When the truth won’t do

I’m working a theme this week.

Robin Brulé, “Member Of Everytown Survivor Network,” wants universal preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks. After all…

My mother is gone; others may be saved
My 75-year-old mother, Ruth, and her friend had been shot and killed. My mother had taken a trip to visit her friend who lived in a retirement community. They were drinking coffee and reading the newspaper when strangers robbed them and took their lives in a single instant.
[…]
the glaring loophole in New Mexico state law that allows criminals, domestic abusers and other dangerous people to obtain guns from unlicensed sellers with no background check, no questions asked. SB 48/HB 50 would close this deadly loophole by requiring a criminal background check for all gun sales.

No honest folks really want violent criminals walking around with guns (although one might also wonder what the violent criminals are doing on the loose in the first place, if they’re known). But Brulé fails to explain how universal PPYI checks would have stopped her mother’s murders. After all…

“Wright had no prior criminal record in Arizona…”
[…]
“Court records show Lauro was arrested on a second-degree burglary charge in 2013. The charge was dismissed in 2014.”

And…

Gothic said both men were subject to standard pre-employment procedures, drug screenings, and E-Verify, “which exceeds legal and industry practices.” The company said they are cooperating fully with law enforcement in the ongoing investigation

So, Brulé, how would your background checks stop a couple of guys, apparently with no disqualifying convictions, from purchasing a firearm? From anyone, including an FFL who has to go through NICS?

Another question: Given that, in Haynes, the Supreme Court has rulled that felons cannot be forced to self-incriminate on firearms charges, how do victim disarmers propose to force disqualified persons to comply with PPYI? Your police state dream law would only apply to honest people. You know, the ones who aren’t the problem.

Third question: Even if SCOTUS suddenly decided to toss the Fifth Amendment, how do you victim-disarming whackos propose to preemptively stop strawman purchases?

When victim-disarming ban bunnies start suggesting laws that don’t infringe on honest people’s right, and do apply to the real criminal predators, I might stop regarding them as liars or idiots. Or both.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *