Beto Stagnant In Polls After ‘Hell Yeah’ Moment

It has been a week since Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke vowed, “Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47” in the Democratic primary debate in Houston. There has now been enough time for several polls to show trends from debate performances and it isn’t looking good for Beto.

Looking at the Real Clear Politics average, Beto was sitting at 2.8 percent on September 12, the day of the debate. The most recent average shows him at 2.7 percent, statistically unchanged from before his big moment.

In polling the week before the debate, O’Rourke had ranged as high as five percent and as low as one percent. In the week since the debate, he has surged to four percent and sank as low as one percent.

For all the hoopla and angst over his plan to confiscate guns from law-abiding Americans, Beto sits almost exactly at the same spot in the polls. There are a couple of things that we can take from this. The most important is that it takes more than a swearing and taking a hard line on guns to get Democratic votes. Even though most Democrats support the gun “buyback” idea, they aren’t flocking to Beto because of it. Democratic voters seem to think that there are more important factors than “wokeness” on guns.

Beto’s failure to launch also underscores the divide within the Democratic Party. The majority of the Democratic Party is made up of far-left progressives, but there is a sizable contingent of moderates. I estimate that moderates make up about a third of the party. The 25 percent of the party that opposes Beto’s “buyback” is roughly equivalent to the roughly 30 percent that support moderate candidates like Biden, Klobuchar, and Yang.

The Democrats would be much better off focusing on issues like background checks and red flag laws than controversial issues like gun confiscations. Multiple polls show that background checks and red flag laws are supported by more than 70 percent of Americans while opinion is split on “assault weapons” bans and mandatory “buybacks.”

Beto’s carefully staged moment of passion was his last-gasp attempt to pull himself out of the polling cellar, but it failed. O’Rourke’s campaign is going nowhere and has little hope of catching on. With a large campaign war chest, he can stay in the race for the foreseeable future but you can stick a fork in him. He’s done.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Retreat On Wall Funding And Bump Stock Ban May Cause Cracks In Trump's Base

Donald Trump boasted during the 2016 campaign that “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters.” Until now that has been true. No matter what Trump has done or what revelations have come out his supporters have stuck with him. This week may have been the breaking point for some Trump supporters, however.

Core Trump supporters have a few issues that rise above all others. For many, guns and immigration top the list and this week saw President Trump take positions on both issues that are unpopular with many members of his base.

First, Trump, who many supporters lauded as a fighter, surrendered to Democrats on a temporary funding bill for the government. As recently as last week, Trump had vowed not to sign a new spending bill that did not include $5 billion in funding for his border wall. On Tuesday, however, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders retreated from that position, telling reporters, “At the end of the day, we don’t want to shut down the government. We want to shut down the border.”

Trump supporters almost universally support the border wall, even to the point of launching a GoFundMe campaign that has so far raised $1 million for the project. Many were also strongly in favor of a government shutdown over funding for the wall. The White House acquiesence to a temporary funding measure will be viewed as a defeat by many members of the base.

Even worse for Trump is the long-awaited bump stock ban. The Second Amendment is considered untouchable by many Trump supporters and conservatives yet President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice to outlaw the rapid-fire devices and require Americans who own them to either turn them in or destroy them within 90 days. There is no provision for compensating bump stock owners for their devices which could cost hundreds of dollars. Worse, the ATF under President Obama told Congress that the government did not have the authority under current law to ban the devices.

The Trump Administration’s ban has brought criticism from many Second Amendment supporters. Jerry Henry, executive director of Georgia Carry, told the Atlanta Journal, “When you start banning accessories to firearms, then you really get on a slippery slope. It doesn’t change the function of the firearm, and therefore it shouldn’t be banned.”

“It is nibbling away at our second amendment rights,” Janelle Westrom, owner of Davenport Guns, told Iowa’s TV-6. “I don't like the decision but, myself personally, it doesn't affect me,” she added.

“I don't care about bump stocks,” tweeted Sean Davis, Trump supporter and a founder of The Federalist, “but I care a great deal about lawless government power grabs, based on utter lies, that will instantly turn innocent people who did nothing wrong into felons and be used to justify nationwide confiscation regimes.”

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1075451049731870721

Davis also noted in a separate tweet, “Under the new rule, an individual who illegally brings a loaded rifle into an elementary school will get a shorter maximum prison sentence (5 years) than a woman who has a bump stock in her garage but doesn't own any actual guns (10 years).”

On the other hand, some people do support the bump stock ban. “I have to agree with the ban,” Geoff Wilson of Hendersonville, N.C. told WLOS TV.. “Turn them in, get rid of them. And like I said, I’m a full supporter of the Second Amendment.”

Another supporter of the ban is Mary Margaret Oliver, a Democrat state representative who introduced a similar bill in the Georgia General Assembly earlier this year. Rep. Oliver’s bill went nowhere but she told the AJC, “I’m delighted that I can say that President Trump did something that makes me happy.”

While some Trump supporters will rally around the president and deny that the bump stock ban is an infringement of the Second Amendment and an unconstitutional overreach of executive authority, for others Trump’s moves will be a breach of trust. Where Trump’s past statements in support of gun control can be overlooked by many, the bump stock ban initiated by the president without getting anything in exchange cannot be explained away as a bargaining ploy or mere rhetoric.

