May 1, 2019

Did Kamala Harris if she's elected President "and you don't surrender your guns," she "sign an executive order and the police will show up at your door."

No. Here's what she said:
Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action. And specifically what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns. I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license. And by the way, ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms, well, the ATF has been doing a lot of the “A” and the “T,” but not much of the “F.” And we need to fix that. And then — on the third piece, because none of us have been sleeping over the last two years, part of what has happened under the current administration is they took fugitives off the list of prohibited people. I’d put them back on the list, meaning that fugitives from justice should not be able to purchase a handgun or any kind of weapon. So that’s what I’d do.
Why did the Trump administration take fugitives from justice off the list of persons prohibited from buying guns?  I found this at WaPo (from November 2017):

For more than 15 years, the FBI and ATF disagreed about who exactly was a fugitive from justice. The FBI, which runs the criminal background check database, had a broad definition and said that anyone with an outstanding arrest warrant was prohibited from buying a gun. But ATF argued that, under the law, a person is considered a fugitive from justice only if they have an outstanding warrant and have also traveled to another state....

On Feb. 15, the FBI directed its employees in the Criminal Justice Information Services Division to remove all entries of fugitives from justice from the background check database and said that "entries will not be permitted" under that category until further notice. Before the FBI memo, there were about 500,000 people identified as fugitives from justice in the database — and all of those names were removed. Now there are 788....

62 comments:

exhelodrvr1 said...

Sounds like the database was very unreliable due to significant number of incorrect entries, which is completely unsurprising, so they are starting over. WHich is the correct approach.

Henry said...

none of us have been sleeping over the last two years,

That explains something.

Bay Area Guy said...

No need to parse Kammy on the issue of guns.

If Kammy and the Dems could repeal the 2A, they would.

If they could extensively regulate private gun ownership, they would.

Anonymous said...

The change was decided under the Obama administration but implemented under President Donald Trump in February.
Ah Ha! Facts certainly get in the way of a good story!

Nonapod said...

Yeah... 500,000 seems a bit high for "fugitives from Justice". That's like if everyone in the entire city of Sacramento was a fugitive.

Henry said...

Resolving the interpretation of the law and fixing the database actually seems like something an executive administration should do.

Anonymous said...

There are ample background check laws on the books. Both local and Federal cops are to be blamed if they are not up to date or enforced.

Michael K said...

That's like if everyone in the entire city of Sacramento was a fugitive.

If they aren't they should be. A lot of illegal stuff goes on jn the state capital, especially.

Plus there are a couple of million voters in CA who are fugitives.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Two simple, obvious questions pop out at me (meaning there is no chance our watchdog media will ask them).
1 - who claims to be in favor of unreasonable gun laws?
2 - how many gun crimes are linked to weapons that were legally purchased by a person w/o undergoing a background check?

Known Unknown said...

"none of us have been sleeping over the last two years"

I sleep perfectly fine, Glock-under-my-pillow-style.

Dave Begley said...

Yeah, reasonable gun safety laws. I'm opposed to unreasonable laws. Who isn't?

And how about the guy with the gun who stopped the San Diego shooting from being much worse? Or how about the fact that the public in Venezuela has all the guns?

We don't trust the Dems on this issue.

Achilles said...

I support reasonable gun safety laws.

Democrat voters commit 90+% of gun violence.

They shouldn't have guns.

Yancey Ward said...

Like all government databases used for such purposes, the information was stale and outdated, and was denying people their legal right to purchase the firearms. That it was stale and outdated was a feature to the gun control crowd, not a defect. It is the same with the push to allow doctors to declare via secret communication that so and so is mentally ill. The goal is to get everyone on such a list of one kind or another.

In any case, the fugitives you should worry about are not going to give a shit any way about such a prohibition. Harris gets a thumbs down for just being stupid.

Greg Q said...

So, if you fail to show up in court for a traffic ticket, or fail to pay a parking fine, you're a "fugitives from justice", and should lose your Second Amendment acknowledged Constitutional Rights?

And people who push this idea think they aren't insane?

Jim at said...

Careful what you wish for, leftists.
You just might get it.

stlcdr said...

re. Kamala's statement:

1. people who sell more than 5 guns: since those may very well be hobbyists buying and selling guns to satisfy their hobby to private individuals, I'm not sure how that can be enforced.

2. FFLs who don't do background checks - or, specifically, 'break the law'. FFLs do background checks. Period. That's one of the requirements. So, nothing changes. If they fail to perform the background check (and lets not get pedantic) their license would/should be revoked.

2a. Or does Kamala mean 'any law'?

2b. are we defining long guns vs. hand guns? Some firearm purchases don't require a background check, under certain conditions.

bleh said...

Reminds me of the weird, but revealing, kerfuffle over people on the "do not fly" list being banned from buying guns. You would think Democrats, who purport to care about the interests of Latinos and Muslims, would be more understanding about people in those communities being wrongly placed on an administrative list because of a shared or even similar name. But no. Democrats don't care at all about the rights of gun owners.

Still, it amazes me that anyone would be okay with a bureaucrat in some agency just putting a person's name on a list and then taking away that person's (as well as other similarly named persons') constitutional right to a firearm. No trial needed. No conviction needed.

Rick said...

So Trump protects our civil rights and Dems promise to eliminate them - via executive order if necessary.

I'm amused watching self-proclaimed protectors of civil rights trip over their own authoritarianism.

rehajm said...

Impossible for a human being to not sleep for two years. Four Pinocchios, and Kamala is now on record as a compulsive liar.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Yeah, reasonable gun safety laws. I'm opposed to unreasonable laws. Who isn't?”

That is the issue isn’t it - how do you define reasonable gun laws? No doubt, she would want to ban Modern Sporting Rifles, such as AR-15s, or, indeed pretty much any firearm implementing technology that is less than sixty or so years old. For me, I would reopen the machine gun registry, and remove limitations on silencers and barrel length. The silencer regulations are esp egregious, essentially mandating that anyone utilize firearms outside a firing range will very likely be needlessly afflicted by hearing loss.

Bilwick said...

Of course she wouldn't send armed men to your door to take your guns! What statist would ever do that???

Mike Sylwester said...

Because of this issue alone, Kamala Harris never will become the US President or Vice President.

Mike Sylwester said...

I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license.

Breaks which law?

Breaks any law?

Mike Sylwester said...

Some communities perceive that the ATF is like the Ku Klux Klan.

Achilles said...

Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a federal law enforcement agency.

Achilles said...

Maduro in Venezuela and Kamala Harris agree about the travesties of freedom.

Humperdink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Humperdink said...

Kammy will not need to have the police show up at a gun owner's door. She will just defer to Rep. Eric Swallowswell (D-Tyrant) and he will direct the military to nuke 'em.

tim in vermont said...

Harris is going to have the cash at the end and she has two trump cards of gender and race to shut up the people who are demanding unicorns and rainbows and free everything. Biden has no real path because as a white male, he can’t afford to tell the looney left to pound salt.

Earnest Prole said...

Like Trump and Obama, Harris seems to think the President is some kind of Emperor who rules by decree.

tim in vermont said...

Biden will be forced to disavow everything that appeals to Trump Democrats to get the nomination.

Seeing Red said...

have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws.

There are already reasonable gun safety laws.

Marcus Bressler said...

Just watched this idiot (at the Barr hearing) use the word "infer" incorrectly. She won't make it past New Hampshire.

THEOLDMAN

Seeing Red said...

have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws.

There are already reasonable gun safety laws.

tim in vermont said...

Earnest Prole said...
Like Trump and Obama, Harris seems to think the President is some kind of Emperor who rules by decree


What? You mean by pointing out that DACA was never funded by congress? You mean by pointing out that the Paris Accords were never ratified, nor was the “Iran Deal”? Can you give an example where Trump has tried to make laws with his pen alone? He is head of the executive, and some things are within his power there. But Obama tried to legislate.

So could you give me an example regarding Trump?

tim in vermont said...

Just watched this idiot (at the Barr hearing) use the word "infer" incorrectly. She won't make it past New Hampshire.

So you are telling me that she has lost the critical pedant vote?

Earnest Prole said...

So could you give me an example regarding Trump?

Sure. Trump promised us a big, beautiful wall and other illegal immigration protections, and had ample opportunity to cut a deal when Republicans held both House and Congress, but ended up with nothing because he didn’t understand how our system of government works. He tried to cover that failure with an emergency decree, but the amount available to him was a fraction of what he could have had through the normal process. If Trump had told Republicans (and moderate Democrats) on January 20, 2017 that no legislation would move (including the Republicans’ beloved tax cuts) until the American people were protected from illegal immigration, a compromise would have been struck and it would have set the tone for the remainder of his Presidency. Trump failed and the resulting demographic onslaught will likely spell the death of Republican competitiveness in Texas, Florida, and even Arizona, but at least we have Failure Theater to entertain us.

