Rationalizing

So here’s an entertaining thought, the man behind three “successful” gun control organizations wants to run for President.

Because it isn’t like he’s vulnerable on any particular topic, is it?

Anyway, tonight on the Run, we have the latest on Obama’s executive orders, yet more gun control in New York, and a brilliant stunt of a bill in the South Carolina Legislature.

There isn’t really too much to cover since everyone and their mother is at SHOT.

1.) Defense. Attorney General Lorreta Lynch is defending President Obama’s executive orders on gun control. She told the Senate Appropriations Committee that “I have complete confidence that the common sense steps announced by the president are lawful.” She went on to call them “well-reasoned measures.”

Republicans, of course, were not impressed, with the subcommittee’s chairman, Alabama Senator Richard Shelby, stating that “The department is on notice,” and that “this subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.”

With a GOP-dominated Legislature, any action on gun control is basically a non-starter for this term.

2.) No-Fly-List. As if New York could get any more gun control, a lawmaker is looking to basically wreck due process and ban anyone on the No-Fly-List from being able to purchase a firearm in the state. We have discussed before that there isn’t really much of a criteria on how one ends up on a government watchlist, and there is very little recourse for those on it. (Because the whole premise is on what someone “might” do. You can’t prove a negative.)

The bill is part of a trend of “guilty until proven innocent” attempts to ban people on watchlists from owning firearms. Because, as we discussed last week, confiscation by any means is the endgame of the gun control movement. Regardless of what they claim.

3.) South Carolina. Aiming squarely at a press that is remarkably ignorant towards guns, a lawmaker in South Carolina has introduced a bill intending to create a licensing system for journalists. While this is obviously unconstitutional, the bill’s author, Michael Pitts, states that the bill’s unconstitutionality is the point.

“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press [have] no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”

Of course, he doesn’t expect the bill to pass, or survive Constitutional scrutiny. Nonetheless, the point it illustrates is incredible. If government can license gun owners, why can’t it license journalists?

Stay informed. Stay alert. Stay free.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s