Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
(See the New York Times article.) Naturally, the Administration is entitled to know a great deal about its prospective high-ranking members, especially with regard to possible violations of the law, both for its own sake and in order to anticipate possible political problems. And the questionnaire certainly asks about a lot more than just guns, e.g., question 46, "Have any members of your family or close social or business associates been arrested for, charged with and/or convicted of a crime, other than a minor traffic violation? If so, please identify and describe each such arrest, charge or conviction. Please provide the same information for anyone under your professional supervision, or anyone of your superiors." Still, it struck me as interesting that gun ownership and gun registration was one of the things that they'd specifically ask about. It also struck me as interesting, though perhaps necessary given the reasonable worry about political blowback should the facts come out, that people would be told to report (1) gun ownership not just by themselves but also by immediate family members, and (2) possible hitherto undisclosed criminal conduct by their immediate family members (which likely includes adult children and possibly parents or siblings, though that's hard to tell).
UPDATE: As some commentators have pointed out, most states don't require registration for guns, but I understood the question as asking about registration information, if any: If the guns don't need to be registered and have never had to be registered (because the people had only owned guns in no-registration jurisdictions), then the registration information would be "no registration required," and the answer to "has the registration ever lapsed?" would be "no."
And I was silent.
Then, Obama took away the guns from the heads of the Administrative Agencies.
And I was silent.
Then, Obama took away your guns.
Muahahahaha!
.
It depends on the firearm, and in some cases, on the combination of type of firearm and locale. For those who own firearms that are not subject to registration, the answer would be responsive only to the "ownership" question.
.
That same question caught my eye this morning. As far as I know, this is the first time a "Do you own a gun" question was asked as part of a questionnaire aimed at learning of potentially embarrassing information in advance of a nomination, nomination hearing, or confirmation vote.
Any idea on what percentage of states do require registration?
.
MI requires approval in advance and registration of handguns.
.
Some cities have registration requirements. Some states (e.g., WA) obtain registration information via dealership sales records.
.
Not a comprehensive list, those are off the top of my head.
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=74
Apparently, California, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and DC require registration of long guns and handguns.
Michigan, and certain counties and cities of Ohio and Nevada, require handgun registration.
New Jersey and Connecticut require registration of long guns, but apparently not handguns.
I have no way of verifying the accuracy of this information, of course.
I guess Obama's looking to move a bunch of New Yorkers down to DC.
Funding radical racial groups to emplace them in elementary schools, check.
Representing political activists who deny the right to private ownership of property, check.
Answer: He was just some guy in the neighborhood and I happened to be video-taped with him at a going away dinner for a former spokesman for a listed terrorist organization, and while he picked me to run a multi-tens of millions of dollars charitable organization and we served on the board of another organization for a few years, and although my spouse and his spouse worked at the same law firm, I barely knew him. And, I also barely knew the guy convicted on influence peddling or any of the people involved with the community organization whose employees are indicted or being investigated currently for voter registration fraud in 13 states.
States requiring handgun registration on a statewide basis represent less than a quarter of the U.S. population.
NY state, handgun registration
NY state, no long gun/shotgun registration.
NYC, registration, long gun, shotgun, handgun.
That simply means new administration members will not come from "the vast majority" of the United States, that great big expanse of red on voter maps. Welcome to Chicago-style politics.
As I recall they weren't ignoring it, they are exempt by State law.
Chances are this question was written by someone from Chicago where handguns are banned and for those lucky few who were around when the ban went into effect and are grandfathered (or is it now grandmothered)in, they must be registered.
My guess is that this question is placed to smoke out those that would be embarrassing to the administration simply because they are gun owners. They are looking for not only idiological purity but behavioral purity as well.
I wonder how many Russian bigwigs hail from Siberia? I mean, come on, it's a great big expanse! How can they allow the underrepresentation of all that...open space?
Given that Sen. Webb made an explicit point of declaring himself out of the running for the VeepStakes, I think it is safe to say he very much enjoys being a senator.
.
Simply being a gun owner is a source of embarrassment?
Now, why would owning a gun be embarrassing information?
.
Illinois: Chicago Alderman Embraces Anti-Gun Elitist Hypocrisy (NRA-ILA)
When the president you work for is on record saying to John Lott, "Oh, your the gun guy. I don't think people should be allowed to have guns.", yeah, being a gun owner could be a problem when he tries to get rid of them all.
