I received a letter from Senator Thom Tillis after the so-called "gun safety bill" was passed and signed into law supposedly explaining himself. As it turned out, a number of other members of Gun Rights North Carolina received the same letter. I meant to fisk this letter, but GRNC beat me to it, and did a better job that I would have. You can find their take down of Tillis's letter reproduced below.
“Traitor Thom” Tillis parses words to create false impressions
Members have recently contacted us regarding the boilerplate message Senator Thom Tillis is sending out in response to constituent contacts opposing the so-called “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” As is typical of politicians, his reply carefully parses words to spin gun control included in the act as not gun control at all. Below are relevant excerpts from Tillis’ message to constituents followed by the truth.
Tillis claim:
“I am proud to have worked in a bipartisan manner to work with my Senate colleagues to develop a commonsense proposal to protect America’s children, keep our schools safe, and reduce the threat of violence across our country.
Truth:
His “Senate colleagues” were 50 anti-gun Democrats and 14 other RINOs out of 50 Republicans in the Senate. Meanwhile, during negotiations, his “colleague” Sen. John Cornyn, who shared in negotiating the capitulation, got booed off the stage by “colleagues” in his own party at the Texas GOP convention in Houston.
In the Senate, “colleagues” like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Barrasso (R-WY) unsuccessfully tried to substitute alternatives like adding school resource officers, prohibiting Fast and Furious style gun smuggling programs, hiring additional federal prosecutors to prosecute firearm violations, adding $29 million for safe school task forces and combatting juvenile firearm violations, and providing $75 million to provide child-safety gun locks. But of course, Traitor Thom and the Surrender Caucus were having none of that.
Meanwhile, his other “colleagues” in the House such as Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Dan Bishop (R-NC) publicly denounced the act as a “betrayal” while “colleague” Richard Hudson (R-NC) orchestrated Republican opposition to the bill in the House.
Tillis claim:
“The BSCA is a carefully negotiated response to gun violence that will make our communities safer by expanding access to mental health services, investing in school safety, strengthening existing laws, and funding crisis intervention programs.”
Truth:
By spinning his nightmare as “crisis intervention programs,” he carefully avoids mentioning that federal bribes in the form of $750 million include state grants to implement “red flag” gun confiscation laws under which firearms may be confiscated from unwitting gun owners without due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
He also neglects mentioning that the “crisis intervention” gun confiscation orders he funded, according to a 2018 study by Dr. John Lott and Professor Carl Moody of the Crime Prevention Research Center, have “no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.”
Tillis claim:
“…the [Bipartisan Safer Communities Act] strengthens existing laws to help crack down on criminals who abuse our firearm laws, while also protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This includes encouraging states to upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), providing for an investigative period for buyers under 21 to review juvenile and mental health records, criminalizing straw purchases, clarifying the definition of a firearm dealer, and providing protections for domestic violence victims.
Truth:
Once again, Tillis spouts nonsense about “protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.” The juvenile review process, including sealed juvenile records, will almost certainly permanently bar thousands who’ve had adolescent indiscretions.
On the topic of “clarifying the definition of a firearm dealer,” it changes the definition from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit,” potentially encompassing even collectors who routinely trade firearms. The objective, of course, is to force as many transactions into NICS as possible in order to aid the ATF in the illegal gun registry it is building.
Tillis claim:
“Does this legislation create new background checks and waiting periods?
“No, the BSCA does not expand the background check system, does not change the age to purchase a firearm, and does not create a mandatory waiting period for all purchasers. Instead, the BSCA works to strengthen our existing background check system by ensuring juvenile records and mental health adjudications are considered before issuing a firearm to an individual under 21. For someone without a juvenile record, they will still be able to purchase a firearm on the same day. If a juvenile record is found, there will be an investigative period in which authorities can determine if the juvenile record would be disqualifying had the crime been committed if the individual were an adult.” [Emphasis added]
Truth:
This is perhaps Tillis’ most disingenuous claim. When he says it “does not create a mandatory waiting period for all purchasers” he avoids saying that it does create a waiting period for some purchasers, namely as long as a 10-day waiting period for purchasers under age 21. And before you say, “Well, that’s just for buyers under 21,” understand that he has just created a brand new “loophole” for gun banners to “close.” Rest assured they will be back soon, demanding that all purchasers be subject to the waiting period because, after all, it is working so well for under-21 buyers. Incidentally, the waiting period will make it difficult if not impossible for under-21 buyers to purchase firearms even from licensed dealers at gun shows.
Tillis claim:
“Will this legislation create a national “red flag” law?
“Absolutely not, the BSCA does not create a national “red flag” law. Further, it does not compel states to enact crisis intervention programs. Instead, the legislation provides formula funding for all states to enact violence prevention and crisis intervention programs that are best suited to the needs of their state. This funding can go towards crisis intervention programs, mental health courts, drug courts, veterans courts, and other programs to reduce violence and keep our communities safe. It is ultimately up to each state to determine how this funding will be used to best serve the needs of their residents.”
Truth:
While it is true that BSCA does not create a national gun confiscation law and that “Byrne Grant” money can be used for “crisis intervention programs” to include other types of programs, the money can be applied to “red flag” gun confiscation laws which allow for guns to be taken in “ex parte” hearings in which the accused has no opportunity to defend himself in court before guns are confiscated.
Worse, the accused has “the right to be represented by counsel at no expense to the government,” meaning that if you can’t afford to pay a lawyer yourself, you won’t get your guns back.
Tillis claim:
“I am very concerned about protecting and preserving our constitutional rights, which is why I fought to ensure strong due process protections were included in this legislation. For states that choose to use crisis intervention order programs, the legislation requires strong due process and evidentiary protections to protect our constitutional rights and prevent abuse. That means new due process guardrails for states with existing crisis intervention order programs and for those that choose to implement new ones. This includes both pre and post-deprivation due process rights that include notice, the right to an in-person hearing, unbiased adjudicators, knowledge of opposing evidence, right to present evidence, right to confront adverse witnesses, and the right to be represented by legal counsel. It requires heightened evidentiary standards to justify crisis intervention and requires penalties for those who attempt to abuse the program.”
Truth:
Again, Tillis avoids mentioning that his “guardrails” such as “pre and post-deprivation due process rights” include ex parte hearings in which the accused has no opportunity to defend himself prior to gun confiscation, but must instead fight to get them back, after confiscation, at his expense.
And nowhere in his claim to be “protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners” does Tillis mention the so-called “boyfriend loophole” (is that sexist?), which expands the Lautenberg Amendment’s “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” – the first instance in which a misdemeanor rather than a felony barred people from gun ownership. Specifically, it would now include a vaguely defined “dating relationship.” Although the bar to gun ownership is five years rather than permanent, expect anti-gun Democrats to quickly look to close that “loophole” as well.
Thom Tillis is an absolute embarrassment to North Carolina Republicans. I suspected him of being a gun grabber when he was in the state house. He is one of those that says "I support the Second Amendment, but..." So why did we vote for him, you say? Because he is better that the Democrat the other side put up. He will no doubt be better than the Democrat they put up against him when he runs next. For the sort of reasoning that leads to electing Republicans who are really closet Democrats you need to read Selwyn Duke's article at the American Thinker entitled Tucker Carlson's Misguided Attack on Republicans. Carlson is right to be upset. I am upset. But Duke is correct when he quotes Bismark saying "Politics is the art of the possible." Sometimes, one has to have faith that God will make something good out of our blundering about. Sometimes one has to hold one's nose, and vote for the least worst candidate.
No comments:
Post a Comment