SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AOC Displays Her Stunning Ignorance of Federal Firearms Laws…Again…Still
By Larry Keane
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance is showing again. Her latest gaffe is proclaiming “guns are not allowed in the District of Columbia…” in a CNN interview with Chris Cuomo, brother, of course, to Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, also no stranger to gun control causes.
That might come as a shock to those gun owners living in the District of Columbia. It might also come as a shock to the only federal firearms licensee – DC Security Associates. For that matter, someone might want to explain that to the police department itself, which became the sole licensee for a brief period of time.
If You’re a Lawmaker, Know the Laws
Still, that confusion doesn’t make Rep. Ocasio-Cortez correct, not by a long shot. The District of Columbia’s attempt to deny guns inside the District failed miserably. That resulted in the landmark Heller decision, which affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right and local authorities cannot ban entire classes of commonly-owned firearms.
Before the case, Washington, D.C. had banned the possession of handguns. In subsequent litigation, the federal courts have ordered that the District must issue licenses to carry firearms to qualified, law-abiding citizens.
That put an end to DC’s ban on handguns. In fact, more than 4,000 people have obtained concealed carry permits from the D.C. police department, which requires hours of classroom instruction and range certification. Over half of those in the last fiscal year were for residents who live outside the District, according to a Washington Post report.
That might end the discussion on whether it’s lawful to exercise fundamental rights in the federal enclave where the nation’s elected representatives meet. It didn’t put an end to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of the law, however.
Clutching Pearls
The congresswoman was making her wildly incorrect remark when she was explaining why she didn’t attend President Joe Biden’s inauguration. She said she didn’t feel safe since fellow members of Congress were asserting their right to keep and bear arms. This is where she might have been confused.Firearm possession within the Capitol Hill complex is forbidden for everyone except Members of Congress and law enforcement. While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is throwing up metal detectors and having U.S. Representatives get wanded down every time they go into the House chamber to cast their votes, this notion that Members of Congress can’t have guns in the Capitol is bunk.
The last time this came up was in 2015, when Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) took all appropriate steps to hang an American-flag themed Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) in his Capitol Hill office. It was unloaded, the bolt removed and disabled with a trigger lock. Gun control politicians clutched their pearls and shrieked that such an abomination couldn’t be tolerated. Except that it can.
“Members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office,” explained Kimberly Schneider, a spokesperson for Capitol Hill police, “and they and any employee or agent of any member of Congress may transport within the Capitol Grounds firearms unloaded and securely wrapped.”
The same rule also explains that no one “shall carry any firearm inside the chamber or on the floor of either House, in any lobby or cloakroom adjacent thereto, in the galleries of either House or in the Marble Room of the Senate or Rayburn Room of the House unless assigned or approved by the two Sergeants of Arms for maintenance of adequate security.”
Just so we’re keeping it easy to understand…guns are legal in Washington, D.C. and Members of Congress can have guns in their office. Rules adopted by the House of Representatives forbids them on the floor of the House chamber, in the respective lobbies and cloakroom or designated rooms.
Blinded by Bias
This isn’t the first-time Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s ignorance of federal firearm laws has been on full display. She infamously accused fellow Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) of wanting to lend firearms to “people unsupervised who can’t pass a background check.” In the same tweet, she accused any friends of Rep. Crenshaw to “have likely abused their spouse or have a violent criminal record, & you may not know it.”If Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez took time to understand the Constitution she’s sworn to defend, or the laws she purports to understand and advance, she would know that it’s a felony to knowingly transfer a firearm to a prohibited individual. This includes domestic abusers.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s comments in which she bungled gun laws and Constitutional rights started with her saying that she didn’t feel safe and claimed many other Members of Congress agreed with her. She didn’t offer any other names or even attempt at putting a number on it. She did willingly ignore that a concern for safety is exactly why more than 8.4 million people purchased a firearm for the first time last year, among the 21 million background checks for a gun sale.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored 29 bills and amendments. None of her bills have passed the House of Representatives, controlled by her fellow Democrats. Only two of her amendments have passed, one by voice vote and one by recorded vote. A courtesy she might want to consider on behalf of the people she’s elected to represent would be to understand the laws before she attempts to destroy them.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/aoc-displays-stunning-ignorance-of-federal-firearms-laws-again-still/
NOTE: It isn't just AOC. It seems that Dem lawmakers who know the law are an overwhelming minority. We are constantly bombarded with soundbytes about the "gunshow loophole" - which does not exist. Usually, when that purported loophole is mentioned, Dems are trying to prohibit the transfer of any weapon between any two people who are not federally licensed dealers. Lawmakers either don't know the law, or they are purposely trying to confuse voters on the issue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @07:57AM (3 children)
Fascism is when business and government collude using nationalistic violence to oppress the people. Dictatorship with mercantile backing, and a violent nationalistic segment of the population. Fascism is 100% what the US has been diving further and further into, and as an olive branch to the rightwing yes Obama was more fascist than his predecessors which I really did not like. Given the lack of election reform I would still choose the Giant Douche over the Turd Sandwich.
Fucko is undeniably fascist. He is leveraged over his head to private and business interests, corrupted the government for his own enrichment, and used violence and his government position to attack political opponents. Now we have a recent attempted insurrection where our duly elected government officials were going to be murdered, ordered to march on the Capitol by fucko and he was such a coward he said he'd go with them but retreated to the White House.