Trump’s support won’t evaporate overnight but this week may mark a turning point with his base. Issuing an ultimatum on wall funding to Democrats and then backing down smacks of weakness while the bump stock ban calls into question Trump’s core principles. Supporters who have not doubted the president up to this point may now start to do so. Trump’s base won’t vote Democrat but they may stay home. This may be the president’s Fifth Avenue moment.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Donald Trump Just Restricted The Second Amendment More Than Barack Obama

Although he is still endorsed by the NRA, President Trump just presided over the biggest federal restriction on the Second Amendment since President Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994. On Tuesday, the Trump Administration officially banned bump stocks in a regulatory move that bypassed Congress.

In a scenario reminiscent of the worst fears of gun owners, the new federal regulation makes it illegal to possess a bump stock. Any person who possesses one of the rapid-fire devices must either surrender it to authorities or destroy it when the new regulation takes effect. Per the Associated Press, the deadline to comply will be 90 days after the regulation is published in the Federal Register. That is expected to happen Friday, meaning that bump stock owners will have until late March to decide how to dispose of their property.     

The regulation was signed into law by President Trump’s newly appointed Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker. The president had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” last February. CNN reported in November after the election that the regulation had been finalized and would be issued soon.

The bump stock ban seems to be a solution in search of a problem. The devices, which use the recoil of the gun to help the shooter pull the trigger rapidly, are not typically used in crimes. The exception was the October 2017 Las Vegas massacre in which the murderer used a rifle with a bump stock to kill 59 people. Bump stocks make it difficult to aim and shoot accurately, but concert-goers in Las Vegas were packed into such a tight area that aiming was hardly necessary.

Ironically, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms under Barack Obama determined that a regulatory bump stock ban was not legal under current law. In 2013, the assistant director of the ATF wrote to a member of Congress that bump stocks “are not subject to the provisions of federal firearms statutes” and were therefore legal. The letter stated that the devices did “not provide an automatic action — requiring instead continuous multiple inputs (trigger pulls) by the user for each successive shot” and were therefore not subject to the Federal Firearms Act. In the expert opinion of the ATF, a bump stock ban would require Congress to pass new legislation.

Now, five years later, the Trump Administration is arguing that the Obama-era ATF was wrong and that bump stocks are in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. The laws of physics have not changed over the past five years. Guns with bump stocks still require separate trigger pulls to fire multiple times. Neither has the Federal Firearms Act changed. The only thing that has changed is the Trump Administration’s interpretation of the law.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, told the AP that the organization was “disappointed” by the ban. Baker said that the regulation “fails to address the thousands of law-abiding Americans” who bought the devices before the Trump Administration deemed them to be illegal and argued that current owners should be grandfathered in with an amnesty.

The Trump bump stock ban contains many of the worst aspects of liberal gun control plans and sets a dangerous precedent. First, the ban is arbitrary and will have little, if any, effect on public safety. The rationale for the ban, that no one really needs a bump stock, is the same rationale that many liberals use to advocate banning AR-15s and guns in general. Proponents say that bump stocks are a gun accessory and not protected by the Second Amendment, but the same argument could be made for many other items including scopes, reloading equipment, magazines, and ammunition.

More disturbing is that the Trump Administration is bypassing Congress to invoke the ban in violation of the Federal Firearms Act. Current law defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” However, as the ATF pointed out in 2013, that does not describe a bump stock’s operation. Reading the law to mean something that it does not say is usually strongly criticized by conservatives.

The new regulation goes further in restricting the Second Amendment than anything successfully enacted by Barack Obama, who was notoriously anti-gun. The Republican Congress killed Obama’s proposed gun restrictions limiting the former president to issuing a series of Executive Orders that fell short of banning any weapon or accessory.

President Trump’s bump stock ban is a blueprint that future anti-gun Democrat presidents can use to bypass Congress and further restrict the Second Amendment. In addition to being an anti-gun measure, the move is a flagrant abuse of executive authority.

There is no word on whether the NRA will endorse President Trump for reelection. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Republicans Vote Against Trump’s Anti-Gun Judicial Pick

While Brett Kavanaugh has been getting most of the attention, President Trump has also been making other judicial appointments to lower courts. While most of these appointments have been lauded by conservatives, one such appointee was just confirmed with a majority of Republicans voting “no” due to the judge’s hostility to free speech rights and the Second Amendment.

Mark Jeremy Bennett was confirmed to the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals with the help of Democrats, who supported him unanimously. The vote in favor of Judge Bennett was 72-27 with only Republicans dissenting. Among the “nos” were Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

At issue were Bennett’s opinions on the Second Amendment and the landmark Citizens United ruling. Bennett believes in a limited interpretation of the Second Amendment in contrast with the Supreme Court’s Heller decision that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. Bennett also supported same-sex marriage as a legal right prior to the Obergefell decision.

Bennett was one of five state attorneys general who signed a brief in support of the District of Columbia’s gun ban that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

“We think that a decision that the Second Amendment prohibits strict gun-control laws is just wrong,” Bennett said at the time.

Bennett, who was formerly the attorney general of Hawaii, received rave reviews from the same liberals who opposed most of Mr. Trump’s appointments. He also took criticism and harsh questions from Senate Republicans.

“You took positions, taking a very narrow view of what the First Amendment protects,” Sen. Cruz said during Bennett’s confirmation hearings in April per the Washington Times.

“It is very refreshing to me and not only truthful in my view for Mr. Bennett to say a judge’s experience can come into play. I just want to point that out because we have had many nominees that didn’t express that view,” countered Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

The Alliance for Justice, a liberal group that has opposed President Trump’s judicial picks, also endorsed Bennett. Dan Goldberg, the group’s director, said that the Trump Administration consulted with Hawaii’s senators, both Democrats, before making the appointment.

“When you have meaningful, real consultation — real negotiations — you end up with mainstream, non-ideological attorneys,” Goldberg said.

The conservative Judicial Crisis Network normally endorses President Trump’s picks, but had no comment on Bennett. Several pro-Second Amendment groups urged senators to vote “no,” however.

“In spite of Bennett’s reliably left-wing leanings on these and virtually every other issue,” said Michael Hammond, legislative counsel to the Gun Owners of America, “Trump and weak-kneed Republicans seem inclined to reward him with a promotion and pivotal seat on one of the country’s most important courts.”

The traditional Republican view has been that any president, Republican or Democrat, is entitled to any qualified judicial nominee that he wants. The question is why a Republican president would want to nominate someone like Mark Bennett.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Democrats Propose Gun Registry Bill

We’ve noted before that both parties seem to be making calculated moves in an attempt to become less popular with voters in advance of the midterm elections. Now two Democrats, who were apparently worried that some gun owners might not vote Republican, have proposed a national gun registry.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act in the House and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) introduced a companion bill in the Senate. The Washington  Examiner reports that the bill would make it illegal to own an unlicensed gun and would require a firearms license and federal background checks for all sales and transfers of guns. The bill would also require the attorney general to create a federal system to record gun purchases.

The bill is one of several gun control proposals named for Chicago honor student, Blair Holt, who was murdered in 2008. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country as well as one of the highest crime rates.

Rush’s office claims that the gun registry would protect the public from “unreasonable risk of injury and death” from private gun sales. Second Amendment advocates would also point out that a gun registry would make gun confiscation easier in the event of a ban. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Cal.) proposed such a ban just last month.

Gun owners have nothing to fear from the Democratic proposals. With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, most gun control bills are dead on arrival. An exception would be the bump stock ban being pushed by President Trump and many Democrats.

Even a large number of Democrats from conservative-leaning states would oppose strict new gun laws. It’s fitting that the new anti-gun proposals originate with members of Congress from California and Illinois, two of the states most out of touch with the rest of the country with respect to gun rights.

In spite of the recent school shootings, guns registered a distant third on a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll behind health care and jobs/economy. Only 13 percent of voters considered guns the most important issue. There was no breakdown between the pro- and anti-gun factions in the poll.

The largest impact of the Democrat bill will be to mobilize gun owners to resist the attempt to erode gun rights. Democratic proposals that confirm the worst fears of gun owners will drive Second Amendment voters to the polls where defending Donald Trump might not.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Ted Cruz Says Media Ignores Santa Fe Aftermath Due To Bias

Have you heard much about the Santa Fe school shooting lately? The furor over the May 18 attack seems to have abated quickly and Texas Senator Ted Cruz says it is because the victims and their families don’t support the media’s gun control agenda.

In an interview with the Daily Signal, Cruz called the murders “horrific” and said, “There have been too dang many of these.”

“Something’s wrong,” Cruz continued. “When we were kids, this wasn’t a part of going to school. You might worry about getting a black eye at school or something, but you didn’t worry about someone, some lunatic coming in and shooting and murdering as many people as they could. That was not part of school.”

When asked what strategies could be followed to stop school shootings, Cruz said that he and Texas Gov. Abbott asked the victims and their families for opinions. “It was really striking,” Cruz said. “Out of a dozen students who just hours earlier had been in this shooting, every one of them said the answer is not gun control. They said, don’t take our guns. They said if you take our guns, it won’t make us safer, it will just mean the killers and murderers have guns.”

Cruz added that many of the students supported metal detectors and armed police guards in schools, two ideas that have been attacked by Parkland shooting survivor David Hogg. The Santa Fe shooting survivors also supported another idea lambasted by Hogg, arming teachers.

The senator told of a student who “said his teacher was a former Marine, who was trained to handle a firearm.” According to Cruz, the student “said he wished his teacher had been armed; he might have been able to stop the killer before he killed so many people.”

Cruz drew a contrast between the Parkland survivors and the Santa Fe students, saying, “It’s fairly striking that, you look at the mainstream media, CNN, after the Parkland shooting, it was round-the-clock coverage of the students calling for aggressive gun control because that happens to be the political agenda of most of the media. In this case, where the students aren’t calling for that, suddenly … the media isn’t interested in covering it.”

Media bias almost certainly plays a role in the lack of continuing coverage of the Santa Fe teens. After Parkland, media outlets made rock stars of Parkland survivors such as David Hogg, Cameron Kasky and Emma Gonzalez while all but ignoring pro-Second Amendment survivor Kyle Kashuv.

Nevertheless, there may be additional reasons that the story was downplayed as well. The Santa Fe shooting had fewer victims than the Parkland shooting as well as the fact that the Parkland shooting had the shock value of being the first in a series. The news was also overshadowed by President Trump’s claims that the FBI spied on his campaign as well as events in Korea.

Cruz is absolutely correct that the Texans from Santa Fe reacted differently from the Parkland victims, however. The Texas Tribune detailed a meeting between Santa Fe students and teachers with Gov. Abbott. Most agreed that more school counselors, armed teachers and school police officers were needed. There was also support for random checks of student bags.

The idea of metal detectors seemed to draw more resistance than arming teachers. Sophomore Tyler Morrison questioned whether the policy would be “treating kids like prisoners” while senior Grace Johnson asked, “Do we push back our education because we need to get 1,500 kids through a metal detector?”

What was absent from the list was support for gun control. In fact, a full-page ad placed by gun control group Everytown in the Houston Chronicle last week was signed by 40 students from around Texas. Although a number of the signatories were from the Houston area, there were apparently none from Santa Fe.

The Texan response can perhaps be summed up best by Jay Horn, the parent of a student hospitalized as a result of the shooting. “This is not a gun thing,” said Horn. “Evil's going to happen with anything.” The comment got a round of applause. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Student Anti-gun Ad in Texas Offers No New Solutions

Texas has the reputation of a gun-friendly red state, but even the population of the Lone Star State is not politically homogenous. That became apparent this week when 40 Texas high school students signed a letter to Gov. Greg Abbott asking the question, “We are dying on your watch. What will you do about it?”

The open letter to the governor appeared in the form of a full-page ad in the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday. The ad follows on the heels of the recent school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas that left eight students and two teachers dead. The letter includes classic examples of myths, misdirection and illogical thinking with regard to guns.

The letter begins with the obligatory attack on the NRA. “Our job is to be good students. Your job is to keep us safe. You have failed at your job,” the students say. “Like so many politicians cozy with the NRA, you have steadfastly opposed any reasonable measures that might protect us from gun violence.”

“Instead,” the letter continues, “you’ve signed dangerous policies to force public colleges in Texas to allow guns on campus and make it legal to openly carry firearms in public. You’ve continued to push the notion that guns everywhere for everyone make us safer. By that logic, shouldn’t we be among the safest states in the nation?”

The fallacy here is that guns are not allowed in Texas public schools any more than they are allowed in public schools anywhere else in the country. The murderer was not deterred by the fact that it was illegal to carry his guns into the school.

In spite of two recent mass shootings, Texas has a relatively low gun crime rate overall. The Lone Star State was 28^th out of the 50 states in a USA Today ranking of gun violence. The state ranks 18^th in violent crime per Statistia.

The letter then attacks the religious beliefs of gun-carrying Texans: “A few months later, you said that gun violence was happening because of ‘hearts without God.’ Do you think that the children who were shot in class this week died because they hadn’t prayed enough? What about the 26 who were killed while they were worshiping in Sutherland Springs? Do you think they are to blame, rather than yourself and other politicians who refuse to allow even a meaningful discourse on reasonable gun violence prevention policies?”

The logical fallacy here is that it is not the victims whose hearts were the problem. The fundamental problem is that there are rogue killers with evil in their hearts who prey on innocent and defenseless people like the students of Santa Fe and the worshippers of Sutherland Springs. The Bible addresses the fact that the human heart is inherently wicked. Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

Being godly does not necessarily protect people from evil predators. Cain’s murder of Abel in Genesis was only history’s first example of a predatory murder. The Bible does teach us that only God’s love can tame the evil tendencies of the human heart.

The fundamental question of the gun debate is how to address the problem of people who are so riddled with evil that they decide to become predators and kill their fellow classmates. The students’ offer a typical solution, saying, “We were happy to hear you mention background checks and responsible gun storage when you spoke on Friday. But here’s the thing: Words only matter if they’re followed by action. And you have no track record of fighting for anyone other than the NRA. The majority of gun owners support laws that disarm domestic abusers or require a criminal background check on all gun sales. Do you?”

In the case of the Santa Fe murders, the Remington shotgun and .38 pistol were legally owned by the killer’s father. The father has not discussed how his son obtained the weapons. It is possible that more stringent laws on securing guns would have prevented the shooting, but background checks would have had no effect in this case. Even the argument that gun storage laws would have made a difference is suspect. Most 17-year-olds are savvy enough to find hidden guns and keys when their parents aren’t looking. Keeping guns locked away also makes it more difficult for them to be used for home defense, a primary reason that many people own guns in the first place.

Likewise, the reference to “disarm[ing] domestic abusers” and “requir[ing] a criminal background check for all gun sales” are red herrings. The Giffords Law Center notes that Texas already prohibits the purchase or possession of firearms for five years after release for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

The “all gun sales” is an attempt to require universal background checks for private gun sales, but this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. No mass shootings have been committed with guns that were obtained through private transactions and few other crimes seem to fall under this category. Politifact agrees that most gun crimes are committed by people who possess the gun illegally, rather than a legal purchase.

Next, the students again attack the NRA and lax gun laws, saying, “Why is our safety less important than the check you get from the NRA? We know that common sense gun laws make us safer. Since January 2009, Texas has experienced at least 20 mass shootings—more than any other state in the country. Do you think that a culture of guns everywhere and our lax gun laws might have something to do with that?”

The claim that Texas has more mass shootings that any state in the country could be directly related to the fact that Texas is the largest state in the continental US and ranks second in population. The claim, which is unsourced, is apparently not even true. Statistia data from 1982 through 2018 credits Texas with only eight mass shootings. Texas ranks third on this list behind the gun-control mecca of California (16 mass shootings) and Florida (10).

The final three paragraphs of the letter are an emotional appeal to “let this be your ‘come to Jesus’ moment.” The students say, “We appreciate your thoughts and prayers, but without policy change, this crisis will not end.”

The question is how to end the crisis. There seems to be no one-size-fits-all solution to spree killings. There is no evidence that the measures that the students advocate would have prevented this or any other recent mass shooting.

As recent truck and knife murders in Europe show, removing guns from the equation does not change the human heart. A better solution seems to be to re-introduce training in morality and ethics into schools. The core problem is that we are failing at teach our children to have respect for human life. That is what must change.

Originally published on The Resurgent

YouTube Shooting Doesn't Fit the Gun Control Narrative

Yesterday's shooting at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, Calif. is markedly different from other recent killing sprees in several important ways. The shooting also pokes holes in proposed gun control schemes.

The accused shooter, who is not being named by The Resurgent, did not fit the normal mold of spree shooters, who are predominantly either Anglo-American white males or males of Muslim heritage. The YouTube shooter was a woman, which is rare is spree shooting cases. The 39-year-old woman was apparently of Persian (Iranian) heritage, but so far there is no evidence that the attack was religious-based terrorism. Law enforcement sources told the AP that the shooting is being investigated as a “domestic dispute” even though there is no evidence so far that the woman knew the victims or specifically targeted them.

The woman was an active creator of videos on YouTube and other social media platforms. The Telegraph reports that her family said she was angry about YouTube allegedly filtering and de-monetizing her videos.

“She was always complaining that YouTube ruined her life,” her brother said.

The woman's father told Fox News that she had disappeared two days earlier and had stopped answering her phone. Police reportedly found her sleeping in her car around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of the shooting in the city of Mountain View near San Francisco.

“I googled ‘Mountain View’ and it was close to YouTube headquarters. And she had a problem with YouTube,” her brother said. “So I called the cop again and told him there’s a reason she went all the way from San Diego to there, so she might do something. So they didn’t do anything, and she got killed... and three or four more people got hurt.”

Although the motive was apparently not political, the woman seems to have been an animal rights activist. She was quoted in a 2009 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune about a PETA protest against the use of pigs in military trauma training per The Telegraph. Her YouTube videos, now removed, discussed animal rights, vegan issues, Persian culture and fitness. It was her workout videos that led to the problem with YouTube after the site placed an age restriction on one video that it deemed too racy.

So far there is no indication of any gun ownership by either the woman or her family prior to the attack. California's gun laws are among the strictest in the nation and include a 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases as well as an “assault weapons” ban. The precise type of weapon used by the woman is not known, but multiple outlets report that it was a handgun, not one of the AR-15-style rifles that have been demonized by anti-gun activists since the February shooting spree in Parkland, Fl. Where the woman acquired the gun is not known.

There is also no indication at this point that the woman exhibited prior signs of mental illness or violence. In many cases, spree killers display warning signs to family and friends or have prior records of civil disturbances before they go on a killing spree. Her family said she “hated” YouTube, but have not indicated that there were warning signs that she planned to attack the company prior to her disappearance.

The YouTube shooting is tragic, but underscores the difficulties in preventing active shooter incidents. The gun is unlikely to have been affected by the gun ban bills most likely to become law and there seems to have been no obvious reason to prevent a gun purchase by the woman. If the gun was obtained legally from a gun shop, she circumvented California's strict laws and planned the attack far enough in advance to take the waiting period into account.

The shooting is another case in which defenseless citizens were at the mercy of an active shooter because of state and local laws that make it difficult for people to own and carry guns legally. The shooting spree ultimately ended as an “officer carrying an assault rifle” arrived and the shooter killed herself, per the eyewitness account of software engineer Zach Vorhies in the AP.

As with many spree shootings, the bad guy was stopped by good guys carrying guns.

  Originally published on The Resurgent

AR-15 Ban Would Not Satisfy Anti-Gunners

In the weeks since the Parkland massacre, liberals and anti-gunners have launched a blistering attack on the AR-15. The rifle has been demonized as a weapon of war with no legitimate purpose other than killing large numbers  of people. If only AR-15s could be banned, the anti-gunners argue, mass killings could be stopped. It isn’t that easy and a ban of AR-15s would not satisfy the anti-gun movement.

Contrary to popular anti-gun opinion, the AR-15 is not markedly different from many other types of rifles. It is not a “machine gun.” It is a semi-automatic rifle. For those unaccustomed to gun terminology, that means that it fires only one bullet for each pull of the trigger.

“AR” does not stand for “assault rifle.” It stands for “Armalite Rifle,” a reference to the original manufacturer in the 1950s. The patent for the design has since expired and the gun is now manufactured by a number of companies under different names.

The AR-15 is also not an especially large caliber rifle. Although there are several different versions, most AR-15s are chambered in .223 caliber or 5.56 mm. The caliber refers to the diameter of the rifle’s bore in inches.

There are a number of other rifle calibers that are larger than that of the AR-15. Other popular hunting rifles include .308 and .3006 calibers. The M1 Garand carried by GIs in WWII was a .30 caliber rifle.

Nor is the AR-15 singularly dangerous in terms of muzzle velocity as some anti-gunners claim. Depending on the cartridge, a.223 bullet fired from an AR-15 typically has a muzzle velocity of about 3,000 feet per second. This is faster than a handgun bullet due to the rifling, larger cartridge and longer barrel, but is not abnormal among rifles. Muzzle velocities for the .223 are not markedly different from the .243 or the .3006, two other popular hunting rifle calibers.

Likewise, the AR-15 is not imbued with a mystical quality that turns anyone who holds it into a remorseless killer. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that there are approximately 15 million AR-15s in civilian hands in the US, but they are only rarely used in crimes. Assault rifles account for only about two percent of annual gun deaths noted the Huffington Post.

They also are not ubiquitous in mass shootings. The Virginia Tech shooter used 9mm and .22 pistols to kill 32 people. The Washington Navy Yard shooter used a 12 gauge shotgun and a 9mm pistol to kill 12. The Fort Hood shooter used two pistols of different calibers to kill 14 people.

On the other hand, AR-15s can save lives. An NRA instructor, Stephen Willeford, armed with his AR-15 stopped the massacre at Sutherland Springs Baptist Church and saved the lives of many in the congregation.

