Friday, November 21, 2008

Obama's Litmus Test With Apointees: Gun Ownership

President Elect Barack Hussein Obama clearly has a litmus test for cabinet appointees, and I'm sure it will be the same for judicial appointees on gun ownership.

From The Politico:

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is asking potential appointees detailed questions about gun ownership, and firearms advocates aren’t happy about it.

The National Rifle Association has denounced the move, which has already led one Republican senator to consider legislation aimed at ensuring a president can’t use an applicant’s gun ownership status to deny employment.

It’s just one question on a lengthy personnel form — No. 59 on a 63-question list — but the furor over the query is a vivid reminder of the intensity of support for Second Amendment rights and signals the scrutiny Obama is likely to receive from the ever-vigilant gun lobby.

Obama’s transition team declined to go into detail on why they included the question, suggesting only that it was done to ensure potential appointees were in line with gun laws.

The question has members of transition teams and some Democrats scratching their heads.

...Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, said there was no such question for potential appointees when President George W. Bush took office in 2000.

“It kind of sticks out there like a sore thumb,” Light said.

...Clay Johnson, deputy director of management at the Office of Management and Budget and the head of Bush’s 2000 transition, also didn’t quite understand the purpose of the question.

“It could be their way to say to prospects that they will have to answer all these questions sooner or later, so be prepared,” Johnson observed.

Matt Bennett, a veteran campaign operative who did a stint at Americans for Gun Safety and who now works for the moderate Democratic think tank Third Way, was equally befuddled.

“It strikes me as overly lawyerly,” he said, noting that only a small percentage of guns owned by adults are ever used improperly.

Only half-joking, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) alluded to the shooting accident involving Vice President Dick Cheney, suggesting the query could be a better-safe-than-sorry measure.

“Given the behavior of the vice president under the last administration, you may want to know these things,” Ryan said.
Real funny, asshole!

This question is clearly not about making sure appointees aren't breaking gun laws. The Obama Administration is using this as a litmus test to get people in the administration who are hostile to the Second Amendment.

Take possible Attorney General appointee Eric Holder. When he's not overseeing pardons for FARC terrorists or tax-cheats like Marc Rich, Holder is hostile to guns, except when used by Federal Agents to scare Elian Gonzalez in their raid to send the child back to Communist Cuba. In 2007, Holder criticized the ruling of an appellate court which gutted Washington DC's anti-gun laws, saying the ruling "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets." As Deputy AG in the Clinton Administration, Holder, according to Instapundit:

...was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”–a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as “children.”
No wonder so many Americans today are buying guns and/or stocking up on ammunition, while they're still free to pursue that constitutional right, as Melanie Morgan writes about today in WorldNetDaily.

I seem to remember how liberals screamed and whined about possible "litmus tests" against abortion used by both Bush Administrations. Conversely, liberals are never afraid when their side threatens rights guaranteed in the Constitution...the right to free political speech, as well as the right to keep and bear arms.

No comments: