response to reports that she lied:

She was asked about the scandal swirling around her anti-gun-documentary -- specifically, the fact that she deceptively edited a gun rights group's response to a question to make the members seem like dangerous idiots.

I wrote about all that in a recent column, so there's no need to repeat myself beyond noting that Couric and her producer are guilty of outright deception. But I thought her response was amusingly revealing.

"I can understand the objection of people who did have an issue about it," Couric said. (The "it" here is the deliberate falsifying of the truth). "Having said that, I think we have to focus on the big issue of gun violence. It was my hope that, when I approached this topic, that this would be a conversation starter."

And there it is: the "I lied to reveal a larger truth, which I desperately want you to notice, and not condemn me for my little white lie." Goldberg goes on to cite many other examples of Progressives doing the same thing, and ostensibly for the same reasons. Of course, as I have pointed out, we have been having a conversation about gun rights for essentially the last 100 years,  The trouble is that the Progressive Left lost the debate.  But rather than admit defeat, the Progressives pretend as if this debate never took place, so it is urgent we have it again.

Goldberg notes, though, that even this is really no surprise:

I don't think people appreciate how pernicious and widespread this crowdsourced totalitarianism really is. Routine lies in the service of left-wing narratives are justified in the name of "larger truths," while actual truth-telling in the other direction is denounced as hate speech or "triggering."

...snip...

Remember, behind every obvious double standard is a hidden single standard. For instance, earlier this year, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer came out with a book attacking libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch called "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right." When asked by NPR's Steve Inskeep what the nefarious supervillains of her screed were really up to, she ominously explained, "What they're aiming at is changing the conversation in the country."

Well, so are left-wing billionaire George Soros and his minions. So is Mayer herself. So are all of these campus fraudsters and activists. And so is Katie Couric. But when someone on the other side of the ideological chasm questions the official narrative, they must be demonized or otherwise silenced. Why? Because the last thing progressives want is to start an honest conversation. They want to have their conversations -- and only their conversations.

Update: Jonah Goldberg refers to a second piece he had already written on the affair. That piece can be found here.

Wherein We Ask the Question: Katie Where Are Your Guns?

Schadenfreude is a German word that roughly translates as deriving pleasure from someone else's misery.  Usually to derive pleasure rather than empathize, you must believe the other person richly deserves to be made miserable.  Schadenfreude is not a very Christian feeling, and so I must confess to feeling it in the case of Katie Couric and her production team for the film Under the Gun. In addition to being caught lying to the public by selectively editing material to make members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League look bad, it now appears that Federal gun crimes, some of which are felonies, were committed. Those claims have since been pulled by a compliant media, but the Director, Stephanie Soechtig has dug herself a deeper hole. Bob Owens has the goods over at Bearing Arms entitled Where Are Katie Couric's Illegal Guns? Not Where She Thinks. Bob Owens writes:

Soechtig inadvertently confessed to the crimes in a February interview which has since been pulled offline.

She then released a revised claim yesterday to several media outlets.

While it may seem hard to believe that one could buy these types of guns this easily, all purchases in the film were made completely legally. Arizona law allows out-of-state residents to buy long guns (i.e. rifles, shotguns, military style assault rifles) from a private seller without a background check. It also allows Arizona residents to buy handguns from a private seller without a background check.

We demonstrated both versions of this dangerous loophole in the film on a hidden camera, in full compliance with both state and federal laws. The rifles – including an AR-15, the gun used to massacre 20 first graders – were purchased by an out of state resident. The handgun was purchased by an Arizona resident.

These guns were then turned over to law enforcement and destroyed. They never left the state of Arizona.

What Soechtig clearly doesn’t grasp is that Arizona law is not the only law with which she needs to comply, and by having a Colorado resident producer purchase firearms in Arizona, she conspired (perhaps criminally) to have him buy firearms in interstate sales in violation of federal laws, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922 : US Code – Section 922.

Bizarrely, Soechtig seems to think she’s off the hook, and that the evidence of their crimes—the guns themselves—were destroyed.

Owens goes on to point out that the guns are unlikely to have been destroyed, because the bureaucracy simply doesn't work that way. But, as I said yesterday, she is unlikely to ever be prosecuted for these crimes. let alone suffer any official censure because of breaking the law. Unfortunately, many people I know would give Miss Couric and company a pass, on the basis that even if she did break the law, she was trying to do good, don't you know.  As if that was the legal standard.  One could literally get away with murder, if one credibly claimed to be doing God's work.

But, breaking the law to keep it is not a legal standard of which I am aware.  Or at least, it didn't used to be.  The law used to apply to everyone.  Now, if you have a politically pure heart, you are golden.225154444441

Katie Couric's Anti-gun Producers Violated Federal Law-But they'll Get Away With It

You have probably already read a number of stories about Katie Couric and her team of producers and directors who filmed the 'mockumentary" Under the Gun.  But couresty of the Sipsey Street Irregulars comes probably the best explication of what went down in a piece on the Federalist website by Sean Davis entitled Katie Couric's anti-gun producers repeatedly violated federal gun laws. And the truth is, because the Administration's views line up perfectly with the views of the people violating gun laws, there will likely be no prosecutions.  No consequences.  No jail time, or even ruined careers.

Davis writes:

In the video, Soechtig openly admits that she directed one of her employees to purchase guns across state lines, and that he absolutely followed her orders...

To which Soechtig then claims that all this is perfectly legal,

Except it’s not legal. Like, it’s illegal. Super duper illegal. Quadruple illegal in the case of the Soechtig employee who purchased four firearms across state lines without processing the sale through a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in his home state of Colorado.

Federal law is abundantly clear on what types of transactions require federal background checks. Gun owners tend to understand these laws incredibly well. Gun controllers like Soechtig do not. Under federal law, all gun purchases from an FFL must be accompanied by a federal background check. It doesn’t matter if the FFL sells a gun at a retail location, at a gun show, or out of the back of a car in a Wendy’s parking lot. All FFL transactions require a federal background check. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from: if you buy a gun from an FFL, the FFL must confirm that you have passed a federal background check.

So, no one, including the lawyers, thought to check out the laws governing the purchasing, possessing, and transfer of firearms? Or is it that they thought no one who did know would be watching the film? Or is it that they just didn't care? You see, there are enough laws on the books covering everything about guns that a person has to walk carefully to avoid tripping over one of these laws. At that, they don't always succeed. The problem, and its one that will always exist, is that if you WANT to commit a crime, you absolutely CAN commit that crime.  So, yes it CAN be done, but not LEGALLY.  Just as, for example you CAN (so I am told) buy a gun on the internet and have it delivered to your door.  But you can't do it LEGALLY.

If the Administration was truly interested in doing something about guns and crime, rather that just posture over it they would put a higher priority on actually prosecuting these crimes.  And since we have their confessions on video, let's start with Katie Couric and company.30222222222200232