Gun Ban Case Supreme Court Didn’t Consider Enabled by Phony ‘Pro-Gun’ Democrat
The Supreme Court’s unanimously decided against stun guns being excluded from Second Amendment protection. While the limited scope of the ruling, which remanded the case back to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, could still result in the ban being “justified” using some other “legal” fabrication, it has raised hopes that other bearable weapons could also be acknowledged as protected in future cases.
That was one ruling. But it was the case SCOTUS didn’t hear that has the most immediate impact on gun owners throughout the Republic, and it’s been enabled by a prominent so-called “pro-gun” Democrat: The ban on guns in Post Offices.
It’s somewhat understandable why the high court passed on the case, because it’s something easily fixable by Congress. They’d actually considered it back in 2014, with a postal reform bill that included allowing guns in parked vehicles. Sen. Rand Paul, quite properly, tried to get that expanded to allow persons to lawfully carry inside postal facilities as well.
Democrats were having none of that, especially one who has enjoyed strong support from gun owners.
“This is about politics,” Sen. Jon Tester of Montana complained in a Pool/CNN report. “It’s about 100 percent politics because if I vote against the amendment that Rand Paul has, the commercials aren’t going to say ‘Jon Tester voted against guns in post offices.’ They’re going to say ‘Jon Tester voted against guns in parking posts,’ which is where their concern would be. So let’s not fool anybody here. This isn’t about good policy. This is about a political election in November and what kind of ads are going to be available to be ran and how the record will be distorted in those ads.”
The tortured grammar in that transcription of whatever it is he actually said notwithstanding, no distortion is needed: Sen. Tester’s own words do quite an adequate job all by themselves, and are recorded for all to hear on a vide of the proceedings. He came on at 1:25:11, following an introduction by virulently anti-gun Post Office bill author Tom Carper, who argued unconvincingly of the need to “study” the “impacts” of recognizing rights he has no legitimate authority to infringe in the first place.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman,” Tester began. “I appreciate you offering this modification. I also appreciate Sen. Paul’s amendment, what he’s trying to do here.”
That’s evidently why he had to disparage Paul’s amendment as a mere political stunt designed to make him and other Democrats look bad. In other words, he was not being sincere.
“I would just say this,” he continued. “I don’t … I think I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I’ve got more guns than I need and I want some more.”
That’s a familiar bit of misdirection anti-gun politicians use all the time. Even Barack Obama has made that lying claim. Besides, if an affinity for firearms were the issue, what better friend could gun owners have than Ruby Ridge sniper Lon Horiuchi? And what better political doublespeak clues could be telegraphed that Tester was preparing to show everyone how big his “but” was? True to form, that’s just what he did.
“But the bottom line is, there’s some places where guns are not appropriate,” he protested. “This building, for example, would not be appropriate to have a gun. And if there’s issues with the Post Office, I don’t think it’d be appropriate to have a gun at the Post Office.”
Putting aside Tester’s presumption of a need for heightened security in the chambers of the United States Senate, he still failed to establish any equivalency of concerns between that and the ability of a peaceable citizen — in compliance with state laws — having the means of protection on Post Office premises. If that citizen can be trusted to possess a gun in the car, on the street, or in the local Starbucks, what factors can Tester cite to imply their behavior will change or safety risks will escalate if they wish to mail a package or buy stamps, or check their P.O. Box?
Tester doesn’t say.
“The parking lot is a different issue, however,” he asserts.
“‘cause in rural America, there are a lot of folks — Sen. Enzi knows this — they might be out huntin’ gophers and go in to pick up the mail, and they got the gun sittin’ in their pickup — it’s just a matter — it’s a tool to do their work with,” he explained.
Tester doesn’t truly believe the Second Amendment is about “gopher huntin’,” does he? And what about Americans who believe a gun is a good personal defense tool? Or victims who have found out firsthand, and to their lasting sorrow, what can happen to those who obey such parking lot laws and leave their gun in their car?
“And I … if I had my druthers, and we don’t have the opportunity to vote for this, I would vote to allow guns in the parking lot. But not in the Post Office,” he concluded.
This is a character who was rated “A” by the National Rifle Association and voted 2011 “Legislator of the Year” by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. He says he believes in the Second Amendment and then says he doesn’t want to allow you to have a gun when you go to buy stamps?
Tester instead sides with Michael Bloomberg and his hysterical Demanding Moms, and the Brady Campaign, and the Violence Policy Center, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence…?
It’s true Tester has done occasional good things for gun owners and voted the right way once in a while throughout his political career, but that needs to be tempered with the realization that he’s running in Montana, where any political machine fielding an overt anti-gunner would get their hindquarters handed to them. The politically-savvy Democrats know they need to be able to give it up on guns (for the most part) in such areas if they wish to have their larger agenda enacted.
And helping them enact it Tester does, from his “Obama guy” support for the man NRA calls “the most anti-gun president ever to occupy the Oval Office,” to his confirmation votes for Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor…
Those are among the reasons the “no compromise” Gun Owners of America gives Tester an “F” rating. And they give a good indication of why NRA ratings should be looked at more as a way they maintain insider access than as a candid assessment of RKBA fidelity.
This isn’t to excuse Republicans, who routinely violate their oaths, and who haven’t seen a need to end the wholly-unjustifiable Post Office gun ban farce, despite getting all kinds of money and campaign support from gun owners who let the NRA tell them who to vote for without looking any deeper into things. Bill Clinton influence Carroll Quigley perhaps said it best in “Tragedy and Hope”:
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”
Despite all the “partisan” bombast, does anyone seriously think that has changed since it was first published in 1966?