National Review Online
Friday, September 13, 2019
At the Democratic-primary debate in Houston last night,
Beto O’Rourke formally killed off one of the gun-control movement’s favorite
taunts: The famous “Nobody is coming for your guns, wingnut.” Asked
bluntly whether he was proposing confiscation, O’Rourke abandoned the
disingenuous euphemisms that have hitherto marked his descent into extremism,
and confirmed as plainly as can be that he was. “Hell yes,” he said, “we’re
going to take your AR-15.”
O’Rourke’s plan has been endorsed in full by Cory Booker
and Kamala Harris, and is now insinuating its way into the manifestos of
gun-control groups nationwide. Presumably, this was O’Rourke’s intention. But
he — and his party — would do well to remember that there is a vast gap between
the one-upmanship and playacting that is de rigueur during primary
season, and the harsh reality on the ground. Prohibition has never been well
received in America, and guns have proven no exception to that rule. In New
York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, attempts at the confiscation of “high
capacity” magazines and the registration of “assault weapons” have both fallen
embarrassingly flat — to the point that the police have simply refused to aid
enforcement or to prosecute the dissenters. Does Beto, who must know this,
expect the result to be different in Texas, Wyoming, or Florida? Earlier this
week, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives was unable to marshal
enough votes to pass a ban on the sale of “assault weapons” — let alone to
mount a confiscation drive. Sorry, Robert Francis. That dog ain’t gonna hunt.
And nor should it, for O’Rourke’s policy is spectacularly
unconstitutional. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America by a
considerable margin, and is therefore clearly protected by the “in common use”
standard that was laid out in D.C. v. Heller. Put as baldly as possible,
confiscation is not a program that the federal government is permitted to
adopt.
It is also a disaster on its own merits. Much has been
made of the fact that an attempt to round up millions of guns would obviously
be met with widespread non-compliance. Much has been made, too, of the fact
that this is an odd target for a country-dividing panic, given that rifles of all
types are used less
frequently in murder than hands and fists, than handguns, and than knives.
Less, however, has been made of the fact that such an attempt cannot even be
squared with characterizations of American life that O’Rourke, Booker, and
Harris are themselves fond of making. If the trio’s testimony is to be
believed, America is a deeply unequal place in which minorities and the poor
bear the brunt of draconian legislation while wealthier and better-connected
people romp scot free — which, if true, would lead one to expect a little less
bravado in defense of what would be the most significant federal crackdown
since the start of the War on Drugs than a self-congratulatory “Hell yes.” Such
are the perils of making policy by T-shirt slogan.
For years, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms
have suspected that confiscation was the endgame but have been rebuffed as
paranoiacs in the press. Such a rebuffing is no longer possible. If it ever
was, “Nobody is coming for your guns!” is no longer true — which means that a
host of commonly posed inquiries now have the same simple answer. “Why do you
oppose federal licensing?” Because leading Democrats are threatening
confiscation. “Why do you oppose ‘universal’ background checks?” Because they
would create a registry. “And why do you oppose a registry?” Because leading
Democrats are threatening confiscation. Unwittingly or not, O’Rourke and his
acolytes have stuck a dagger into the exquisitely calibrated gun-control
messaging on which their party has worked for the better part of 20 years. No
voter can now say he wasn’t warned.
No comments:
Post a Comment