Originally published on NSSF. Republished with permission.
Gun control politicians are stuck on repeat. A deranged would-be assassin attempted to attack President Donald Trump and Cabinet officials at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner held at the Washington, D.C., Hilton hotel. Fortunately, that attack failed, despite the wounding of one Secret Service agent. But that’s not stopping gun control advocates from ignoring the obvious and instead turning the horrific attack into a platform to demand more than just increased gun control. They’re demanding outright gun bans.
The alleged assassin was arraigned on initial charges in Washington, D.C. More charges are expected as the investigation into the crimes develops. However, the initial facts are public.
The assassin left a so-called “manifesto” in which he detailed his intent, his motives, and his goal. He knew he was going to commit horrific crimes that would have an international impact, had he been able to complete his reprehensible crimes.
That self-admission belies the claims made by former President Barack Obama, who posted on X that those critical details weren’t known.
“Although we don’t yet have the details about the motives behind last night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner, it’s incumbent upon all of us to reject the idea that violence has any place in our democracy,” former President Obama wrote on X. “It’s also a sobering reminder of the courage and sacrifice that U.S. Secret Service Agents show every day. I’m grateful to them – and thankful that the agent who was shot is going to be okay.”
There’s a big problem with the former president’s statement. The motives were clear the day following the attack. The attempted assassin sent a message to his family just 10 minutes before he committed his crimes, even signing it “Friendly Federal Assassin” alongside his own name. That shows he clearly intended to murder key White House officials and potentially President Trump himself.
All doubt as to motive disappears when the attacker admits in the manifesto, “Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest.” The would-be assassin details who else may or may not be intended targets of his planned murderous rampage.
The only point of agreement with former President Obama’s social media post is that violence has no place in American society. The would-be assassin lays out exactly what he intends to do and who he intends to target, including President Trump, by labelling him with dishonest and unproven criminal accusations that have been parroted by the media.
Rep. Raskin Ratchets Demands
The shocking third attempt on President Trump’s life spun up the usual demands from crowing politicians for increased gun control. Breitbart reported that U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), told CNN’s “State of the Union” host Dana Bash, “… maybe this could be a moment of unity for trying to focus on the things that the vast majority of the American people want, like a universal, violent criminal background check.”
That belies a basic understanding of the facts that were already being revealed by the time Rep. Raskin ran to a friendly news camera. He parroted gun control talking points instead of taking responsibility for the heated rhetoric coming from him and fellow politicians who oppose President Trump.
It’s already known that the alleged assassin legally purchased a shotgun and a handgun in California. That state, of course, already has a universal background check law and a 10-day waiting period for a purchaser to take possession of a firearm after the instant background check is completed. The alleged assassin had no criminal record and wasn’t known to law enforcement.
The attacker transported his firearms across the country aboard an Amtrak train without declaring them in his luggage. That’s a crime. He brought those firearms into the District of Columbia, one of the most heavily-regulated gun control areas in the nation. Firearms are not allowed to be possessed in Washington, D.C., without them being registered with the Metro Police Department. That also includes ammunition possession. No one is allowed to possess ammunition in Washington, D.C., that doesn’t match the caliber of their registered firearm.
Universal background checks have been the crown jewel for anti-gun politicians. Those are unworkable, of course, without a national firearm registry, which is forbidden by federal law. But that’s why gun control politicians want them. It would put every law-abiding gun owner on a government watchlist for the simple act of exercising Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That’s unthinkable for anyone exercising their free speech, freedom of religion, or free press rights.
‘Military-Grade’ Ban Demand
It didn’t end there, though. Pennsylvania state Rep. and former Democratic Party Vice Chair Malcolm Kenyatta posted on X a demand to ban “military-grade weapons” following the would-be assassin’s alleged crimes. There’s just one small problem with that uninformed gun control demand. Neither of the firearms recovered from the attacker is a “military-grade weapon.” Breitbart reported that the two guns recovered by law enforcement — a pump-action shotgun and a handgun — don’t meet Rep. Kenyatta’s ban criteria.
Again, this is another knee-jerk reaction to demand gun control that wouldn’t prevent crime but would deny law-abiding citizens their Second Amendment rights. But again, that’s the point of gun control. They want to ban all guns.
It would be easy to dismiss this as hyperbole, but just days ago, an amicus brief filed by Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio, Harris County Texas, Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence claimed that the Second Amendment only protects those arms that are in common use for self-defense. That case, Brown v. ATF, challenges the National Firearms Act (NFA) requirement following the zeroing out of the $200 tax when President Trump signed the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.
“Weapons that are commonly used in and suitable for lawful self-defense fall within the scope of the Second Amendment right, but those that are ‘most useful in military service,’ or ‘ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,’ do not,” the brief reads. “That limitation follows sensibly from the ‘common use for self-defense’ rationale for the private right to bear arms.”
That takes direct aim at the bolt-action rifles that gun control groups said they were never interested in banning. The adage goes, “They won’t want to ban your hunting rifle. They’ll call it a sniper rifle first.”
The problem with that argument, as Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards points out, is that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the U.S. Constitution limits the right to keep and bear arms only to those arms that are best suited for self-defense.
“That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791,” Edwards writes. “But the next time an anti-gunner tells you that no one needs an AR-15 for deer hunting, ask them if they really believe that a bolt-action rifle is protected by the Second Amendment. They might tell you yes, but Everytown, Brady, and Giffords would beg to disagree.”
Comments