Jeff said...

But I thought sleeping over (at Willie's) was how Kamala got her start in politics.

Skeptical Voter said...

Bilwick--now Kamala might send armed men to your door, and I'm not saying that's a good thing. But it could be worse. Eric Swalwell, flower child and flaming idiot from California, has said he would use "nukes" if you don't give up your guns. So Kamala is definitely the lesser of two weasels as between the two.

And of course Lizzie from Massachusetts, being an Indian and all, is probably only interested in any tomahawks you might have.

narciso said...

indeed:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/05/barr-mueller-very-clear-that-he-was-not-suggesting-we-had-misrepresented-his-report/

DarkHelmet said...

If you have a firearms dealer license you already have to do background checks. Private sellers don't have licenses and don't do background checks. If a private citizen sells six guns under the reign of Kamala the First, her executive decree says the guy is supposed to do background checks. If he fails to do so, she will take his license. Which he doesn't have.

All politicians can talk a lot without saying anything. Kamala is near the top of the class in that category.

elkh1 said...

ATF did a lot of A, T, but not F.

Mayhaps because F is a right protected by the Constitution?

Paul said...

On ATF form 4473 it says..

d. Are you a fugitive from justice? (See Instructions for Question 11.d.)

To say 'no' when 'yes' is a federal offense all in itself.

To say 'yes' no doubt rejects you from buying a gun.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

"a person is considered a fugitive from justice only if they have an outstanding warrant and have also traveled to another state"

How would law enforcement know that? I take it you can't get on the list unless you get spotted in another state. If you're a really good fugitive and don't get spotted in the other state where you are hiding out, then you would stay off the list.

narciso said...

another pathetic also ran,

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/01/democratic-candidates-solicit-donations-qualify-debates-already-invited/

Greg Q said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
"a person is considered a fugitive from justice only if they have an outstanding warrant and have also traveled to another state"

How would law enforcement know that? I take it you can't get on the list unless you get spotted in another state. If you're a really good fugitive and don't get spotted in the other state where you are hiding out, then you would stay off the list.


Well, if you're applying to buy a gun in another State, they'll now know you're in another State, no?

Greg Q said...

Earnest Prole said...
So could you give me an example regarding Trump?

Sure. Trump promised us a big, beautiful wall and other illegal immigration protections, and had ample opportunity to cut a deal when Republicans held both House and Congress, but ended up with nothing because he didn’t understand how our system of government works.


False. He ended with nothing because there's enough Republicans owned by the Chamber of Commerce "we want illegals in here to work for cheap" people that, between them and the Democrats, there was 0 chance of getting an acceptable deal.


He tried to cover that failure with an emergency decree, but the amount available to him was a fraction of what he could have had through the normal process.

No, the amount available through the normal process was $0. See what happened to ObamaCare repeal. Are you seriously trying to claim that John McCain, Jeff Flake, Murkowski, and Collins would have voted for "The Wall"? And would have voted to end filibusters, so the Wall could be approved with fewer than 60 votes?


If Trump had told Republicans (and moderate Democrats) on January 20, 2017 that no legislation would move (including the Republicans’ beloved tax cuts) until the American people were protected from illegal immigration, a compromise would have been struck and it would have set the tone for the remainder of his Presidency. Trump failed and the resulting demographic onslaught will likely spell the death of Republican competitiveness in Texas, Florida, and even Arizona, but at least we have Failure Theater to entertain us.

Wait, you accuse Trump of acting like a dictator, then complain because he wasn't dictatorial enough with Congress? What are you smoking?

Leave aside that Trump's major successes have been in rolling back regulations, and getting conservative judges and Justices appointed. The first relied on a bunch of votes in Congress. The second relies on a bunch of votes in the US Senate.

Do explain how he'd get those votes while holding Congress hostage. Please, I'm sure this would be really amusing.


Trump has been following the law, and using his executive powers, often powers that were explicitly granted by Congress.

That's entirely different from the illegitimate behavior by mr Pen and Phone

Lewis Wetzel said...

See, this is where the Democrats show themselves to be even more stupid than the GOP.
You want to piss people off in the states that got Trump to the inauguration? Push gun control hard. Go crazy, man. Insist that the state fire arms laws will be over ridden by a declaration from the office of California politician Kamala Harris.