I agree and would also add that given the “gotcha” political climate we live in, having someone in the administration who has violated a federal, State or local gun law or who received a special exemption or permit that ordinary owners don’t or couldn’t get would be wonderful political fodder for the Obama administration’s opponents.
I’m thinking specifically how many proponents of “shall issue” concealed carry reform seized on the fact that many well-connected anti-gun people either had permits themselves or were able to hire armed body guards for themselves or their family members.
As I understand it, they haven't said anything about qualifications. I would assume that, if Jim Webb applied, he would be truthful about his past and the administration would make a judgment.
Are gun owners supposed to be embarrassed now?
And, I guess nobody commenting on this or any other VC thread need apply even if you don't own a firearm, as per the NYT article:At least they don't also ask if the applicant has ever visited the Drudge Report or foxnews.com...
**[quote attributed to our VP-elect, of course].
Oh, I forgot..... I am not important, only the elitists count...... man, I can be so very thick sometimes......
I wonder what happens to that info afterwards...... hmmmmmm.
For some reason I thought that Ohio recently pre-empted local firearm laws. Columbus requires a license to conduct any firearms transaction, which included buying, selling or lending a firearm. Residents avoided the prohibition by going to the suburbs to buy or sell; the ordinance drove most pawn shops out of the gun business, and there is only 1 gun shop left within city limits. Presumably the ordinance is now pre-empted.
Columbus at one time also banned "assault weapons", which it defined more broadly than federal law did. There was a grace period for registering those owned when the ban went into effect. Peoples Rights Organization successfully sued to overturn the ban, and when city council re-wrote the law, PRO successfully sued again.
Looks to me as though the justification for the act (hiring a housekeeper, owning a gun) is also part of the inquiry. The inquiry is asking more than is necessary to determine the presence of law-breaking. If the gun is owned by the candidate, but is used by a hired guard, that would be acceptable.
.
If an administration was going to go on a prohibitionist streak, it would be prudent for it to ask its potential team-members about their alcohol possession and consumption; or if it was going to make tobacco illegal, it might ask about tobacco use, etc. I see the question as pre-emptive, in trying to avoid teaming up with partners who might not fit in with a program of determined advancement of restrictive firearms laws.
A:
- If yes, continue to the next question.
- If no, have a nice day.
And then there's question #31, which can fairly be construed as including asking whether you're willing to publicly release all your firearms and ammunition purchase records such as receipts and credit card statements (and such records on anything else you might have ever bought):
"Are there any categories of personal financial records . . . that you (or your spouse will not release publicly if necessary? If so, please identify theese records and state the reasons for withholding them."
TomHynes: I couldn't agree more..... I have no idea how many I have at the moment, does that mean I have enough? :)
zippy: You got it!
Man, this is a thread I thought would be as contentious as they come and it seems like almost everyone is on the same page, or close to it.
13) Electronic communications: If you have ever sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect if it were made public, please describe.
Coupled with:
10) Writings: .... Please list all aliases or "handles" you have used to communicate on the Internet.
Sorry, Juan Non-Volokh.
This is a joke, right? Have you never watched appointment hearings? Or heard of background checks when you work for the federal government?
"Writings: Please list and, if readily available provide a copy of each . . . publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored . . .
So not only do you have to "out" yourself, you have to run a search thru the VC archives and give them a copy of all those nifty late-night posts you thought were so witty at the time.
How would you know?
So as far as the government was concerned, unless they ran tracers (which would be silly), they had no idea whether I owned any or not, much less the "details" of that ownership (e,g, make, model, caliber, serial, etc).
So, no I am not joking. The giving of those details is not any more their business than whether you own, possess or use marital aids.
wins the thread!!!
(So all those Hoosier v. JBG arguments were really just the Hoos talking to himself... go figure!)
On a related note, I think I'll start a betting pool: How many seconds will elapse between the announcement of any given nominee or appointee, and the first FOIA demand for the person's questionaire answers? I'm not convinced everything asked for would necessarily be covered by Exemption 6, which exempts materials involving invasion of personal privacy from public disclosure. Certainly your public blog posts, your concealed carry permit, your various affiliations with outside organizations, your court records, your speeding tickets (valued over $50), etc. should all get disclosed.
This could get funny...
.