He embodies corruption, represents powerful corporate interests, and regularly referred to his Second Amendment followers framing a call to violent murder as "justa joke" then whipped a mob into murderous insurrection. Like, what is too much for you? Only when the genocide starts?
The US is fascist with democratic tendencies, but state run elections should be able to save the day. Sadly the GOP attempted the most egregious attack on states rights to undermine the very foundation of our democracy. We the people should unite over issues we all benefit from, like election reform to rid us of the two party tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @05:06PM (2 children)
Not quite.
Fascism is not about collaboration; it's about a dirigiste economy in which only collaborators are left to thrive and form a privileged class. Look at Mussolini-era Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain or even apartheid-era South Africa. You had national champions, but also picked winners in matters such as trade unions (here a much closer analogue in the USA would be FDR, not Obama) and explicit restraint of trade.
This is in fact what many people get wrong about it; fascism is not just an open invitation to big business to do what it does. Fascism is when the government (which doesn't even have to be a dictatorship - South Africa's the perfect example on that front) co-opts big business and dictates to it. China is closer to that logic today than the USA is (although the USA isn't all that terribly far in some ways). When big business gets to write rules and throw elbows and government gets to wipe off the blood and smile for the camera, what you might have is a plutocracy, or a plutocratic oligarchy, but it's not fascism. The key differentiating factor is the locus of power. Is it in the marching boots and hyperpatriotic displays, or is it in the banks and the backrooms? A fascist country would take one look at the BLM/Antifa/random protests and said: "Oh good, a target-rich environment." and sent in some goons with orders to break heads and drag people off in chains. Instead the USA has hand-wringing about the accumulated billions in damages, and orders to the cops not to be too nasty to the poor dears.
What you describe is plutocratic oligarchy, in detail. It's all about the benjamins. All about the big bucks, the brown paper bags full of used, non-sequential tens and twenties. That's not fascism, although I see how people could get confused by it. It's not even just about business getting their marching orders from the government in fascism; it also applies to other organisations such as trade unions. Mussolini boosted the cooperative unions as an explicit counterbalance to the more boisterous ones (as did FDR, by the way). Fascist governments tend to dictate the terms of trade, while oligarchs tend to rig sweetheart deals (check the treatment of Boeing, for example).
Here's a quick first-order guide for you on telling the difference: is the government more likely to make sure that the insurance companies don't go broke after a riot, or to tell the police to fix bayonets and find a corner of the desert to dump bodies?
Now I'm not saying that you have to like either of the above options, but I will say that if you want to fight them, it really helps to understand their nature, and misidentifying them will lead you to ill-conceived tactics in opposition. Trying to fight oligarchs as if they were fascists will lead to you playing right into their hand, and vice versa. Fascists are bad with money and economic planning. They get some early headline successes by turning a few popular things around (Hitler and the automobile industry/infrastructure springs to mind) but then tend to get bogged down with the fantastic complexity of a real economy (which explains why a large part of the weakness in the Axis WWII strategy was logistical, once you reached beyond the immediate level of boots on the ground). Oligarchs tend to be pretty good with money, and have lots of it to throw around, but are bad at the use of force. Apartheid-era South Africa wasn't overthrown because the the government of the day ended up on meathooks like Mussolini, or committing suicide in a bunker like Hitler, nor even because they were losing on the ground (they weren't), but because they were running out of money (which was quite a feat, considering the country's mineral wealth) with which to keep their oppressive wheels turning.
If you really want to dismantle the structures of power in the USA, you'd have to start with the regulations that give a structural advantage to the really big players, and get some real teeth to antitrust enforcement. But don't bother with a path that involves spending money to do it, because they'll outspend you every single time. Find an ideological or political path to do it - that's where they're weaker.
On this front, Obama was in rock solid with the plutocrats. Trump was kind of in there, but also upset some of their apple carts (remember the fights about H1B visas). In some important ways he was actually anti-fascist, but that doesn't get a lot of press. Bush Junior was a major plutocrat (hello, oil money!) , and Clinton played ball with them like a pro.
Another good place to start is Tony Benn's three questions:
* What power do you have?
* Where did you get it?
* How do we get rid of you?
If the answers to his first question involve dragging dissenters to a gravel pit and shooting them in the back of the head, or dumping them out of helicopters, or whatever, then you're dealing with fascists or someone very like them. If the answer involves fat, fat bank accounts, backroom trade deals and so on? You're not.
I understand why this stuff doesn't get taught in middle school. But that doesn't prevent me from wishing that it were.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @08:32PM (1 child)
How about the exact label of the authoritarian violence to violate democracy does not matter. I don't care if you want to call it fascism or plutocratic oligarchy, writing an essay on the nuance of how we label evil fucks does not change a thing.
But hey, at least we find out what inspires you to put in some academic leg work . . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 29 2021, @09:01PM
The understanding of what you're facing matters plenty if you want to be effective at it.
But sure, if you want to shout the trendy word while telling yourself that the meaning doesn't matter, go for it. It's not as if you're apt to change anything doing that, so no skin off anybody's nose except your own.