Michael K said...

ended up with nothing because he didn’t understand how our system of government works.

Let me add an attaboy to the previous answer. The swamp is bipartisan. Read Codevilla's essay.

Next year will be very, very important to see if Trump can get some help to do the stuff Republicans have been promising since 1994.

That's why the Democrats are planning massive vote harvesting next election. 2018 was a practice run and they got all the House seats in Orange County.

Earnest Prole said...

Let me add an attaboy to the previous answer. The swamp is bipartisan. Read Codevilla's essay.

Of course the swamp is bipartisan, which is why it's essential to have knowledge of how our system of government works if you aim to change things. Trump did not and therefore failed at immigration reform when he could have had a deal.

Failure Theater, in short.

sinz52 said...

One of the main reasons that Trump's southern wall wasn't enacted was that in 2017, the top priority of both Trump and the GOP Congress was the repeal and replace of Obamacare. Need I remind you that the GOP had hammered that issue for eight years, promising that they would absolutely, positively repeal it if they could only control both Congress and the Executive Branch?

But in the end, Paul Ryan's monstrosity of a bill was put out of its misery and that was that.

You can't do everything all at once, and you have to set priorities.

The GOP's priority was Obamacare repeal above all else.

Michael K said...

Trump did not and therefore failed at immigration reform when he could have had a deal.

I'm sure you were cheering on the left that wants open borders. Trump is not Cocaine Mitch, it's true. The difference is that he is not on the take. How do you think Congress men and women who start as politicians with $150,000 salaries end up as millionaires ?

The tooth fairy ?

Earnest Prole said...

One of the main reasons that Trump's southern wall wasn't enacted was that in 2017, the top priority of both Trump and the GOP Congress was the repeal and replace of Obamacare.

You have that exactly right. Trump, like Obama before him, assumed he'd have plenty of time to get around to immigration reform and when he did his party would support him. Both had absolutely no idea how Washington actually worked. Both came away with nothing.

Earnest Prole said...

I'm sure you were cheering on the left that wants open borders.

The person warning how Trump's immigration failures will doom the Republican party in Texas, Florida, and Arizona is, in your mind, a person cheering on the left? Reading is hard.

0_0 said...

It's BATFE, Kammy.

The Drill SGT said...

I do think that we should do more charging of people that attempt to buy guns when they are not eligible. If it's clear they knew they weren't

Michael K said...

a person cheering on the left? Reading is hard.

Yup, welcome to the open borders party

Greg Q said...

Earnest Prole said...
Let me add an attaboy to the previous answer. The swamp is bipartisan. Read Codevilla's essay.

Of course the swamp is bipartisan, which is why it's essential to have knowledge of how our system of government works if you aim to change things. Trump did not and therefore failed at immigration reform when he could have had a deal.

Really? Do tell! Exactly what reasonable deal could Trump have gotten? And exactly who were the 60 votes in the Senate who would have voted for it?

Stop depriving us of your brilliance. Let us know exactly what should have been done

Earnest Prole said...

Really? Do tell! Exactly what reasonable deal could Trump have gotten?

Democrats were enthusiastic for a DACA deal before Trump doubled the number without asking for anything in return, making them realize he was so desperate he would negotiate against himself -- you know, the kind of stuff you read about in the famous book of bad negotiation tactics called The Fart of the Deal.

Greg Q said...

So you're saying that the Democrats decided (wrongly) that Trump was desperate for a deal, and thus refused to make a deal?

And that this is all Trump's fault?

I guess Trump should have followed my plan, and ordered ICE to start deporting DACA applicants at the rate of 10k a week, until he got the deal he wanted?


That's really special, Earnest Prole.

I note, as a minor point, that you're still depriving us of your brilliance, refusing to give us any actual details. I'm so sad!

purplepenquin said...

"Democrat voters commit 90+% of gun violence"

Interesting theory. Did you make that up yourself or are you referencing an actual source?

Bilwick said...

"'Democrat voters commit 90+% of gun violence'

"Interesting theory. Did you make that up yourself or are you referencing an actual source?"

I don't know, but it seems likely true. I would guess that ghetto dwellers constitute a majority of the "gun violence" perpetrators (not to mention knife violence and bludgeon violence and bare-hands violence), and you don't find many Republicans in the 'Hood.