Just by recollection of reviewing the questionnaires put to the nominees whose questionnaires I have reviewed. I don't recall that sort of question.
.
See historical White House Personal Data Statements (PDS); Standard Form (SF) 86 "FBI background check," and SF-278 from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE).
.
I'm not saying "do you or anyone in your family own a gun, and if so, why?" has never been asked as part of the consideration process for entry into an administration; what I am saying is that as far as I know, this is the first time. My research hasn't been exhaustive, but it hasn't been negligible either.
Urban social workers are "elite"?
And, I also barely knew the guy convicted on influence peddling or any of the people involved with the community organization whose employees are indicted or being investigated currently for voter registration fraud in 13 states."
Glad to see someone is out there carrying the ACORN torch. Are any of those "investigations" or "indictments" coming out of a nonpartisan USA office? Please call us when any employee (non-independent contractor) is actually convicted of anything.
Sorry, RPT, but Question 46 says "and/or" after arrested and charged -- no conviction required.
I think I did disclose the existence of my C&R FFL in response to SF-86 Q.25, since that asked for any time a U.S. government agency investigated your background, and ATF does at least a records check before issuing C&Rs. But even with that on the paper record, firearms ownership never came up.
Why not? I suspect because a rather large percentage of people getting National Security clearances own guns -- lots of current and ex-military and law enforcement types are in the pool of people with clearances. Law-abiding firearms ownership is not a disqualifying issue, and even asking that sort of irrelevant question would generate a lot of useless noise. As the Transition Team may be discovering at this very moment...
FIRST: Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?
SECOND: If so, provide COMPLETE OWNERSHIP and registration information.
THIRD: Has the registration ever lapsed?
FOURTH: Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
It is obvious that there is a litmus test going on here. The first question in this series should be, "Have you committed a crime?" If appropriate, followed by, "Did it involve the use of a firearm (not referred to as a *gun*) ?" Given what comes first, second and third, etc, in this question, it is obvious to me that they really don't care about the crimes part, they care about whether you or any of your family own a firearm ...... The crime part appears, to me, to be an afterthought used to legitimize the question they are REALLY asking. After all, what if you own a firearm and have committed no crime with or without it..... what business is it of Obama's whether you own one or not? Hmmm?
My brother doesn't own a firearm (that I know of). But my brother-in-law (sister's husband) owns a hunting gun, a staple of life in Idaho where they live. If my brother was to enter the administration and not have the specifics on my brother-in-laws firearm would that be held against my brother.
Ditto FFL. I held one during my career so that personnel in my service, with whom I served and competed, could readily procure target-grade firearms for competition without having to find a dealer of said firearms (and without a markup other than for the trouble of doing some paperwork).
Your last paragraph is right on the money. I know few retired or ex-military that don't own firearms. I do know many ex-military (retired and otherwise) due to my membership in several organizations (VFW, AL, etc). My "sample" is rather large. I know quite a few former law enforcement personnel and of all of them, none are without firearms..... not a single one.
Quite frankly, as an aside, I am hoping this wakes a few people up who are law-abiding firearms owners who thought Obama and company are ardent defenders of the second amendment...... Yeah right......
From, Gun control, LibertarianWiki.org
This was my first impression, too. They want you to say "tell us ANYTHING that could embarrass the administration." And they make it so impossible to comply with that they can just point and say "he didn't fill out his application honestly!"
I mean, a copy of every single thing you've ever written on the Internet? I know I'd be embarrassed by some stuff I've written in the past, but I simply could not think of how to come up with such a list.
It's the "lie to me, baby" phenomenon. Like filling out a profile on a dating site, everyone expects everyone else to lie, so someone who tells the truth is seriously disadvantaged. Or the broker who promises a 10% return year after year while the other broker says that returns cannot be guaranteed. Or the politician who promises to make it rain donuts with awesome services and no taxes. It's hard to compete against the liar.
Keith Ervin, “Three Plead Guilty in Fake Voter Scheme,” Seattle Times, October 30, 2007, available at here
-what church did you attend?
-did you approve of all of the speakers and sermons presented over the entire period of your membership; if not, what affirmative steps did you take to register your disapproval?
-do you approve of all of the activities of all those in your various affinity groups, from boards of directors on down? If not, what affirmative steps did you take to register your disapproval?
-have you ever used your Taser on another person? If so, please explain the circumstances.
-please list the names and addresses of all persons who hosted any fundraiser which you attended for your candidacy for any current or past post?
