by Bob Barr | Jun 26, 2019 | Townhall Article |
Townhall.comWatch Out! Eric Swalwell is making his move. The Congressman — who represents a district not far from the epicenter of 21st-Century liberalism that San Francisco has become — has yet to accomplish anything of note that would distinguish him from the large pack of Democratic Party presidential wannabes jockeying to win attention in these still-early months of the 2020 election cycle. He is attempting valiantly to change that equation by pressing a gun control platform that puts to shame Michael Bloomberg’s long-running campaign to make himself America’s Gun Control King. One of the problems Swalwell faces in his drive for relevance, is that every one of his Democratic teammates has made gun control a central plank in their platform. The party appears once again to have concluded that gun control will be pivotal in wresting control of the White House away from the GOP. Swalwell’s attempt to leapfrog to the head of the gun-control class actually garnered him a headline last November; though not really the type a serious candidate relishes. Responding on Twitter to a comment about how his proposal to ban “assault weapons” and force their “buy-back” under penalty of arrest could provoke a war, Swalwell pompously chirped “it would be a short war” because “the government has nukes” and “they’re legit.” Ever since, banning firearms in America has been Swalwell’s default sound-bite. In spite of the Congressman’s laughably superficial knowledge of firearms, and his cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons, Swalwell’s laundry list of proposals actually offers an accurate perspective on how Democrats really feel about the Second Amendment.Last week, for example, at an event in front of the...
by Bob Barr | Jun 24, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerDemocrats — now in control of the House of Representatives and apparently assuming that gun control will sweep their party to victory at all levels in next year’s elections — have resurrected a plan to punish firearm manufacturers and retailers when individuals commit crimes with firearms.The plan would single out firearm manufacturers and retailers for liability beyond what is typical in other industries — a fact ignored, of course, by the legislation’s proponents.The debate over whether a manufacturer or a retailer of a lawful product should be held liable if a subsequent user of the item misuses it criminally or negligently is not new. Even prior to our independence from Great Britain, it was an established principle that individuals and businesses engaged in lawful commerce involving lawful products would be shielded from liability, unless the products were manufactured negligently or transferred under circumstances in which their misuse or abuse was known or reasonably foreseen.That fundamental principle embodied in British common law has remained a cornerstone of American jurisprudence for decades. With few exceptions (largely resulting from the expansion of the regulatory state over the past century), the general rule protecting businesses against subsequent abuse of their products has held fast.However, beginning in the 1990s, gun-control advocates launched a drive to change that long-standing principle of lawful commerce, as it applied to firearms. Individuals and organizations supportive of extensive gun control, including some funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sought out federal and state judges similarly predisposed, and began suing firearm manufacturers and retailers.The costly legal actions (which put many “Mom and Pop” retailers out of...
by Bob Barr | Jun 19, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comAfter a contentious debate between southern and northern states about how to count slaves towards the apportionment of congressional representation and taxation, known as the “Three-Fifths Compromise,” our Founding Fathers probably thought the actual mechanism of counting heads to be the easy part. In fact, the origin of what is known today as the U.S. Census comes from a single line in Article 1, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Today, in the era of Big Government and Bigger Partisanship, the Census is anything but simple and straightforward; and has become a major flashpoint in the increasing politicization of what was intended to be a mere headcount of the population. Rather than a few questions about the number of people in a residence, and basic demographics to create a broad snapshot of the American population at a moment in time, Census questions have expanded to include invasive prodding into citizens’ lives, such as when a person goes to work in the morning, and how much they pay in rent.However, it is not the intrusiveness of the manner by which the Commerce Department (which administers the census) collects massive information on individuals that has roiled the waters in which this decennial census will be taken. Rather, it is the heretofore a simple question of “citizenship” — which was included in the census as far back as 1820 — that has caused liberals to rise up. Short-tempered liberals are accusing the White House of ulterior motives in wanting to include the question of “citizenship” on the 2020 Census; never mind that the 2000 census undertaken by the Clinton administration asked this very thing. Democrats now...
by Bob Barr | Jun 10, 2019 | Uncategorized |
The Daily CallerIn a move to burnish his already well-known anti-firearms credentials, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has unveiled a list of gun control measures he will press the commonwealth’s legislature to adopt in a special session as early as late June. Predictably, his proposals miss the mark widely.While Northam’s announcement came within days of the May 31st shooting rampage in Virginia Beach by a former municipal worker, the proposed measures reflect steps that already could have been taken by government officials, or consist of proposals that would not have prevented the murderer’s actions. Unsurprisingly of course, facts and substance took a back seat to political and emotional triggers.Unlike the mass murderer in Parkland, Florida last year — who exhibited clear evidence of mental problems and of an intent to commit murder by firearms — Virginia Beach killer DeWayne Craddock appears to have had no known or visible history of violence or of intent to engage in such horrific acts as he did. The “red flag law” Northam demands — which seriously undermines fundamental guarantees of due process as embodied in the Bill of Rights — would not have been applicable to Craddock.Northam predictably includes mandatory “universal background checks” among the proposed solutions to mass murders such as committed by Craddock. However, by all accounts, there was nothing in Craddock’s background that would have prevented him from legally acquiring — as he did — the pair of handguns that were the instruments of his evil.The governor takes aim also at “high capacity” magazines and “silencers” (one of which apparently was used by Craddock) among the “common sense” prohibitions deemed necessary...
by Bob Barr | Jun 5, 2019 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.comWe defenders of the Second Amendment are no stranger to disinformation and ignorance by the Left when it comes to issues regarding firearms in America. Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” routinely manipulates gun violence statistics to fit its narrative. The mainstream media still appears willfully ignorant about what is an “assault weapon,” even though they use the term amply in their reporting. And, who can forget Virginia state Delegate Joe Morrissey’s inane rant against gun violence while holding an AK47-style rifle as fellow members pleaded with him to remove his finger from the trigger (a basic rule of gun safety).Yet, an editorial from the Washington Post last weekend sets a new standard for mind-boggling superficiality when it comes to the Left’s lack of understanding about firearms. The editorial itself is a laughably weak criticism of sound suppressors like the one used in last week’s tragic mass murder in Virginia Beach; but one paragraph in particular truly catches the knowledgeable reader’s eye. The author is Juliette Kayyem, a faculty chair of the homeland security program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; and she writes, “In terms of death-to-time ratio, single-shot weapons are preferable to multi-round handguns and handguns are preferable to the semiautomatic, and the favorite of mass shooters, the AR-15.”Say what? In no way whatsoever does this text make any sense; not mechanically, not factually, and not even grammatically. Still, Kayyem doubles-down on her polemic by boasting on Twitter that her critics were simply “mansplaining” firearms to her because she “know[s] something about guns.” Her editorial suggests otherwise.However, the incoherence of Kayyem’s screed and the smugness with which it is delivered, are par...