An AR-15 ban would not resolve the problem of school shootings and it would not be the end of the gun ban movement. The gun is not markedly different from a large number of other sporting rifles. If AR-15s were banned, these similar guns would soon be in the sights of anti-gun groups. Gun owners know this instinctively.

Fears of broad bans are not unfounded. Many anti-gun politicians have openly stated that an end to civilian gun ownership is their aim. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of her 1994 “assault weapon” ban, “If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have.” Barack Obama advocated laws similar to the ones in Great Britain and Australia that totally banned private ownership of guns and required them to be surrendered to the government. A bill already introduced would ban 205 rifles, pistols and shotguns that the Democrats deem “semiautomatic assault weapons.”

The leftist quest to ban AR-15s is a distraction. Anti-gun groups are using the Parkland tragedy as an excuse to go after popular semi-automatic rifles rather than focusing on ideas that could actually make schools safer. The dishonest rhetoric and overreach contributes to the distrust that gun owners feel and ultimately makes the problem of mass shootings harder to solve.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Feinstein Jumps For Joy As Trump Endorses Her 'Assault Weapons' Ban

It isn't often these days that you get to see a Democrat senator literally jump for joy. This is especially true of Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) who is so unpopular in her own state that California Democrats refused to endorse her reelection campaign. But Mrs. Feinstein got a pleasant surprise when President Trump asked if her “assault weapons” ban could be added to the current gun control bill.

In the televised meeting at the White House, seen here on CNN, President Trump responds to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) by offering to include various Democratic gun control proposals in the bill being written by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and backed by the president.

“Dianne, if you could add what you have also – and I think you can — into the bill,” Trump offered to the anti-gun Democrat sitting beside him.

Feintstein's reaction should make NRA members and gun owners physically sick. Feinstein, who apparently was not expecting the overture from the president, immediately breaks into a broad smile and literally gives a happy little jump.

“Joe, are you ready?” she echoes the president with a huge smile.

Feinstein clasps her hands together in joy and at one point touches Trump's elbow affectionately.

“Joe, can you do that?” Trump asks as Feinstein doubles over ecstatically beside him.

“Some of the things you're not going to agree with,” Trump adds.

“If you help,” Feinstein interjects.

“Well, no, I'll help,” Trump answers.

It has been said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but few are stranger than Donald Trump, the NRA-backed Republican, and Dianne Feinstein, the California liberal whose attempts at “gun-grabbing” have made her infamous in the pro-gun community. Anything that makes Dianne Feinstein this happy should have gun owners watching their gun cabinets closely.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Sasse Smacks Trump On Gun Control

President Trump continued his surprisingly strong attack on Second Amendment rights and the National Rifle Association yesterday in a joint meeting on gun control with Democrats at the White House. At one point, the president even endorsed the idea of confiscating guns from potential criminals first and worrying about due process later.

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said in an exchange reported by The Hill. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Vice President Pence quickly corrected the president, saying, “Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons.”

“Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court.” Trump responded.

In the televised meeting, President Trump also expressed support for a number of other gun control ideas from expanding background checks to restricting sales to people younger than 21. Most surprisingly, Trump also signaled support for Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Cal.) bill which would revive the “assault weapons” ban from the 1990s.

The president also cut off at the knees a Republican proposal to enact national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), a victim of last year's congressional softball shooting, had proposed the bill that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines.

“You’ll never get this passed if you add concealed carry to this,” Trump said.

Conservatives would be apoplectic if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had made Trump's comments. In fact, conservatives would be ready to take up arms – literally – if anyone other than Trump had made the statements. However, the response from the right was muted with many conservatives on social media standing by the president.

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) was one of the few Republicans to speak out strongly against the president's comments. In the past, Sasse has been a staunch conservative critic of Mr. Trump, but in recent months he has been quiet. That changed yesterday with a strong statement.

“Strong leaders don't automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them,” Sasse said in a brief statement quoted by the Washington Examiner. “We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason. We're not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them.”

Sasse's statement was a breath of fresh air in the overheated gun control debate. But where are the rest of the of the pro-Second Amendment congressmen that Republicans thought they sent to Washington?

Originally published on The Resurgent

Four Deputies Waited Outside During Parkland Massacre

A new report indicates that as many as four Broward County deputies may have arrived at the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School last week while the shooting was still taking place. The report from CNN indicates that the officers arrived on the scene but did not enter the school to confront the active shooter.

Per the report, when officers of the Coral Springs Police Department arrived on the scene, they found four deputies with guns drawn standing behind their cars. None had reportedly entered the school. The report states that the deputies directed the Coral Springs officers toward the school, but apparently did not accompany them when they entered.

The actions of the deputies reportedly has caused friction between the two departments with some Coral Springs officers considering the failure to enter the school immediately “dereliction of duty.” It is not known whether the killer was still in the school while the deputies waited outside, but it is possible that a quicker entry might have saved the lives of some students who had been shot.

The school resource officer assigned to the school resigned earlier this week after it was revealed that he had waited outside the school for four minutes after the shooting started. Scot Petersen was originally suspended without pay and then decided to resign.

In the midst of the heated debate over gun control that erupted after the shooting, the inaction of the deputies underscores the need of citizens to be able to protect their own lives. For anti-gun activists who would like to make guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain, the fact that armed police waited outside rather than intervene in the massacre raises difficult questions about whether citizens can depend on police to charge in and take down an active shooter.

The delayed entry by the Broward County deputies is not unique and may be more common than many realize. For instance, at Columbine officers were on the scene within five minutes according to CBS News. The officer assigned to the school exchanged gunfire with one of the shooters, who retreated into the school. Six officers then waited outside while the killers stalked the school. It took almost two hours for a SWAT team to storm the school. By then, both shooters and 13 innocent people were dead.