And so on....
You have imposed a very intrusive standard on your candidates. Too bad no one vetted Monica Goodling.
On the ACORN front, it's not hard to find convictions of ACORN employees for election fraud:
Keith Ervin, “Three Plead Guilty in Fake Voter Scheme,” Seattle Times, October 30, 2007, available at here"
Is that the best you can do? One case? A year old?
Read it closely again. What was COPIED from the GCA 1968 was the LIST of prohibited people. In other words, they used the same categories of "prohibited people" to define those who cannot have a security clearances, too. What was stated has nothing to do with whether folks with clearances can own a firearm. In fact, I can "personally" guarantee you that it doesn't. If that is the way you were taking it, you simply misread it.
The fact that it is a constitutional right doesn't end the inquiry, it begins it.
Justice Scalia, for instance, thinks patronage hires are perfectly constitutional. Those hires, of course, are completely based on something (political party affiliation) that the Constitution clearly protects. And that's not just asking about it, that's making the hiring decision on that basis. (Thankfully, a majority of the court rejects Scalia's position.)
Similarly, I am sure that the government is perfectly entitled to ask about political speech that might embarrass the administration or be incompatible with service. It may be perfectly protected by the First Amendment to advocate the dismantling of the Federal Reserve-- that doesn't mean that Obama's people shouldn't be able to keep someone out of the Treasury Department who has advocated that.
Bottom line, again, the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. It does not protect against anyone asking you about whether you own any.
Although being a mere pinhead, I could be talked into having suspicions that the next rev. of SF-86 might just include questions on gun ownership. Who'da thunk it...
[moral: I really should remember to hit "refresh" before hitting "post comment" on this blog if I don't want to be redundant. Sorry].
By the way, this really is a pet peeve of mine, but conservatives who don't like blacks very much don't get to redefine the term "racism" to refer to things blacks do rather than things that have been done to blacks.
There is not a "racist" bone in Obama's body. And while blacks CAN be racist (e.g., Farrakhan), anyone who downplays past or present WHITE racism or justifies a lot of racist policies, past, or present, needs to retire the term from their vocabulary. Only in the worst Orwellian nightmare world is Barack Obama, rather than Bull Connor or Jefferson Davis, a racist.
Yeah, blacks can't be racist! Only other races can be racist against blacks. That's how it's defined! Get a dictionary!
.
There may also be plans to strip the right to own or possess a firearm from all people who have caused property damage with a firearm, as well - hence the question about "have you caused any damage."
.
I don't think any of these questions are meant to disqualify a person from taking a position. My thought is that they telegraph the contours of a possible set of "reasonable restrictions." 1) have a reason to own (if for hunting, then what's the problem with having the gun kept in secure storage by the state?), 2) establish a federal registry for all guns, 3) promulgate limitations on firearms possession based on minor infractions.
I didn't read it that way. Of course a person with a security clearance can own firearem. What it suggested to me was a possible rationale for the questions EV listed:
Answers to those questions might, in the minds of some, determine whether one would be able to get a security clearance. And that would bear on the kind of position one could get in a presidential administration. (And note that I'm not saying the questions are well-considered toward that end.)
I think some folks here are a little paranoid, but ask yourself how you think folks would react if a Republican were asking applicants if they were now or had ever been gay.
(And if gay, the names of partners. Plus all your AIDS tests.)
Dilan Esper - it sounds like you probably jumped on that ship.
Now Obama sends a 7 page questionnaire to his prospective employees, and this is major news? It merits its own article in the NYT? Its currently running as the headline story on cnn.com? Message - wow, that Obama sure is thoughtful and thorough! What vetting! What a guy!
I'm confused. Is a detailed questionnaire evidence of a thorough vetting job, or isn't it?
Nah, that's not a double standard. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Anyway, to clarify: are these questions unprecedented? And if so, why wouldn't you assume (without more information) they are a filtering tool? Isn't that one of the main purposes of such a document?
In fact, for security clearance purposes, you could have killed someone with a firearm (e.g., self-defense), and as long as you were never arrested or charged, it need not even be disclosed, let alone be a disqualifying fact.
Whether you or a family member owns a firearm is simply irrelevant to a National Security clearance. Whether a "gun registration" (in the minority of jurisdictions that even require registration) has ever lapsed is about as relevant as whether your car registration or dog registration has ever lapsed. None of which are asked, either.
