Nobody likes Eric Holder

Google searches for “[Attorney General] Eric Holder should not resign,” “Eric Holder should not be fired” and “In defense of Eric Holder” turned up many calls for him to resign or be fired, mostly by Republicans and other right-wing sources, and little defense of him beyond that questioning his criminal liability in the debate over Operation Fast and Furious. Liberals, on the other hand, don’t seem to be touching this one – except for those in the Senate who joined in the unanimous vote to prevent it from ever happening again.

Operation Fast and Furious was the sixth horrible movie about cars going boom a sting operation designed to catch large-scale firearms trafficking operations along the Mexican border. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lost track of a number of the 2,000 guns their agents provided to cartels; one was used to kill an ATF agent, and others have been used in 179 gun crimes in Mexico. 1,400 of the guns are still missing.

Thus, yesterday the Senate voted 99-0 on Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) bill that would compel ATF agents to monitor the weapons continuously, and block the government from transferring guns to cartels if this step is not taken. The ATF is within Holder’s purview, though he claims he did not know about Operation F&F until within weeks of a May testimony. The operation started in the fall of 2009, and CBS has obtained memos showing that someone at least tried to tell him. Not hard enough, apparently.

To his credit, Holder has called a halt to the practice of letting guns “walk” (escape ATF monitoring) already. But that does not explain why he didn’t know about a very large sting operation involving 2,000 American guns and multiple Mexican drug cartels. His most fervent opponents in Congress claim he was lying, which does seem to be the most logical explanation thus far. Or maybe his executive assistant just forgot to ask if he read that very important memo? That’s a pertinent question.

In truth, the nature of whatever communication breakdown we’re talking about here is irrelevant. It happened on his watch. A simple “By the way, are there any major weapons operations I should know about?” would have more than sufficed, and he doesn’t even seem to have asked that question. How can the White House, Congress or anyone else trust an Attorney General who can’t keep tabs on his own underlings? It’s not exactly becoming of the U.S. government’s chief lawyer.

Nonetheless, I wouldn’t let him resign or fire him just yet. Congress needs time to find out what else he’s been neglecting to hear or tell anyone lately. I certainly hope child molestation is still a federal offense.

I don’t want to come to your stupid clubhouse!

For the first time in the entire length of the Obama administration, gun-control advocates have the slightest reason to worry that their right to keep and bear arms is under siege – and I do mean slight. President Obama has an extended an invitation to National Rifle Association (NRA) president Wayne LaPierre to come to a meeting of the Justice Department, primarily to discuss the best way to make sure background-check laws are enforced (and perhaps improved). LaPierre says “absolutely not.”

It started when Obama published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star, calling for an improved background-check system and rewards for states that have the best data collection methods, in the wake of the Tucson shooting. Read it before going further. It has so many sops to the NRA crowd that he sounds less like a Democratic president seeking bipartisanship and more like a moderate Republican novice choking out the truth about his feelings.

LaPierre’s reason for skipping out is his belief that Obama’s outreach is “politically motivated.” Well, of course it is. The NRA is the single most dominant political force in America that has never run a candidate all its own. To put it mildly, if they said “Shoot” to a recipient of its donations, the recipient is likely to ask “Which cartridge?” Nobody does anything regarding the NRA – indeed, the NRA never does anything itself – without political motivation.

LaPierre fears that the people with whom he’d be meeting would be uniformly pro-gun control. Instead, he says, “The dialogue needs to be about criminal violence and getting mad men off the streets and stepping up aggressive prosecution policies.” Which is exactly what Obama wants. Either he didn’t read the op-ed, or he ignored the most important parts of it in order to fire up the base. And why bother doing that?

Obviously, a million things could arise during the meeting with or without LaPierre. I wouldn’t be surprised if at least one person was pro-gun control to the point of making Michael Moore raise his eyebrows. But as much as it kills me to admit it, LaPierre’s presence would ensure that a very large and influential segment of the electorate gets represented and, maybe, brought on board.

By assuming not only that he will lose, but that Obama wants him to lose, LaPierre has made himself a pre-emptive sore loser. His mention of this is certainly a slap in Obama’s face, albeit an important one. But that’s not enough to make the meeting unworthy of his attendance.

I’ve run out of gun puns

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the Minnesota Republican Party, mostly for leading me to make an entreaty to politicians across the country that I must have made five times already. They put out a mailer for its candidate in House District 5B, Paul Jacobson, whom we will not blame for this fail. The mailer contained an attack on DFL candidate Carly Melin on the inside – and an image of a hunter looking down the barrel of his gun, with the caption “Take your best shot,” on the outside.

How does this fail? Let me count the ways. First, the mailer implies that Melin is a “liberal St. Paul politician” or will become one if she is elected. Melin retorted that she is an “avid hunter,” has possessed a firearm certificate since the age of 14 and grew up with a firearm safety teacher for a father. Unfortunately for her, she may have to show proof of all this lest someone be reminded of Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) horrific attempts to look like a gun fan during the 2004 election. (Dove hunting. Dear God.)

Second, Jacobson’s response. He said he didn’t “see anything that wrong with it” in the same breath in which he said he wouldn’t have signed off on it. Which is it, Jacobson? WHICH IS IT. The mailer may indeed be the prerogative of the state party, but I see nothing wrong with a candidate telling them to keep certain things out of their campaign literature. (Or, better yet, a candidate not being in a party at all.)

Third, the timing. Do I even need to remind you of how attitudes towards guns in campaign literature changed after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (R-AZ) was shot? I maintain that such materials had nothing to do with her shooter, but that Americans are starting to flinch at the sight of them should be instructive to anyone running for office in the near future. An apocryphal threat to gun rights is the worst excuse for ignoring that.

Melin’s campaign team isn’t handling their response as well as they could have, by talking of obtaining an order of protection for her. Neither Jacobson nor the Minnesota Republican Party wants her shot. Like so many, the latter just doesn’t know when to stop appealing to gun values, and the former doesn’t know that sometimes it’s OK to bite the hand that feeds.

Disposal Day #52: Happiness is no longer a warm gun

STORY #1: Assault weapons ban: YES

The shooting in Arizona may be the catalyst for the first gun control measure of the Obama administration. Since he took office, gun rights have expanded, extending to national parks and Amtrak trains. There is now talk of outlawing magazines of a certain size and, to a lesser extent, semi-automatic weapons like the Glock 9mm used by shooter Jared Lee Loughner.

Had the shooting not taken place, the debate, much less any relevant legislation, would have been a non-starter. The onus is now on advocates for gun rights across the board to prove that the equipment used by Loughner has a useful purpose to the majority of Americans. How many of us need a semi-automatic pistol to protect our home from intruders when a good old lever-action Smith & Wesson will do the same job?

STORY #2: Permits: YES

I would really love to hear any justification you can offer for allowing people to conceal-carry weapons without permits. I can’t imagine any that don’t involve the Second Amendment (which I maintain was not intended for individuals) or wanting a bigger NRA check come election time. Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) made Arizona the third state with unrestricted conceal-carry laws last year, joining Alaska and Vermont.

In these states, you still need a background check before you can buy a gun, so they are capable of catching crazy people. But it doesn’t sound like state authorities are particularly concerned if something questionable comes up in the check. It’s as if they believe that background checks are unnecessarily bureaucratic. As we have seen this week, they are as imperative as any driver’s license. If we make completely normal, well-adjusted teenagers get a license to operate a motor vehicle, we can do the same for mentally unstable 22-year-olds.

STORY #3: Gun talk: WITH CAUTION

Anyone who says there is no simple explanation for the shooting is absolutely correct; it’s a fool’s effort to try to find one. Nonetheless, “inflamed rhetoric” comes up again and again, especially when it invokes images of guns.

Certainly, there’s a chance of a nutcase hearing this talk and internalizing it. But that’s an insufficient excuse for toning it down. Here’s a sufficient one: It’s simply unnecessary. All it does is establish one’s bona fides as a supporter of gun rights, and most of the time they don’t have to.

Sarah Palin can’t possibly be running for president

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK). In over a year of writing The Future American, I haven’t awarded her Fail of the Week yet – only her autobiography, for which she wasn’t solely responsible – as much as I’ve made my contempt for her brutally clear. Well, after reading this, all bets are off.

We are all aware that the most passionate defenders of the Second Amendment remain convinced that President Obama poses the biggest threat to their guns in years. This, despite the fact that the only gun-related law he’s signed so far has allowed people to carry guns in more places. Perhaps this is more for political reasons than his own belief in gun rights, but it’s happened nonetheless.

Despite this inconvenient truth, Palin warned the attendees of the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting that “if [the Obama administration] thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns and ban ammunition and gut the Second Amendment.” She also lied about the health care law paying for elective abortions, but that’s another column.