The motto of the police is “to protect and serve,” but if officers believe that they are outnumbered and outgunned, they won’t necessarily charge into an unknown threat. There is no legal duty for them to do so. In fact, Supreme Court precedent holds that government police protection is a “benefit,” not an “entitlement.”

The fundamental lesson to learn is that police will protect citizens if it is feasible for them to do so. If officers fear for their own safety, protecting innocent civilians may well become a secondary consideration to protecting themselves and containing the shooter.

Keeping that in mind, law-abiding citizens should seriously consider how to protect themselves until the police arrive and form into a force that is deemed safe to go after the criminals. For many, that may mean getting a gun of their own and a permit to carry it. Even at school.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Feinstein Bill Is A Boon To GOP

Fresh from their electoral victories on Tuesday, Democrats are about to roll out a bill to aid President Trump’s ebbing fortunes. In a move that is apparently calculated to keep Republicans from becoming too unpopular, Senate Democrats intend to introduce gun control legislation that is similar to bills that Americans have rejected many times previously.

The Washington Examiner reports that, true to form, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calf.) is leading the charge on a bill that would ban more than 200 types of semi-automatic (the trigger must be pulled for every bullet fired) guns and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The bill would also ban devices that increase the rate of fire like the bump stock used by Stephen Paddock in the Las Vegas massacre as well as require background checks for private gun sales and mandate “safe storage” for other guns.

“We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason - so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote,” Feinstein said in a statement.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress and a president who is at least nominally pro-gun, Feinstein’s bill has approximately no chance of becoming law. It is far more likely that the bill will instead inspire gun owners to get out the vote to resist Democrats in 2018. Voters who might have stayed home due to their unhappiness with the ineffective Republican administration in Washington will be more likely to go to the polls because at least the Republicans aren’t “gun-grabbers” like Feinstein and the Democrats.

While a recent Politico poll found a slight majority in favor of new gun controls after Las Vegas, almost half of independents say that protecting gun rights is more important than limiting gun ownership. Respondents were equally split on which party better handles the gun issue.

Feinstein’s new “assault weapons” ban follows on the ban instituted by the Clinton Administration in 1994. The ban did not cause a drop in the crime rate and, when it expired 10 years later, there was no corresponding increase in crime. In fact, the definitive study on the gun ban, by Christopher Koper of George Mason University in 2004, found that the ban “had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.” So Dianne Feinstein is proposing to revisit an old policy that is ineffective as well as unpopular.

What the Feinstein bill may effectively do is remind blue collar voters why they voted for Donald Trump in the First place. The president is not popular and Democrats in Congress have all but shut down the Republican agenda. Nevertheless, a new assault weapons ban is the sort of overreach that can generate enthusiastic resistance for Republicans among gun owners.

Dianne Feinstein, the stereotypical SanFranciso anti-gunner, has provided the NRA with a villain for decades. Now, as Republicans struggle to give their base a reason to vote for them in 2018, it is Feinstein who rides to the rescue with the stereotypical San Francisco solution to any problem involving crime or violence, namely taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.

President Trump should send her a thank you note.

Originally published on The Resurgent 

Vegas Style Shootings Are Impossible to Prevent

A day after the Las Vegas massacre, pundits and political activists are out in force. Gun control activists are pushing their agenda while others are arguing for a hidden conspiracy. The one thing that most people have missed about the shooting is how easy it was to carry out and how difficult it would be to prevent similar attacks.

Stephen Paddock presents a problem for both sides of the gun debate. He purchased his guns legally in spite of waiting periods and background checks, but even stricter gun laws won’t prevent killers from getting weapons. Guns, both legal and illegal, are plentiful in the United States and relatively easy to obtain. Stephen Paddock had no criminal record and there was no reason to prevent him from legally purchasing a gun. The same cannot be said of the gangbangers of Chicago who, despite criminal records, also seem to have no trouble finding guns.

Paddock avoided security by avoiding the concert venue which likely had metal detectors and building a sniper’s nest in his hotel room at the Mandalay Bay casino across the street. Paddock likely smuggled his arsenal into the building in suitcases or golf bags. A frequent traveler myself, I have never seen a single hotel with metal detectors or luggage screening of any sort. Why would they? It isn’t illegal to have a legally owned gun in your hotel room (subject to state and local laws).

From the right, the traditional answer of more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits would not have made a difference in Las Vegas. Paddock was shooting with a high-powered rifle from across the street on the 32^nd floor of a high-rise hotel. Pistols in the hands of concert-goers would have been useless.

From the left, no gun control laws under consideration would have prevented the massacre. Paddock passed background checks because he had no criminal record or history of mental illness. His large arsenal was accumulated over months or years at stores in several different states so waiting periods would not have made a difference. Gun-free zones just move the violence to other areas.

In fact, no law other than a total ban of guns in private hands would have prevented the shooting. The number of illegal guns used in crimes indicates that even a ban would not go far enough. Since thousands of guns that are already in private hands, confiscation would be required to prevent those guns from falling into the wrong hands. Such a policy is not only unconstitutional, it is politically impossible and unworkable from a practical standpoint, requiring the diversion of thousands of law enforcement officers from their current duties to tracking down and seizing guns from law-abiding citizens.

A total gun ban would not even necessarily have prevented Paddock from killing scores of people. In 2016, a man driving a stolen truck killed 85 people in Nice, France. In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City with a truck bomb.

