Archive for the 'Donald Trump' Category

David Codrea:

“In terms of ‘why,’ the State Department has authority under the statute (the Arms Export Control Act) to govern exports ‘in furtherance of world peace and the security and foreign policy of the U.S.,’” Reeves elaborated. “Under the law they do not have to get more specific, although sometimes they may give more information concerning a specific export. The courts have held there is no constitutional right to engage in exports or imports, and there is considerable deference granted to the State Department for making national security or foreign policy decisions.”

[ … ]

It would be an overdue gesture of support to see the president actually do something pro-active to advance the interests of the firearms community. It would be a welcome reversal of some baffling “concessions” the president has made on “bump stocks,” on “red flags,” and most recently, on suppressors.

As scary as the thought of Democrats taking over in 2020 is, talk is now coming from some with national voices about the possibility of a critical mass of thoroughly disillusioned gun owners sitting things out. And this isn’t a matter of “Would you rather have Biden?” or Harris or Buttigieg, as the “Hear No Evil/3D chess” Trump apologists angrily challenge back.

I simply don’t buy that this is merely a function of the administrative state, owned and operated by progressives for progressives.  No, this administrative state is owned by Donald Trump.  He could have put anyone he wanted in charge of the State Department, and apparently someone is in charge who doesn’t care to change these things.

What Rex Tillerson did was just a start.  The vast majority of the statist apparatchiks there need to be given their pink slips and told to find real work.  Then they may not be able to find the time to undermine the country and interfere with free trade.

Via reader Fred, The Charlotte Observer.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to federal regulation of gun silencers Monday, just days after a gunman used one in a shooting rampage that killed 12 people in Virginia.

The justices did not comment in turning away appeals from two Kansas men who were convicted of violating federal law regulating silencers. The men argued that the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” includes silencers.

The court’s action in the silencer cases was among dozens of orders in pending appeals, including decisions to add an international child custody dispute and four other cases to next term’s docket. The justices also will hear cases dealing with a death row inmate in Arizona, racial discrimination claims against Comcast by an African American owned media company, environmental cleanup at a Superfund site in Montana and a dispute between Intel Corp. and a retired Intel engineer.

In the silencer cases, Kansas and seven other states joined in a court filing urging justices to hear the appeals. The states said the court should affirm that the Second Amendment protects “silencers and other firearms accessories.” The other states are: Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

President Donald Trump’s administration asked the court to stay out of the case and leave the convictions in place.

Shane Cox, owner of a military surplus store, was convicted of making and transferring an unregistered silencer, and customer Jeremy Kettler was convicted of possessing one, all in violation of the 85-year-old National Firearms Act. Both men were sentenced to probation.

No, seriously.  He does.

He asked the president if he would now consider banning silencers on guns after the Virginia Beach outrage in which high-capacity magazine were also used.

Trump replied that he ‘didn’t like the idea of them’ and was would ‘serious look at’ banning the noise suppressors.

He added: ‘I don’t like them [silencers]. No body’s talked about the silencers very much, they did talk about the bump stocks and we had it banned and we’re looking at that, I’m going to seriously look at it [a ban].

‘I don’t like the idea of what’s happening, what’s going on is crazy, with schools.’

[ … ]

On the subject of semi-automatic assault rifles, Trump responded to the use of AR-15 high-powered rifles that they were used for ‘sport’.

He replied: ‘Well a lot of them use it for entertainment. They do. It’s really. For some people it’s entertainment, they go out and they shoot and they go to ranges and they have a tremendous amount of fun.

My God.  Can the man construct a coherent thought for even a moment?  What on earth does schools have to do with suppressors?

At any rate, we already discussed his apparent kingly choice to go around the legislative system and single-handedly declare bump stocks illegal.  He’s apparently looking at doing that with suppressors too as we learned.

But what we didn’t know is how little he can actually craft a coherent argument for the ownership of semiautomatic firearms.  He thinks you only have an AR-15 to “have a tremendous amount of fun at the range.”

Tell that to Stephen Bayezes.  Oh and by the way, take a gander at the comments on these discussion threads on reddit/firearms.  Look here and here.

Trump is being increasingly seen as an enemy of firearms ownership.  I don’t believe the polls that show Trump as far ahead as they do.  Those polls ignore the fact that the same level of excitement for Trump won’t be there in 2020 as it was in 2016.  Gun owners may simply stay home.

Trump has no real political sensibilities except Northeastern progressive, and as I’ve mentioned doesn’t even speak the same language we do we.  But his advisors are idiots as well.

As soon as the blood was spilled the controllers came out of the woodwork to shill their ideas.  First up is The Washington Post, or in other words, Jeff Bezos’ and the CIA’s blog.

But details of the rampage include one fact unique to the growing list of active-shooter cases: the assailant used a .45-caliber handgun with extended magazines and a barrel suppressor. This small detail — that the loaded gun was fitted with simple, and lawful, “silencing” equipment — threatens to upend how we understand and train for active-shooter cases in the future.

Let’s stop right there.  I’ve never “trained” for an active shooter situation by learning to “run, hide and fight.”  Only the DHS is stupid enough to purvey such nonsense.

But details of the rampage include one fact unique to the growing list of active-shooter cases: the assailant used a .45-caliber handgun with extended magazines and a barrel suppressor. This small detail — that the loaded gun was fitted with simple, and lawful, “silencing” equipment — threatens to upend how we understand and train for active-shooter cases in the future.

But the Virginia Beach killer seemed to want the anonymity of silence, a tool of the coward, not one seeking fame or a blaze of glory. None of the videos or manifestos we’ve seen from New Zealand to Las Vegas appear to be part of the Virginia Beach story. The killer wanted silence.

Silence is the enemy of time. An entire “run, hide, fight” policy that governs every school, workforce and the first-responder community in active-shooter cases is conditioned on an important premise: that there is situational awareness that shots have been fired, bullets are flying and it’s always best to run the other way. Once you know where the bullets are coming from, you can — as I tell my own kids — “sprint if you can; duck if you can’t; and fight only if you must. I only have one of each of you.”

If she would rather teach her children that than arm defenders around them, she hates her children.  But you see where this is going.  Now the controllers are targeting suppressors.  Next up, USA Today.

It’s not immediately clear how long Friday’s attack lasted, or how much time passed before the first police officers arrived on scene. But some gun control advocates say the suppressor may have caught the victims off guard. One survivor described hearing something that sounded like a nail gun.

“Especially on a handgun, a suppressor will distort the sound in such a way that it would not immediately be recognizable as gunfire to people who sort of know what that sound is,” said David Chipman, a retired agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and now the senior policy adviser with Giffords, a gun-control lobbying group.

Oh, I see.  An “expert.”  It’s always better for your story when you can get an “expert” to weigh in, yes?

But finally, the beloved Donald Trump himself.  Someone baited him with a question about suppressors, and he had this to say.

Q    The suspect in the Virginia Beach shooting used a silencer on his weapon.  Do you believe that silencers should be restricted?

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t like them at all.

First we had the bump stock ban courtesy of a single, solitary, action by the federal executive remaking federal law on a whim.  Nice precedent, Mr. Trump.  We’ll see that used for very nefarious purposes in the future, no doubt.  Then we had support for red flag laws (or so-called extreme risk protection orders).  Then we had the selection of a gun controller to head the ATF, and finally today we get loathing of suppressors.

In fact it wouldn’t surprise me to see a bill pass the House and Senate headed for Trump’s desk to outlaw them completely, something that is no more than a muffler intended to save the hearing of target shooters and sportsmen.

You see, Trump can honestly claim that he is a defender of the second amendment when his definition of the second amendment is that you get to keep a pistol in your home if the Police say so, and only under certain very strict conditions you may be able to carry it like he does.

It’s a matter of language and world and life view.  His isn’t yours, and yours isn’t his.  When he says he is a defender of the second amendment, he doesn’t mean what you want him to mean.

NSSF:

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has a record of no-nonsense support for the rule of law that clearly extends to respect for the Second Amendment and the firearms industry.

Chuck Canterbury is the President of the 350,000-strong Fraternal Order of Police who would bring to the Director’s office 26 years of law enforcement experience as well as 16 years’ experience in his current role. Canterbury retired as a major with South Carolina’s Horry County Police Department and was inducted into the South Carolina Law Enforcement Hall of Fame.

And as for the evidence for Canterbury’s support for the second amendment?

Canterbury also stood up to billionaire New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg after the anti-gun funder of Everytown and Moms Demand called the Fraternal Order of Police a “fringe group” for opposing the release of firearms “trace” data which is prohibited by the Tiahrt Amendment. Even Bloomberg’s own police commissioner Ray Kelly opposed the release of ATF trace data. ATF says it shouldn’t be released outside of law enforcement either. Bloomberg didn’t care when he misused this information in so-called “sting” operations against firearms retailers – without the knowledge of either ATF or his own police department – interfering with as many as 18 criminal investigations and forcing ATF to pull agents out of the field for their own protection.

There you have it.  He supports cop safety.  That makes him a second amendment supporter according to the NSSF.

