Obama continues trend of appointing rabid gun-haters to important administration positions

Obama's newly nominated "drug czar" is Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. And just like a real czar, the drug czar, whose formal title is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, can destroy rights instantly, and he can set the stage for additional harm.

Before the dark days of the Clinton administration, few federal government officials had done more to damage Second Amendment rights than William Bennett, the so-called "drug czar" under President George H.W. Bush. In March 1989, Bennett set off a national panic by pushing the first Bush administration to ban the import of so-called "assault weapons."

Bennett claimed that "assault weapons" were the firearms of choice for violent drug dealers. The claim, of course, was nonsense. Police gun seizure data showed that the guns were rarely used in any type of crime. Yet Bennett's massive publicity stunt prohibited dozens of models of high-quality guns. And it set the stage for state-level bans on so-called "assault weapons," and, in the long run, for the 1994 Clinton gun ban.

Czar Kerlikowske's first major opportunity to promote gun bans may be based on Mexico.

More than 5,000 people--most of them employees of drug cartels--were killed last year alone in the Mexican drug wars. Partly as a result of the pervasive corruption within the Mexican government, some analysts warn that the government could collapse and Mexico could turn into a narco-state.

The Mexican government and many of its American media allies are busy blaming American gun owners for the carnage and demanding a host of restrictions on American gun rights: "assault weapons" bans, gun registration, gun-owner licensing, special restrictions on gun shows, gun purchase rationing and so on. Supposedly, these restrictions would prevent guns from being smuggled from the United States into Mexico, supplying firearms for the narcotraficantes.

But all the restrictions in the world have not prevented the Mexican cartels from acquiring grenades, machine guns, mortars and other weapons that are already either prohibited or very severely restricted. The Mexican cartels have gross revenue of about $26 billion a year. Gun smuggling for the cartels is currently a $22 million-a-year business--less than 1 percent of the cartel's revenues. These cartels obviously want weapons, and if a crackdown on law-abiding American gun owners somehow doubled or tripled the cartels' costs of weapons acquisition, the cartels could easily afford to pay the higher prices.

Instead of demanding restrictions on the rights of Americans, the Mexican government ought to begin respecting the rights of Mexicans. Mexico is the kidnapping center of the world right now; even poor people who have no wealth or connection to the drug trade are being kidnapped and held for ransom. Yet the Mexican government allows only the very wealthy and well connected to obtain permits to carry handguns for lawful protection. As a result, ordinary law-abiding Mexicans are easy prey for kidnappers.

Although there is no reason to believe that infringing the rights of American gun owners will help the good people of Mexico, there is every reason to believe that Kerlikowske will soon begin pushing such infringements.

Besides serving as police chief of Seattle, Kerlikowske is president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. That group, comprised of several dozen big-city chiefs, joined in the Brady Center's amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. That brief argued that the D.C. handgun ban, and the ban on using any firearm for protection in the home, are both constitutional and are not violations of the Second Amendment. Remember that next time Kerlikowske claims he respects the Second Amendment.

As Seattle chief since 2000, Kerlikowske has been a gun-banner's delight. He has been a strong ally of Washington Ceasefire, lobbying the state legislature on behalf of their gun-ban agenda on ending gun shows, on making an adult liable if a minor lays hands on a loaded gun and on outlawing so-called "assault weapons." In March 2006, he was honored in a ceremony by Ceasefire for his role in supporting their agenda.

Like Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who won an award from the leading gun-ban group in Illinois, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (see April 2009 cover story, p. 32), Kerlikowske deserved the honor. As police chief, he even used taxpayer money to pay for a Ceasefire anti-gun press conference in Seattle.

After being criticized for spending the public's money for the special interest anti-gun press conference, Kerlikowske paid his own airfare to participate in another press conference--this one put on in the nation's capital for the release of a Brady Center report criticizing the Tiahrt Amendment.

The Tiahrt Amendment--which has been added to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) appropriations bills in the last several Congresses--requires BATFE to share firearm trace data with local law enforcement for specific investigations, but forbids BATFE from providing aggregate data to politicians like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who want to use the data in abusive lawsuits trying to make firearm manufacturers liable for the acts of criminals who misuse guns.

At that press conference that Kerlikowske so proudly attended, the author of the report, Brady lawyer Daniel Vice, announced, "This report reveals the NRA's true colors as the criminal’s best friend." He also claimed, "The NRA's tireless efforts to undermine enforcement of our gun laws has helped criminals and gun traffickers obtain illegal firearms and fueled the recent surge in gun violence."

While William Bennett did not discover the "assault weapon" issue until he became a czar, Kerlikowske has a longstanding passion on the issue.

He evidently believes that the 1994 Clinton ban did not go nearly far enough in outlawing firearms. One of his more recent publicity campaigns has been to carry around a picture of an SKS rifle, stating "This is a SKS 7.62 weapon, high-capacity magazine, which is associated with an assault weapon, it has the bayonet holder on the front which is associated with an assault weapon."

Note that according to Kerlikowske, a carbine is "associated with an assault weapon" because it has "a bayonet holder"--as if gang members were perpetrating drive-by bayonetings. Further, the standard fixed, non-removable, 10-round magazine on the SKS is "high-capacity" to few people other than anti-gun activists.

In 2008, a criminal showed up at a house party in Seattle. He had previously been arrested in Montana for the felony of shooting a sculpture with a shotgun and a handgun, and had a record of juvenile delinquency, but he was allowed to plea bargain to a misdemeanor. The criminal murdered six people, later killing himself when police arrived. A note from the killer was subsequently found stating that the murders were based on his hatred of what he called the "hippie" lifestyle and its sexual freedom.

The criminal's shotgun was a Winchester Model 1300 Defender with a pistol grip. Chief Kerlikowske asserted: "Of course, as everyone knows, a pistol-grip shotgun is designed not for hunting purposes, but for hunting people."

This is patently untrue, since several companies offer pistol grips on turkey shotguns. More generally, there are plenty of people who add a pistol grip to a rifle or shotgun because the grip can make the gun easier to handle for defending one’s home and family.

Yet Kerlikowske's remarks suggest that he sees little if any role for defensive gun ownership.

Last October in New York City, the organization Intelligence Squared held a debate on the proposition that "guns reduce crime." Arguing against the proposition were Brady Campaign head Paul Helmke, Yale professor John Donohue and Kerlikowske.

Kerlikowske praised the British policy under which most police do not have guns. He said the British police liked being unarmed, because if they had guns, "it will only increase assaults on themselves, and that it will be a tit-for-tat or a proliferation of guns in the U.K. Which, like rabies, they have very few of."

It would be fair to say that James Madison and the other American founders did not think that guns and rabies were in any way comparable.

When Kerlikowske asserted in the same debate that American police officers "are routinely wounded and assaulted with their own guns," Professor Gary Kleck corrected him by pointing out that there is only about one case a year in which one of America's 600,000 officers is killed with his own gun.

But Kerlikowske was firm. As the debate transcript reads: "There are lots of cases in which these guns could protect you, [REPEATING WARNING TONE] there are far more cases in which the gun does not."

For nearly half a century, Washington has been a "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry state, in which permits to carry a handgun for lawful protection are issued to adults who pass a background check. As a U.S. Senate candidate in 2004, Barack Obama told the Chicago Tribune that he favored a national ban on concealed carry. Chief Kerlikowske did not go that far, but he did tell the New York City audience that he did not like the Washington state law: "I think reasonableness should enter into this, it should be more than just being upright and not being blind to allow you to carry a gun."

Asked about so-called gun "buy-backs," he admitted, "A lot of times they're old guns, they're guns that are not being used in crimes and they're being found by people cleaning out garages, etc." But he liked getting rid of the guns anyway: "Taking those guns off the street is not a bad thing--remember, a 100-year-old firearm can kill someone."

In his new Obama administration position, Kerlikowske will likely be even more effective as a gun-ban advocate than was William Bennett, whose previous jobs were secretary of Education and head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Kerlikowske, before Seattle, was deputy director of the U.S. Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services grant program, the police commissioner of Buffalo and the police chief of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, Fla. He has undergraduate and master's degrees in criminal justice, and graduated from the FBI's National Executive Institute.

Kerlikowske has already used that background to make authoritative-sounding pronouncements about gun control. He asserts that so-called "assault weapons" are the "choice for criminals"--even though a mountain of data about police firearm seizures shows that the overwhelming majority of criminals choose other guns.

He described the Clinton gun ban--which by its generic definitions applied to more than 200 models of firearms--as "a narrow and specific law to deal with military-style weapons." Yet not one of the banned guns was actually used by a "military" anywhere in the world. He claimed that the guns are "used to assault police officers," although FBI data show that such guns are very rarely used to assault police officers.

Although Kerlikowske is a staunch gun control advocate, there is one aspect in which his gun control habits could stand some improvement.

In 2004, Kerlikowske lobbied hard in Washington, D.C., to prevent the sunset of the Clinton ban on so-called "assault weapons." The day that the ban expired, he appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and warned: "We also know that when the family gun becomes an assault weapon, then that's the gun that's going to be stolen and will get out on our streets." Likewise he asserted, "We know that people will buy them and that, unfortunately, they will get stolen from their homes and out of their cars."

Given that warning, one might think that Kerlikowske would be especially diligent about securing his own gun. And, of course, one would expect he'd be diligent about his duty as a police chief to set a good example of gun safety.

Yet just three months later, on December 26, 2004, the chief and his wife used his government-owned Crown Victoria to go shopping in downtown Seattle. Kerlikowske left his Glock Model 26 pistol in the car. Someone broke into the car and stole the handgun, which has never been recovered. It is fair to say that Kerlikowske's stolen gun is now much more likely to be used in a crime than is any so-called "assault weapon" belonging to a law-abiding citizen.

As for Kerlikowske's record in Seattle, not everyone applauds his performance. In March 2002, the Seattle Police Officers' Guild voted "no confidence" in the chief. In June 2007, a civilian review board reported that Kerlikowske had interfered with an internal investigation of two officers, and had so seriously damaged the police department’s credibility that there was a need for greater outside oversight.

In 1989, when the Senate confirmed William Bennett as drug czar, his decision to spend his first day in office promoting a gun ban was a surprise to nearly everyone.

If Kerlikowske turns the Office of National Drug Control Policy into the Office of National Gun Control, no one should be surprised.

This article which is made available for public reproduction here, also appears in the latest issue of America's First Freedom magazine.

"I think Heller may have done more to set president than most imagine. USSC cases on the 2nd ammendment are very rare. We may not see another for 50 years."

I don't know how to respond, my friend.

Didn't the USSC come within *two* votes of redefining the *meaning* of the 2nd Amendment not too long ago?
Yea they sure did, *2* votes.

Example: a year ago, maybe two here in WI a state wide smoking ban came up before the R controlled senate.
Was defeated.
2008 elections threw out the Rs, gave the D's a majority.

Monday WI's Gov Doyle {spit} will sign the *new* state wide smoking ban!
Shazam!
Oh yea and the greased eel plans to do it in three cities.
Great photo op, huh?

Won't get into the real anger brewing over [that] asinine move.
Will say the rage has manifest in a serious recall effort starting with the clown who wrote and sponsored the AS bill.
An analogy, if you will.

NOW, we have zerO.
zerO has both houses, a super majority in one IIRC.

zerO has to choose an individual to fill the vacant seat on the USSC.
When It makes its choice, let me ask you: Where would you guess the chosen USSC individual will fall concerning our 2nd Amendment?
All that'll be needed is a "case" making it all the way to the USSC, eh?
Child's play, that "case".

These days --more than ever before-- never say never.
Our beloved constitution's seriously been weakened, so far has withstood fierce attack(s) and we [should] all know it, too.

As for your 50 year prediction?
I can't agree; however, I *pray* (really) you're correct & I wrong.
That kind of bias doesn't happen very often for me, either. :^)

I think Heller may have done more to set president than most imagine. USSC cases on the 2nd ammendment are very rare. We may not see another for 50 years.

The 9th Circuit Court just incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right in the Nordyke decision. The Supreme Court will be asked to grant cert to incorporate the Second Amendment next term, IMHO. Stare decisis no longer prevails. Circuit courts are now in conflict, probably one of the most common reasons that they take a case.

P.S. Obama is only able to replace liberal geezers barring unforeseen circumstances. You wanted precedent, not president.

The ammo shortage makes perfect sense, given the possibilities we face.

Ammo shortage?? What ammo shortage?

No one I Know is short of any ammo!

You must be referring to the relative scarcity on the shelves of stores across the USA.

But actual shortages??Nah, just ask your neigbors, they have plenty.

:-)

"The 9th Circuit Court just incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right in the Nordyke decision. The Supreme Court will be asked to grant cert to incorporate the Second Amendment next term, IMHO. Stare decisis no longer prevails. Circuit courts are now in conflict, probably one of the most common reasons that they take a case."

Sound like you know your legalese onions to me, neverdem.
Care to xlate the above into lay terms one may understand? :^)

If I had to guess what you've said correctly? It sounds like you're asserting the 2nd has been made *official* ergo untouchable from here on out?
Thought all the amendments were in stone; but, if I'm correct you prove my point insofar as these guys changing, defining, and redefining ordinary words, at will.

If it's so?
I ---personally-- could never again trust the new breed of lawyer to correctly interpret our Constitution, as written. Not trying to pull some kind of hare brained shenanigans to suit whatever the zeitgeist agenda of the time regardless what the founders wrote, supposedly for all time.

Sorry, my friend.
Too hand shy now and *I* believe justly so.
I mean there are precedents, y'know. {g}

BTW did you read THIS?
Please, your opin on the implication(s)?