Lone gunmen with no prior criminal history are notoriously difficult to defend against. I was working in the northern Virginia area in 2002 as the DC Sniper murders were taking place. The sniper, John Muhammad concealed himself in the trunk of Chevrolet Caprice and eventually killed 17 people and wounded 10. The entire Washington area was petrified. People were afraid to go outside for even long enough to pump gas.

Afterward, I thought that the strategy would be an easy one for Islamic terrorists or others to adopt. If Al Qaeda or Islamic State sent a few hundred followers across the country with locally purchased guns to shoot up shopping malls, concerts, movie theaters, parks and restaurants at random, the United States would be paralyzed in short order. Such attacks are impossible to prevent in a free society. The killer will ultimately be killed himself, but if suicide or martyrdom is the shooter’s ultimate goal, death is not a deterrent.

New laws and rules could make it more difficult for the Stephen Paddocks of the world to go on murderous rampages. The question is how many rights we are willing to surrender and how many inconveniences we are willing to endure. Do we, as a nation, want to scrap the Second Amendment and undergo TSA screenings every time we check into a hotel? For most of us, the answer is no.

The fundamental problem with mass killings is the existence of evil and the depravity of the human heart. Evil cannot be legislated out of existence no matter how hard we try. We just have to deal with the evil-doers as best we can.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

How Mentally Ill Esteban Santiago Flew His Gun Across the Country… Legally

After Esteban Santiago murdered five people in the Fort Lauderdale airport last week, the obvious question to emerge is how Santiago managed to get a gun through airport security. The question of Santiago’s weapon is two-fold since there are reports that he had shown signs of mental illness as well as the fact that the shooting occurred in an airport, normally considered to be a gun-free zone.

Santiago, an Iraq War veteran who served with the Puerto Rico National Guard, reportedly visited the FBI office in Anchorage, Alaska and complained, according to an FBI spokesman, “that his mind was being controlled by US intelligence agencies. During the interview, Mr. Santiago appeared agitated, incoherent and made disjointed statements. Although, he stated he did not wish to harm anyone, as a result of his erratic behavior, our [FBI] agents contacted local authorities who took custody of Mr. Santiago and transported him a local medical facility for evaluation.”

The spokesman said that Mr. Santiago, who had lived in Alaska for several years and worked there as a security guard and a member of the Alaska National Guard, was not placed on a no-fly list. “During our initial investigation, we found no ties to terrorism. There is currently no indication that Mr. Santiago was working with other individuals when he planned and carried out yesterday’s attack.”

With respect to Santiago’s mental health, a spokesman noted, “There is a federal law with regard to having a gun by somebody who is mentally ill, but the law requires that the person be ‘adjudicated mentally ill,’ which is a difficult standard. This is not someone who would have been prohibited [from owning or possessing a gun] based on the laws that they had. I think that law enforcement acted within the laws that they had. We’re a country of laws and they operated within them.”

There are laws that prevent the mentally ill from possessing guns, but the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and due process must be followed to restrict that right. Federal and Alaska law state that firearms ownership and possession are prohibited if a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.” Neither seems to have applied to Santiago, whose gun was returned after a mental health screening in connection with his statements at the FBI office according to the Anchorage Daily News.

“Unless there was some sort of a court order requiring involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, under existing gun control legislation, he could not be deprived of his constitutional right to possess a weapon,” Paul Callan, former New York homicide prosecutor told CNN. “People who submit to voluntary mental health treatment don't lose their right to possess firearms under current US law.”

Health care workers are required to notify authorities if they believe a patient may pose a danger to themselves or others. Privacy laws may conflict with this duty to warn, however. With many mass shootings in recent years, the perpetrators have exhibited signs of mental illness before their shooting sprees. Until a law is broken, such as making a threat, people who are mentally ill and potentially dangerous must voluntarily seek treatment.

Since Santiago was not committed or judged to be mentally ill, he had broken no laws and was free to travel. Esteban placed his weapon in a checked bag for his flight to Florida. NBC News reports that the Glock 9mm pistol was in a gun case that was carried in the baggage compartment of the airliners that flew Esteban from Anchorage to Minneapolis and Fort Lauderdale.

According to TSA rules, guns and ammunition are allowed on airliners if they are placed in a checked bag that is hard-sided and kept locked. Passengers cannot carry guns, ammunition or parts of guns such as magazines or clips in the cabin of the airliner. Ammunition can be placed in the same locked container as the gun.

Esteban would have checked his gun case and declared his firearm when he checked in at the airport. He would then have gone through the TSA security screening and traveled unarmed. Baggage claim areas are outside of the secure area of the airport.

Esteban reported left the secure area of the airport and retrieved his gun case at baggage claim upon arrival in Fort Lauderdale. At that point, he took the gun and ammunition out of the case and killed five people.

At this point, it seems that gun laws were followed in the case of Esteban Santiago. The gun was legal, Santiago owned and possessed it legally and he legally transported it across the country.

The failure in Fort Lauderdale seems to the same failure that contributed to so many shootings in the past few years. Law enforcement and the mental health system failed to identify a troubled individual who was in need of treatment. Perhaps instead of calling for more gun control, we should revisit privacy laws that prevent doctors, employers and law enforcement agencies from sharing information about potential killers. Consideration should also be given to reforming commitment laws so that potentially dangerous people can be given treatment without their consent.

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is not a gun control issue. It is a public safety issue. If mass shootings continue unabated, the left’s outcry for more gun control may lead to sweeping laws like those of New York that restrict all gun ownership, rather than sensible laws that target the real problem.

Originally published on The Resurgent