Trump's Gun Control (And Other Broken Promises): PA
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Display list of topics
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-03-31 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 934 references Ignore this thread
Trump's Gun Control (And Other Broken Promises): PA
[Comments enabled]

Understand something very important: Pennsylvania voted for a Democrat in a district that was absolutely safe as a Republican seat by political standards.


Because Republicans either didn't show up at all or didn't vote Republican.  Probably more of the former, but do understand something -- a Republican who votes Democrat results in a net two vote swing while one who stays home only results in a one vote swing.

Now contemplate this: Dicks Sporting Goods just reported earnings and their CEO noted on the conference call that the firm's decision to stop selling guns to people under 21 along with normal capacity magazines and, in a few stores, certain types of rifles was expected to result in lower sales -- that is, people staying away.

Now remember what has commonly been said about these sorts of "gun control" changes: Hunters favor them, as do most other Americans.  Uh, sure -- you see, Dicks has never been a "tactical" sort of store -- they sell hunting gear in the general panoply of firearms and yet the analyst view is that 10 percent of hunters will eschew Dicks as a result of said changes.

That's a big swing and may I remind you that not all hunters are Republicans?

The common rubric from the NRA and others is that one must vote "Red" lest the gun-grabbers get in power and do their thing.  Uh, no -- the last 20+ years says exactly the opposite.  Even a Democrat majority in all three locations of the Federal Government was unable to do anything destructive to gun rights during Obama's first two years.

Yet a Republican majority in all three houses plus in Florida has been extremely destructive in a matter of weeks and it was a Republican governor that signed that bill in Florida along with a Republican House and Senate that passed it.

It gets worse.  The Trump ATF is doing the exact opposite of honoring the Second Amendment.  In fact they and Trump literally just ripped up the entire Constitution including the 5th Amendment. Right here, right now.

Contemplate the entire "bump stock" thing folks.  These were sold as legal accessories for years.  Millions of dollars changed hands for them, people were employed and now they're in the hands of individuals.  A formal legal ruling was issued by the BATFE that these were legal accessories; the manufacturers and buyers didn't assume, they asked for and obtained a written declaration that these devices not only complied with the law they didn't require any sort of labeling, serialization or other form of control (such as a background check) as legally they were nothing more than piece of plastic.

The government is, of course, entitled to be wrong and repair that error which is what they're claiming they're doing now.  What it's not entitled to do, however, is turn you into a felon if you don't destroy or turn over a thing you were explicitly told, in writing, was legal and nothing more-nefarious or subject to regulation than a plastic box.  At absolute minimum the government is required (under the 5th Amendment) to pay you for the current fair market value of that device plus all your costs (e.g. sales tax) associated with same and to pay the manufacturers the imputed value of their facility, inventory and forward foregone earnings (and employee salaries) that would have been generated but for their error.  They could also ban the things on a forward basis (limiting any 5th Amendment claim of "taking" to the manufacturers) and leave alone anyone who already owns one.

Instead they claim to be able to retroactively declare anyone who has one of these a felon and then shoot them if they refuse to either turn them over or report to prison for 10 years after having given written confirmation that the device in question is lawful to own, possess, use and sell without any permit whatsoever.

This is a flatly and outrageously unconstitutional act; it is in fact a declaration of war by our government against the people of the United States as it stands as a claim that the US Government will not honor the bounds of the Constitution -- now or ever in the future.  This "decision" will not and does not limit itself to "bump stocks" which I personally find worthless and thus don't own any of.

If left to stand as proposed utterly no property that has been formally confirmed in writing as legal, say much less any lesser-protected form of property that someone believes is legal without a formal, written declaration, is safe from forcible confiscation under threat of death anywhere, ever, in the United States ever again.

This in fact has nothing to do with guns specifically; rather it is a clear statement that the United States Federal Government, our alleged President and the "Just-US" department can and will declare anything it likes on a retroactive basis to likes to be against the law and force you to surrender it without compensation, go to prison or die.

How far removed is this statement from what happened at Concord?

It in fact is worse than what happened at Concord in that the British Crown had never issued a written declaration that the powder and ball stored there were perfectly legal.

The ATF did, in fact, issue written and formal assurance that these devices not only weren't subject to the NFA they weren't subject to any law whatsoever as they were legally nothing more than common bits of plastic.

There goes the NRA (and other gun owner advocacy group) argument that one must vote Republican if you honor the 2nd Amendment.  The facts are that neither political party gives a flying **** about the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution at large and a Republican majority is much more dangerous since when in the majority they have no political reason to oppose anything on the basis of partisanship!

If you're pro-Second Amendment then the answer is clear: **** you Republicans!

Look folks, there are 50,000 gun laws and regulations, more or less, on the books now.  Miller (310 US 174), the seminal case on short-barreled weapons that made "NFA" firearms able to be listed and maintained was decided on a factual lie presented to the Supreme Court, unchallenged because Miller was indigent.  Specifically, the claim was made by the government that a short-barrel shotgun was not a "militia weapon" because it had no legitimate infantry wartime use.  That was a knowing lie as in fact the military had previously ordered and used a whole bunch of short-barreled shotguns for use in trench warfare and the US Government's counsel lied in the presentation of their case.

Never mind that the current debate, about whether an "AR pattern rifle" (or similar) is something ordinary people can own goes directly to that question since a rifle of similar (but not identical, in that military weapons are select-fire) construction is in fact the service rifle of the United States military!  By the very argument made by the government in Miller the AWB by Clinton was blatantly unconstitutional and so are state-level similar bans.

The entirety of these alleged "laws" are unconstitutional as each rests on the previous; the NFA is a blatantly and outrageously unconstitutional act, supported by a lie put before the Supreme Court with an indigent defendant unable to defend himself before same, and then used by the government as the animating feature of over 50,000 unconstitutional laws and regulations since.

These are facts folks, and perhaps -- just perhaps -- people are waking up.  Certainly it appears that both when it comes to DICKS and the people of that district in PA they've woken up and said **** you -- with a chainsaw.

To lose a seat that was considered incontestable as it had a 20 point margin of victory previously is virtually unheard of unless the incumbent just got caught in bed with a dead girl -- or a live boy!  If you think there are only a "few" people who you wish to label "crazy" that care about such things the evidence is that you're dead wrong.  I remind you that Dicks says they think 10 percent of their hunting traffic may have disappeared almost overnight.

That's a huge number; over a million and a half people nationally, and that's with only six percent of Americans hunting.  If half that percentage of those who don't hunt feel the same way then we're talking about somewhere in the neighborhood of 17 million Americans total who have had enough of this crap.

May I remind you that this is some six times the margin on the Presidential popular vote in 2016?

It's no wonder the PA contest turned out the way it did and the warning damn well ought to be clear: Restore the damned Second Amendment to its original words, and do it now Republicans, or else.

View with responses (opens new window)