While incrementalism's totally a domain of the left, a strategy for subverting? And while the pathetic RINO weasel from SC sponsored it? Leftists will break a leg to jump on board.
Just saying.

"P.S. Obama is only able to replace liberal geezers barring unforeseen circumstances. You wanted precedent, not president."

*I* wrote that, or, the east1234 individual?
While I *do* know the difference & consciously try to catch these tricky curiosities of the English lexicon?
The spell checker knows not nor cares. LOL

The 9th Circuit Court just incorporated the Second Amendment as an individual right in the Nordyke decision.

Lawyers have successfully argued that the federal Bill of Rights is just a restraint on the federal gov't, not the states. The Supreme Court took cases incorpoating the separate amendments as individuals rights that the states can't violate after the 13th Amendment, IIRC. It's good work for lawyers. I'm not a lawyer. Last year's Heller decision only applied to D.C. The 9th Circuit's Nordyke decision just applies to the 9th Circuit, an appellate court.

The Supreme Court will be asked to grant cert to incorporate the Second Amendment next term, IMHO. Stare decisis no longer prevails.

Stare decisis means lower courts have to follow precedent.

Circuit courts are now in conflict, probably one of the most common reasons that they take a case.

Other Circuits say the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean an individual right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for the link.

USSC cases on the 2nd ammendment are very rare. We may not see another for 50 years.

I think I disagree. We'll see lots and lots of them. They will atempt to effectively overturn Heller, or failing that, or possibly prior to that, they'll get the Heller ruling itself "interpreted" to allow as many restrictions as they can get away with.

But personally, I don't give a hoot. I can read, and what is so hard to understand about "right of the people", which Heller pretty well settled, or "shall not be infringed", which it only touched on.

Didn't the USSC come within *two* votes of redefining the *meaning* of the 2nd Amendment not too long ago? Yea they sure did, *2* votes.

Actually 1 vote. It was a 5-4 decision, so one vote the other way and it could have been Kennedy's would have made it 5-4 the other way

zerO has to choose an individual to fill the vacant seat on the USSC. When It makes its choice, let me ask you: Where would you guess the chosen USSC individual will fall concerning our 2nd Amendment? All that'll be needed is a "case" making it all the way to the USSC, eh? Child's play, that "case".

Well, for this one, he'll just be replacing one person who doesn't understand "shall not be infringed" with another. Won't make a bit of difference. When Scalia or Kennedy go, that will make a difference, if it happens on Obama's watch. Both were born in 1936, so are about 73. The other 3 in the majority on Heller are about 44 (Roberts) 59 (Alito) and 61 (Thomas). All should be on the court for some time yet, barring the unpredicable.

OTOH The four who voted in the minority, are around 89 (Stevens), 76 (Ginsburg), 71 (Breyer) and 70 Souter. Souter is the one retiring.

The most likely remaining Justices to retire or pass away during Obama's first (and hopefully last!) term are Stevens and Ginsburg. Ginsburg has been in ill health for some time, and Stevens is, well, very OLD.

Still, two of "our" five are past what most consider "normal retirement age" (but Justices tend to hold on for as long as they can), but the other 3 are spring chickens compared to the age when most Justices hang it up.

So, it's much more likely that The One, will merely get to replace anti arms rights statist Justices with others of the same ilk.

Sound like you know your legalese onions to me, neverdem.

What he's saying is that the question of the application of the second amendment against state or local infringements is no longer "Settled Law", because the 9th Circuit has said that it does apply to the states, while other Circuits have said that it does not. The Constitution must mean the same everywhere, so the Supreme Court is likely to take a case so that they can rule if it does or does not apply to the states. When they do, that will then become "settled law". Just what "shall not be infringed" means, will likely never be completely settled, because the hoplophobes (those who fear guns, ie. gun grabbers) will always be thinking up new schemes, which will then have to be tested against the Courts previous rulings on the meaning of "infringed".

Is this liberal loser gay or something?
FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!

Each idiot in office is worse than the moron before him.

You've read my mind. Seems the current 'inhabitant' is a hybrid of Gore and Kerry- something we'd have already dealt with had either of these two goobers been elected, but inevitable just the same.

Hard to imagine someone worse than Obama on the horizon but if the trend continues it's almost a certainty.

I propose the solution is to go outside the traditional, Northeastern, leadership incubators that produce these defective 'statesmen' and place the task of leading America in the hands of 'regular' Americans.

I'm so sick of the political drooling that passes for discourse. There's the American way and the un-American way. People simply need (media watchdogs) to know which path is being taken and yet, it's blurred beyond recognition. Not good.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.