Are we paranoid? Maybe. But we keep hearing about the need for additional "reasonable regulation" from a guy who endorsed the unconstitutional D.C. gun ban and wants to make an incredibly broad "assault weapons ban" permanent, among other things. I'm willing to bet that in the end not one Cabinet nominee will be an owner of a semi-automatic firearm of any sort. The Secretary of the Interior or the head of BLM may own a (non-semi-automatic) shotgun and even duck hunt from time to time, but that's going to be trumpeted as "diversity" and a sop to "sportsmen."
Incidentally: the questionaire asks about "a gun." Not a "firearm." Suggesting the person who wrote it has no understanding of the relevant legal terminology. There is no such thing as a "gun" defined under Federal criminal law -- there is, however, a device defined as a "firearm." See 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3). The question as drafted is ambiguous. What about an air rifle? Airsoft gun? Cap gun? Nail gun? Staple gun?
"The Acorn Indictments A union-backed outfit faces charges of election fraud." Wall Street Journal, Friday, November 3, 2006
And, from Seattle, Washington:
"Ex-ACORN worker: 'I paid the price' for voter registration fraud", cnn.com, Wed October 22, 2008.
See also www.rottenacorn.com/activityMap.html which lists Voter Fraud activities in 14 states by ACORN employees between 1998 and 2004.
These, and other reports are easy to find RPT. Just go to your internet search engine and type "ACORN + conviction". Other variations -- "ACORN + voter + fraud". I'm sure you can think of some other queries if you really want to learn the facts. Or, you can post snarky dismissals of comments that refer to ACORN's well-established history in this area. Your choice.
Congratulations for not reading my post.
It's part of one. And then you follow up on it. Unless you are desperate to announce your Veep pick, first contacted 3 days before, on the day after your opponent's convention speech. Then you don't follow up on it.
I will give you a piece of advice. Stop focusing on perceived hypocrisy. 99 percent of the time, "your side does it too" is a very bad argument.
You wrote:
If you can explain how my paraphrase parroting is inaccurate, I want to know. I'm uncertain whether this is getting farther off topic or not (since the nature and purpose of the questionairre is evidently in its architect's eyes), but an explanation for the quoted sentence ought to be entertaining.
I think the President ought to be able to find out just about anything about you before suggesting you for a position of trust and presenting you to the Senate.
1) religious affiliation
2) prior exercises of free speech
3) refusal to allow consent search of their property by police
4) choice to remain silent when questioned in a criminal matter
5) sexual practices
?
of course not . all of the above are constitutional rights (#5 by recent invention of the supreme court).
and do they ask any of these type of questions to those who are applying for presidential appointments? of course not
this is yet one more example how many on the left treat the 2nd amendment differently. it's not a REAL right to them.
this is so obvious. just apply any (stupid and unconstitutional, but that's redundant when it comes to the left and guns) argument the left uses against gun rights and apply it to our other constitutional rights.
you would be accused of "fascism".
it's simply amazing that they cannot see the logical/constitutional inconsistencies.
Given the military meaning of "gun", most firearms owners could truthfully answer "no" to question 59.
Zippy, there may be no statutory meaning of gun, but there is a long accepted military meaning, as even this life-long civilian knows. Just ask anyone who forgot the distinction while they were in basic training.
It doesn't take a paranoid pinhead to intuit that the likely answer here is there's a political agenda in the works to crack down hard on Second Amendment rights, consistent with what was posted on the Obama campaign site and at change.gov until they started tweaking it a few days ago in response to complaints. And they don't want to be "embarrassed" by belatedly discovering that a firearms owner (or worse, enthusiast) somehow snuck into the tent when they weren't looking.
Funny, but they don't also ask whether applicants or any of their family members drive gas-guzzling, CO2-spewing full-size SUVS, and if so, whether their registration has ever lapsed, or whether they ever hit anybody or anything with them. Must mean Al Gore won't be the new EPA Administrator after all, I guess.
Now excuse me while I bitterly go off and cling to my politically-incorrect you-know-whats...
In my old branch of the service, a "gun" was a crew-served, deck-mounted device with at least a 5-inch rifled bore, used to make people miles away from you very unhappy. The DI made sure the M-16A2 you befriended in Basic was called either your "rifle" or your "weapon."
I hate to ever cite this particular source, but it's easy to copy/paste. From the definition of "gun" in Wikipedia:
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
Yup and with that in mind, I answer question 59 with a resounding NO! And I don't even have to redefine "is" to get there! :)
Paint gun? Glue gun? Squirt gun?
There is no such thing as a gun-show loophole. FFL holders MUST do the insta-check, the same as if they were in their own stores.
Private people can sell firearms to each other all day long, but the numbers are limited. If you sell to many, you may be tagged as a dealer without an FFL. This applies whether they are at a gun show or showing at home.
Gun-show "loophole" is nothing but another attempt to stigmatize firearms owners and collectors. It is a tempest in a thimble..... doesn't even qualify for tea-pot status. People really should go to a gun show. It is the safest place on the planet and the collection and variety of firearms is sometimes astounding. For those who appreciate fine metalwork and woodwork, it is hard to find a better place to see the best of both.
So what do you actually think the chances are that someone who has actually broken some law is going to be honest (unless they have already been punished, of course)? The ONLY people who answer those questions honestly are honest, law-abiding people.
This is why many firearms owners are sick and tired of more firearms ordinances, laws and regulations being added to the stack that exists. These regs only impact the law abiding, NOT the criminal. I cannot remember the last time I heard of a known criminal being nailed for firearms violations and being convicted of those violations. They can practically throw away the key if a convicted felon is caught with a firearm.... so when was the last time you heard a key flying by your ear for that violation? When are people going to learn that criminals don't CARE about your silly "gun" laws. Never have, never will. Instead of adding on more laws, how about enforcing the ones that exist?
Quote the rest of it, ********. Seriously, I don't want to run afoul of Professor Volokh's comments policy, or I would call you a bunch of profane things right now.
Actually, whit, they certainly do ask about 5. Read down-- it's a few questions below the one about guns. (And they ask about (2) as well.)
well, they are intrusive, but at least they are intrusive about more than guns.
makes it seem less of an issue then.
This looks like it's just the equivalent of asking whether people have housekeepers/nannies, and, if so, have they paid social security taxes, etc. In other words, the emphasis would be not on the act itself (owning a gun; or having someone else clean your kitchen), but on failure to follow applicable laws (registering; paying taxes).
this point bears repeating. a little reality is needed to counteract the rabid ODS in this post.
I find this point rather amusing given the lack of information Obama gave us when applying for the job of President.
ROTFLMAO
Hey! That would be a great idea for the electorate, too!! That way, the people would know about the candidates past, and be able to better use their judgment when voting!!!
Our stupid laws work as follows:
1) In order to own (or carry) any firearms in MA, you need a license. As near as I can figure it out this violates both state and federal constitutions, but then, I'm not a lawyer.
2) While any firearm you may own - for example, owned since before the registration law went into effect or if you move into the state with firearms - does not need to be registered, all transfers and sales of firearms in MA are registered with the state. That this has no particular effect on the crime rate or, presumably, criminal investigation and prosecution, doesn't seem to matter to the people who run this operation. Technically, this is called "point of purchase registration."
And now he's acting like a Socialist tinhorn dictator wannabe with a mandate to take away everyone's 2nd Amendment rights.
Sorry, 0dumbo, the honeymoon is over.
When you finish rolling on the floor, you should resolve never to use the term "racism" again, because if you think it applies to Barack Obama, in reality it probably applies to you.
I'm with cboltd, he's going to try to close the private-seller loophole and doesn't want charges of hypocrisy leveld at him because the undersecretary for HUD bought a .22 at a gun show when he was 25.
I agree on the Federal but the State Constitution is pretty clear on the militia-purpose ("common defense"). I would prefer if it protected an individual RKBA but in 300+ years (predating the US), it has never been used to strike down a restriction on the personal carrying of guns AFAIK.
That's a quibble though . . .
I'm amazed Fed Soc members didn't loudly protest this vastly more undue prying.
In your eagerness to sound wise and condescending, though, you missed my point entirely. I didn't write my original post simply to point out a case of hypocrisy. I wrote to question why we're even having this conversation. I'm amazed that this "questionnaire" is being passed around like a hot potato and breathlessly declared to be some great, in-depth fact-finding tool. Many of the people treating it as such were entirely dismissive of the very same tool when it was used with respect to their new favorite punching bag. That's not just hypocritical (although it is that, too). Its unfair, and its intellectually dishonest. I'm just surprised that this is a national news story. Whatever it takes to keep making Obama look superhuman, I suppose.
In your response to my post, and my (rhetorical!) question about whether the questionnaire is a valid vetting tool, you wrote:
This is entirely irrelevant to our discussion, which concerns the utility of the questionnaire itself. We know next to nothing about Obama's vetting process, other than his issuance of this questionnaire. Will he "follow up on it"? We don't know. More to the point, you don't seem to care. You seem inclined to simply regurgitate the conventional left wing talking-points about the vetting of Palin and otherwise conclude that a questionnaire is a sufficient fact-gathering tool for Obama. Just not for a Republican.
You then wrote:
I tend to agree. I guess its a good thing that the hypocrisy I pointed out is very real, and not just "perceived".
In closing, here's a piece of advice back at you - don't make hypocritical arguments. You risk falling subject to that other 1%.
No, but you assume the absolutely least charitable possibility to fill those unknowns. Meanwhile, the most plausible explanation (cboltd's) is sitting right in front of you.
So much for good faith.
Are you sure you aren't really Obama?
There's something I've been trying pretty hard to find, and no one seems to be able to help me find it. In various places I've asked for proof that ACORN's work has ever led to single fraudulent vote. Can you show me any? I don't think you can. Nevertheless, McCain said this:
Detect any hyperbole?
I've also been trying to locate an instance of a single ACORN leader or official being convicted of a crime. I can't find that, either. It turns out that the number of convictions (or guilty pleas) obtained against ACORN workers compares very favorably with the number of same obtained against GOP leaders. Even though the former pool is probably much larger. So the GOP should aspire to operating as cleanly as ACORN.
52.7%. And your expectations are distorted. In the post-FDR era, only Ike and Bush I have managed to exceed 51% while running as a non-incumbent. No Ds.
By winning his first term with 51% or more, Obama has accomplished something that all of the following did not accomplish:
Bush II
Clinton
Reagan
Carter
Nixon
JFK
Truman
And in 2004, when Bush won 50.7%, Cheney and lots of other people promptly called that a "mandate." Even though since FDR, every incumbent president who won the election (Reagan, Nixon, LBJ, Ike) achieved at least 57% (with the exception of Clinton, who achieved 49.2% when Perot won 8%; polls showed that Perot voters preferred Clinton over Dole by a wide margin).
Also, a person with a personal history of gun ownership is perhaps more likely to be 'culturally conservative,' and a person like that could have extra utility inside an Obama administration, to the extent that Obama wants to engage with (or at least neutralize opposition from) people like that.
cboldt:
I understand the logic you're offering (also summarized nicely by oren). On the other hand, a gun owner could be exactly the right person to help with the "determined advancement of restrictive firearms laws." Kind of like Nixon going to China.
ROTFLMAO
www.wyff4.com/video/17972408/index.html
You have to wonder what questions they have to answer.
This makes sense, but could also be seen as your "looking for a silver lining," or something about "polishing" something else . . . but a good point that I didn't even consider before you raised it.
Second, I am surprised that Obama released (I assume it was "officially" released) the full text of his questionnaire. If Obama were a Republican, some ultra-left wing, anti-American media outfit would immediately file a FOIA request for every questionnaire submitted.
To those of you who follow such things, is there a exception that would allow the administration to withhold release of such a record? Only for those actually appointed? How about candidates who were not selected?
Because he's... Lil Barry!!!! He can do whatever he wants to do just because. Gramma said.
Yes, the MA Constitution refers to "the common defense." I have always felt that the common defense refers to more than the state militia; defense from criminal attack (or savage Indian attack, back when it was written) against an individual or a family would seem to me to be for the benefit of the whole of society as well as the individual(s) directly involved.
In addition, Article 1 of the first part reads: All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
While that doesn't mention guns specifically, it does use the words "defending", "protecting", "safety" in ways that surely sound to me like armed defense by individuals, and given the period and culture in which it was written, that would mean, defense with firearms.
I grant that that's not how the SJC sees it, but I believe that the relevant case was from the 1970's (?) which was not exactly a period of rugged individualism in Massachusetts....
And as you say, it's a quibble, if a somewhat important one given the anti-gun predilections of both our Governor and our President-elect.
Thank you for applying to join the Obama Administration. We have just a few remaining questions. The NY Daily News had some fun with these questionnaires and added a few and I add a few too as well.
What is your middle name?
List all inappropriate jokes at which you have laughed. Specify whether the laughter was a) wholehearted, b) begrudging, c) ironic.
How many knives do you own? Please specify butter, ordinary, steak, machete switch blade or other.
Do you think you can play guitar?
Can you really play guitar?
Remember that night in college you'd rather forget? Tell us all about it.
Have you ever written a love letter. Please attach.
Have you ever gotten testy with the credit card company's support line in a way that, if revealed, might jeopardize U.S.-India relations? Please describe.
Do you possess any of the following obsessions: 1) comic books, 2) fantasy football, 3) video games. If you circled 2, please describe said fantasy.
In the following ink blot, do you see a) hope, b) change, c) the Obama campaign symbol d) President Obama's head carved into the side of Mount Rushmore, e) other.
How much hope do you have for America under President Obama? Please be expansive.
Have you ever been voted off a reality TV-show. Why?
In his/her adult life, how many times has your spouse been proud of America? a) 0, b) once, on Nov. 4, 2008, c) 2-6 times, d) every day or his/her life.
What's the worst thing you ever said in a breakup fight? Did you take it back? If not, can you please take it back now?
Have you ever sat in a sermon you regretted? If so, why did you continue to sit in the church or synagogue. What, you say it was a mosque? Please see form 13B-iii.
Do you watch America's Next Top Model? What do you think of that guy with the hair?
If Batman, Spiderman and Barack Obama got in a huge fight, describe exactly how the winner would use his superhuman integrity, intelligence, coalition-building skills and discipline to win.
Are you a) a lover or b) a fighter?
If a) how deep is your love?
If b) is Saturday night all right for fighting?
Have you ever failed to disclose something on a disclosure form (including this one) that could prove to be embarrassing? Why not?
Do you like it rough?
Are there any photos circulating of you: a) in compromising positions with men/women other than your husband/wife, b) in a turban or c) with President George W. Bush?
When you walk on water what is the appropriate footwear?
Does the footwear change based upon whether one is walking on a lake, river, or ocean?
Have you ever been a member of a controversial church, temple or synagogue for more than fifteen years attending services once a week without remembering a single sermon given by the preachers of that church, temple or synagogue?
When organizing a community to vote, which is the most
cost effective way to register 'new voters'?
A) Fill out seventy two registration cards for the same voter;
B) Go to the cemetary and record names from the headstones;
C) Go to the phone book to record names in alphabetical order;
D) Import temporary workers into the state to vote multiple times in different jurisdictions;
E) Make sure that the Secretary of State of each state is in the pocket of the community organization;
F) All of the above.
When meeting with President Elect Obama (PBUH) do you make a half bow and/or curtsy, or a full bow with your forehead touching the floor until the President acknowledges your worthless presence?
If you've had working relationships with controversial figures, convicted felons, foreign financiers, imploding government supported entities, unrepentent terrorists, and you are a democrat, you get five additional points.
If you are a veteran of the OIC or the Afghanistan War and are not a member of Veterans Against the War and/or Not in Our Names, deduct seven points.
If you worked for former President Clinton and/or Hillary Clinton, add three points
If you worked for John Kerry, add five points
If you worked for Michael Dukakis add seven points
If you worked for Walter Mondale, add nine points
If you worked for Jimmy Carter, add eighteen points.
If you worked for or with Mayor William Daley Jr add twenty one points
If you can't produce a true original copy of your birth certificate with raised seal, add fifteen points.
Explain why you are really proud of your country for the first time.
Explain in what ways Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Moses and Solomon could learn from President Elect Obama?
Explain President Elect Obama's national security policy.
Ten points if it is still his policy one week after you submit this application.
Explain what the legitimate grievances of Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, and Al Queda are with respect to the US and Israel?
Explain what the root causes of 9/11 were?
Explain how, if you have a hottie waiting for you in the Carribean, but a dour wife with you 18/7, you could arrange visits to your tropical love nest for 'business' without attracting the suspicion of your wife.
In this questionnaire, are you not not telling everything but the truth?
Are we cool? No, seriously, are we cool? I just need to know we're cool.
No one asked what church Obama attended. He volunteered the information, listing the minister as his spiritual advisor. And yet, somehow he had never noticed the guy's frequent racist anti-American rants...