So if Palin thrives on getting politically vital organizations so pumped about her, why would I say she can’t want to be president all that much? Because she’s not doing anything that any reasonable person would do while prepping for a presidential run. This includes, but is not limited to,

• establishing a reputation outside of her own base;
• proving that she has educated herself about public policy since the last election; and
• not pulling stuff out of her ass.

Or maybe it’s my mistake to file her under “reasonable people.” Your call.

What pisses me off the most about this is that she knows what she’s doing. She can play her loyalists like a flute. They are just as emotionally attached to her causes as she is; if she hints to them that they should be angry, they will be, and this will result in groundless political backlash. I don’t expect them to use their Second Amendment rights on Obama’s face, but another pro-gun rally wouldn’t do them any favors, either. Palin should be ashamed of her mission to make them putty in her hands.

No rights being assaulted here

When I move to the U.S., I will strongly consider getting a gun for protection, which would make me much more comfortable walking at night even in this city – if they allowed it, I mean. This is the kind of gun I would go for. Not this. Why? Because no civilian needs one of those, however badass it would look.

That’s the spirit of the assault-weapons ban upheld last week by the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. This case was especially interesting because its plaintiff, Dick Anthony Heller, had successfully gotten D.C.’s ban on handguns struck down not even two years ago. What has he been doing lately that would make him want the ban on assault weapons lifted? Fighting Colombian guerrillas? They can get pretty pesky this time of year.

Unfortunately, the above AFP article does not quote anyone from his side, so we have to rely on the below reader comments for that point of view. As you can see, many of them are furious at the liberal activist judge (Ricardo Urbina, for all you judicial trivia buffs) and his denial of the right to protection to D.C. households. Lovely. These people aren’t very insightful.

Here are your typical pro-gun rights demonstrators demanding this of the court earlier in the month. As with most demonstrators, they come up with one or two emotionally charged words that sum up their side and stick to it. Theirs can be summed up as such: “SECOND AMENDMENT!” That’s pretty much it.

How soon they forget why the initial handgun ban was lifted! A year ago, I argued that the text of the Second Amendment did not guarantee individual gun rights and should not be used to justify these kinds of cases, especially when the logic behind individual gun rights can be equally compelling. But this has been disproven time and time again by case law, making the Second Amendment the go-to talking point. It’s just easier, I guess.

That worked for everyday handguns, but it won’t work nearly as well for assault weapons. For the plaintiffs in cases like this to get anywhere, they must prove the need for assault weapons in the hands of American civilians. Predicting a terrorist attack on a plane or a violent standoff with the government isn’t good enough. We should hear why they need it now.

And going back to my first point, it also wouldn’t be good enough to hold this in your arms and say “But it looks so cool!”

The gun-show gong show

You ever wonder exactly where Canadian criminals get their handguns? This is most likely it, since licensed gun shops can’t sell them anything. According to these accounts, I could just walk in there, ask for a gun, hand over some money, and leave. Not that I need to pass a background check; I’ve never so much as stolen a pack of gum. But still. Other people do.

The sting was initiated by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who was eager to show how unlicensed gun dealers circumvent the state law requiring them to carry out background checks on customers. Eight other states currently do this, and Bloomberg wants it to become the national status quo. This is one of those instances in which I would support one uniform federal rule instead of many different state rules. The only people who benefit from the gun-show loophole are the people who can’t pass a background check or don’t want to, and the dealers who love profitting off their sales so much that they’d willingly break the law for it. (sigh) Profit motive.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is more angry about how this sting was carried out than what it exposed. Here’s spokesman Andrew Arulanandam: “If he was serious about curbing crime he would have cooperated with local law enforcement authorities instead of grandstanding at a press conference.” What he means is that the municipal government of New York has no legal authority over these dealers, and they were warned against possible liabilities. OK, so this would have been less of a pisser if someone other than Bloomberg had done it. No NRA endorsement for him, then. Not that he needs any of their money.

“Ah,” you ask, “but you support individual gun rights, and your country doesn’t have it; doesn’t this make it easier for Canadians to get a gun?” Well, sure. But I’ve never been willing to break the law before changing it. Besides, you have to understand the Canadian mentality: most of us believe more in decreasing the supply, even if increasing it would help subdue actual criminals faster. Closing the loophole is the most efficient way to do this. It wouldn’t mean our black-market supply would be cut off, but that’s harder to access, anyway.

