Recent high-profile missteps, revelations of ignorance and outright lies on the part of those who would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms can serve as powerful unintended aids to those of us who would stand in their way. So making sure our side gets it right becomes all the more critical, as nothing quite motivates opposing teams like seeing their rivals fumble.
Joe Biden’s unintentionally hilarious illegal and dangerous shotgun advice made for terrific fodder in helping even fence-sitters understand what a boob the guy is. Likewise, Diana DeGette doubling down on her ignorance about what it is she wants to ban and why has provided numerous opportunities to use the tactics of the radical left against one of theirs, as this witty and creative application of Alinsky’s Rule 5 humorously demonstrates. And Obama flat-out lying about “a fully automatic weapon” being used in the Newtown massacre to justify a ban on semi-automatics, all the while complaining about gun owners mistrusting government, gives those who insist he’s charlatan even more corroborating evidence.
That’s why it’s important for the pro-gun side to maintain credibility and avoid obvious mistakes -- none of us can attain perfection, and everyone is prone to human error, but there are some that are within our power to control, and exercising a bit of discipline will go far toward doing that. That’s why verification is needed before passing along emails and unsubstantiated rumors, and why credible sources should be identified. And it’s why we need to get the facts straight before turning on the megaphone. Because, good intentions aside, passing out bad information doesn’t help us.
Case in point, on Wednesday, Greta Van Susteren from Fox News “On the Record” interviewed Larimer County Colo. Sheriff Justin Smith, a welcome and refreshing law enforcement opponent of what he himself terms “gun grabbing,” and who spoke against the use of “cops as props” in the president’s Denver Police Academy Speech.
Of concern is this exchange:
VAN SUSTEREN: What I always think is sort of unusual is that a state can create laws -- like, you have new laws in your state. But if I want -- if I couldn't have a gun in your state, if I couldn't get one lawfully under your state, I'd just go next door to one of the other states, go buy what I need, and then come back home to Colorado. I mean, that's the sort of irony of it is that, you know, we -- you know -- that there are ways to get them by just driving a couple miles.
SMITH: Absolutely, Greta. That's one of the challenges that we raised. My community, we border Wyoming, and it's what I refer to as the Cheyenne shuffle. Residents can legally drive 45 minutes up the road and make a gun transaction, whether they buy it from a dealer or whether they buy it from a private individual, and they can be completely legal. And that's assuming -- you know, these are all based on assumptions that the criminals are going to follow these laws. They really just burden law- abiding citizens.
The problem with that is the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Generally speaking, you can't legally go to another state and buy a handgun and walk away with it, but you could go to another state, buy a handgun, and have the FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) ship it to an FFL in your state, assuming it isn't illegal to own there. However, you CAN go to another state and buy a long gun through an FFL and walk away with it, assuming that the transaction would be legal in both states, but if you transport the long gun into your state that prohibits it, you will be violating the law. And in all cases, private transfers for residents of different states without an FFL would be illegal under GCA.
Van Susteren (who is not particularly Second Amendment-friendly) is a lawyer and has a national program with a mass audience. Smith, who is emerging on the national scene as a supporter of gun rights, is a career law enforcement professional who has attained an authoritative voice in the debate. Because viewers would assume they can trust what both say -- and may act on it -- there’s a special responsibility to make such things clear.
Mitigating that, and speaking as someone who has stared into the lens getting cues from an earbud, it’s very easy to say things we immediately wish we had said better, and there’s really no chance to elaborate, or to go back and restate something in such blink-and-they’re-over formats.
The other thing to keep in mind, and what distinguishes rights advocates from those who demand control: The critique here is that the exchange could have been more clear, not that it was buffoonish, ignorant or dishonest.
That’s something best left to the other side.
------------
My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is now online. Click here to read "A Right Delayed,” discussing yet another dangerous drawback of so-called “universal background checks.”
If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream media, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."
Comments