Flypaper Laws

The Nathan Haddad case in New York State is a perfect example of what the Obama administration wants for America:

Nathan Haddad, a decorated combat veteran, was arrested earlier this month in New York for possessing unloaded 30-round magazines. Mr. Haddad, who has been recognized by the Army for his selfless acts of generosity to fellow soldiers, was charged with five felony counts of possession of “high-capacity” magazines.

Read the whole thing. The Cliff Notes version is that Haddad, who certainly meets my criteria as an American hero, is facing 5 Class D Violent Felony charges for possessing boxes with springs in them. Think about that...technically, he could face up to 35 years in prison, more than twice as much as a murderer, according to the WeaponsMan blog.

THIS IS THE WORLD THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WANTS FOR ALL OF US!

Now compare this to David Gregory-gate, where the NBC star "journalist" — and I certainly use that word reservedly — clearly possessed a standard capacity AR magazine, illegal to possess in D.C., in front of millions of witnesses and got a free pass. Consider the wording of the D.C. Attorney General's ruling:

OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.

What do these 2 actions tell us? Try this:

They don't hate guns; they hate us. Why is this an important distinction? Well, our operating theory for literally decades has been that support for nonsensical "gun control" was rooted in ignorance, that the people calling for such things as "assault weapons" ban, magazine capacity caps, closing the "gun show loophole" simply didn't understand that real assault weapons have been rigidly controlled since 1934, that magazine capacity bans are less than worthless, that there is no gun show loophole, that the massive bureaucracy of the Brady Check system generates fewer arrests than a prostitution sting in a monastery, etc., and once we educated those people they'd come around to our arguments.

How well has that worked for us? I say that as the creator and administrator of one of the most "successful" media education programs ever launched by the industry. I say that as a person who has spent 10 years in television educating people about guns. I say that as a person who has reached out to the MSM, to Hollywood, to politicians.

When the chips are down, the very people we've "educated" — people who undeniably know the facts — immediately return to the same trope...black rifles bad, "assault magazines," the necessity of enhanced background checks, national gun registration...

I will give you that some people on the antigun side are indeed ignorant of the facts (whether through sloth or intentionally ignoring them I can't comment on).  But the "drivers" of this antigun bus, the Obamas, the Fiensteins, the Bradys, the VPC, fully understand the facts, fully understand that nothing they've suggested will have any effect on the crimes they cite as the necessity for this legislation, fully understand the misrepresentations about "assault weapons" and all the rest. They know gun control doesn't work. They know their proposed legislation will lead to creating a huge new class of criminals who were previously considered law abiding citizens.

So why are they doing this?

I am reminded of something the late Ed Koch said when he was mayor of NYC, defending that city's draconian gun laws, something to the effect that the laws were aimed not at the criminal — who, by definition, didn't obey laws — but at the small storekeeper who kept a gun under the counter for self-defense. I always thought that was an amazing statement...of course criminals don't obey laws! That's why we call them law-breakers! But we're coming for you, Mr. Storekeeper...because we hate you.

We hate you because you think you have the right, indeed, the responsibility to take care of yourself, and we think that the use of violence of any kind is the exclusive province of the state. Let's look at England today, where once the guns were gone the supposed "right" of self-defense similarly vanished (the case in most of Europe)...use of violence is the exclusive province of the state. Now, how has that worked out in modern times? Oh yeah, the criminals still have the guns, because, as you bloody well know, they're criminals!

IMHO the intent of all this legislation is (and has always been) to create flypaper for gun owners, to create a landscape where it is nearly impossible not to violate a firearms law. To create an environment where exercising one's Second Amendment rights becomes so scary, so fraught with danger that the next generation of gun owners simply gives it up. By the time the inevitable confiscation comes, there will be a lot fewer guns to confiscate.

That's why a D.C. Attorney General will say no harm, no foul to a member of the ruling elite for violating a flypaper law, but a N.Y. prosecuting attorney can say, apparently with a straight face, it’s her job to "prosecute those cases that run amok of the law."

Fractured English aside, it's the law itself that has run amok.