As to the problem of gun dealers who break the law after the loophole has been closed: I propose either licensing them all, or planting an official background checker at every entrance to the show. Put an airside scanner there while you’re at it. That would bring the gun-crime rate down better than criminalizing handguns ever would.

Sen. Thune gets shot down

The headline of this column’s related AP article claims that a “close Senate vote” destroyed hopes for an expansion of concealed-carry laws. The vote was 58-39 in favour, but they missed out on the 60 votes necessary to implement it. If Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) had been around to vote, they still would have lost.

While I personally support concealed-carry laws – assuming they’re restricted to people we can trust with guns, which leaves out the “convicted criminals, minors and people with no firearms training” who are granted permits in some states – this vote is more of an affirmation of states’ rights than anything else. The bill, chiefly sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), would allow existing CCW laws to apply to those with permits when outside their home state:

Thune’s proposal would extend reciprocity to states that have carry laws, with the condition that visitors to another state follow the laws of that state . . . He stressed that it would not set up a national permit standard.

Yet it would override the bans on reciprocity that exist in 11 states and D.C., which sounds quite a lot like a “national standard” to me, however mild.

Pro-CCW NRA EVP Wayne LaPierre isn’t too worried about this. “He called the vote ‘one more step down the road to allowing all Americans the full measure of Second Amendment protection.’” Am I missing something, or isn’t this a step in the other direction? What’s with the Bizarro talk in this article?

Meanwhile, “The Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, released a study this week finding that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens during the two-year period ending in April.” That’s 51 in total. Over two years. I don’t have an exact figure for how many Americans have CCW permits, but I’m guessing it’s a hell of a lot more than 51. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) also used isolated incidents to oppose CCW, pointing to a case of a schizo man who got a permit (bad Washington State!) and a woman in Ohio who shot a panhandler instead of giving him a quarter. Neither of these sources are enough to make me stop believing in CCW for sane people.

No matter what individual senators may think of CCW, they should not be the sole arbiter of related laws. Those 11 anti-reciprocity states have rightfully been allowed to keep the opportunity to change their own minds. Maybe one day they’ll catch on, but they shouldn’t be forced.

The registry doesn’t register with me

My introduction to politics was Bowling for Columbine. In tenth grade, our entire class watched it in the gym, and had group discussions about the gun issue afterward. I don’t remember what was actually said in my group about guns; somehow we got sidetracked onto whether or not the government should keep pot illegal. (At the time, I said it should. Bad Jess.) But after that day, I decided to try to recast myself as the NRA’s worst enemy.

Of course, I was 15 years old then, and who’s going to listen to a Canadian teenager who has never so much as touched a gun? (My self-promotion efforts were also severely lacking.) But when I learned of the Canadian Firearm Registry that the government of Jean Chrétien had instituted in the mid-90′s, requiring owners of short-barrel handguns – not those used in competition – to register them with the government, my youthful reaction was “HELL YEAH!” Now the Conservative government is putting pressure on the Canadian Senate to kill it. My reaction to this is the same, word for word, four years later.

I don’t believe that Canadians need handguns in their homes (or that most Canadians want them), nor that the gun registry makes us less safe. But it certainly doesn’t make us more safe, as its proponents suggest. All it does is keep track of people who legally purchase handguns from Canadian suppliers. Someone who brought in a gun from Detroit could just as easily ignore the registry. The RCMP website reports that:

According to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), in 2006, 96 per cent of all [smuggled] firearms seized originated in or transited through the United States. . . . when the Canadian Firearms Information System replaced the Restricted Firearms Registration System, many firearms were not re-registered, and are still in circulation.  Some citizens have not registered their firearms as they do not recognize . . . the current Canadian firearms legislation. . . . Current firearms legislation lacks a clear definitive time frame within which to register firearms, allowing individuals to circumvent the law. 

Short of putting hidden cameras in all Canadian homes and back alleys, there is no surefire way to monitor the real number of handguns in the country. But one thing that would help is American gun shops reporting to the CBSA whenever a Canadian buys a gun from them. These Canadians would be required to leave their name and license plate number with the store. Then we’ll see how easy it is for them to hide their purchases. In the meantime, our government should be focusing more on efforts to choke off the black market. As for me, I’ve been strongly considering getting a handgun for myself when I move to D.C. We’ll see what the crime rate there is like by then, and I’ll get back to you.