Next up, the American Suppressor Association:

“As the regulating body of our industry, ATF has a tremendous amount of control over our ability to operate and create jobs,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of ASA. “Because of their influence over our businesses, the ATF Director is, for us, one of the most important politically appointed positions that President Trump will fill. His nomination of Mr. Canterbury, which does require Senate confirmation, falls directly in line with his campaign promise to work with the firearms industry and protect the Second Amendment. Mr. Canterbury’s resume and reputation highlight that he is the leader that ATF needs in order to become the bureau that they are intended to be.”

What bureau would that be?  What did the American founders intend a bureau like that to do, sirs?

The NSSF has never been a supporter of the second amendment, and with respect to the American Suppressor Association, I suspect that they have no desire to see suppressors unregulated.  If they weren’t regulated by law, they wouldn’t be able to charge $1000 a piece for their tubes with baffles.

Prior:

Further Fisking Of Chuck Canterbury’s Second Amendment Credentials

Fraternal Order Of Police Chief Chuck Canterbury Picked To Head ATF

The Washington Times:

Reversing the usual script, Democrats praised one of President Trump’s federal appeals court nominees Wednesday while Republicans brought the tough questions for Mark Jeremy Bennett over his defense of gun control laws and free speech rights.

Mr. Bennett, a former Hawaii attorney general now nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had backed a limited interpretation of Second Amendment rights that was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, also questioned Mr. Bennett over opposition to Citizens United, the Supreme Court case that overturned campaign finance restrictions and helped pave the way for the current system.

“You took positions, taking a very narrow view of what the First Amendment protects,” Mr. Cruz told him during a confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Usually it’s Democrats who fire the tough questions at Mr. Trump’s judicial picks, but Mr. Bennett won praise from them.

[ … ]

The Alliance for Justice, which has led the fight against Trump judicial nominees, said Mr. Bennett is an exception, and they won’t oppose him.

David Codrea makes the following remarks.

Just being a highly-placed Hawaiian political nominee ought to raise red flags. The state is a “leader” in citizen disarmament. If they ever do have another real catastrophe there, most citizens are going to find out how badly those who have been defrauding them of their birthrights have screwed them.

Add to that the fact that the Ninth Circuit, widely recognized as one of the most “progressive” (read “anti-gun”) courts, recently lost the one sane voice it had on the Second Amendment with the #MeToo-pressured resignation of Judge Alex Kozinski.

Obama gave us Fast & Furious, a number of very bad judges, and a lot of anti-gun rhetoric.  In a short tenure thus far Trump has given us a good justice on the Supreme Court, a bump stock ban, and new funding for the CDC to pump out anti-gun propaganda.

Ignoring words and focusing on actions, if the two presidents were in a contest to see who had done the most damage to observation of our gun rights, I’d be hard pressed to pick a winner.

There are some who might claim that being the 3D chess player Trump is, he is baiting the Senate, who didn’t oppose the bump stock ban, and some of whom will face reelection soon, to turn this nominee away and thus burnish their second amendment credentials before the election.

This view suffers from two fatal errors.  First, Trump himself will face reelection in the coming several years, and will need the support as badly or worse than the Senators he allegedly is trying to help.  Some of the gun owning public will remember this nomination.

Second, there is always the chance (and it may in fact be the highest probability) that the Senate won’t turn this nominee away and we end up with yet another totalitarian at the appeals level.

The contrary view is more likely.  This is who Trump is.  He is supposedly a supporter of the second amendment because he had enough money to pay lawyers to get him a concealed handgun permit, and because he sat for an interview with Field & Stream where he showed a predilection towards Fudds.

I wish I could say that seldom has the bar been so low for gun owners to lend their support to a candidate.  But that would be a lie.  The only historic limitation on gun owners whoring themselves out has been the availability of opportunities to do so.

WSJ:

President-elect Donald Trump is considering several retired military generals as possible picks to be secretary of defense, people knowledgeable about the transition process said.

Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, a former war commander who has long voiced concerns about the security threat posed by Iran, is among those being considered. Gen. Mattis is expected to visit with Mr. Trump in New Jersey, transition officials said Friday.

Also under consideration is retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, a former commander of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army Gen. Jack Keane, who has been advising the campaign, also has been in discussions and met with the president-elect on Thursday, transition officials said.

Donald, please stop listening to Jack Keane, and choose Mattis.  Please don’t put David Petraeus in that chair.  You’ll regret it if you do.

The only thing better than having Mattis would be for him to go to Washington, make Ashton Carter pull his pants down in front of the Pentagon, and whip him with a belt until he sobs.  Do it because he deserves it for trying to force women into SpecOps, and for trying to force women through the Marine Corps infantry officer school at Quantico (all of them so far have ended up with pelvic fractures or breaks), and for focusing defense dollars on sensitivity training and coming out parties at the Pentagon.