The Obama campaign has sent letters to radio stations in Ohio and Pennsylvania discouraging them from running ads by the National Rifle Association critical of Barack Obama. Ben Smith reports:
"This advertisement knowingly misleads your viewing audience about Senator Obama's position on the Second Amendment," says the letter from Obama general counsel Bob Bauer. "For the sake of both FCC licensing requirements and the public interest, your station should refuse to continue to air this advertisement."
Smith's Politico story also includes the NRA's response to critiques of its ads which, it claims, are only running in Pennsylvania at the moment.
UPDATE: Here is a PDF of the Obama campaign's letter.
This roundup at Instapundit suggests this letter could be part of a broader effort to squelch critical voices.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Doing My Patriotic Duty:
- Obama Campaign Challenges NRA Ad:
- FactCheck flubs Obama gun fact check:
What I can't figure out is the double standard here. Both sides have run ads that the other side thinks are misleading, and some of the Obama ads have significantly distorted either McCain's and/or Palin's record (remember the 100 years in Iraq ad lifted totally out of context?)
What bothers me is the idea on the side of the Obama campaign that they can shut down what they consider inaccurate ads, while actively running ads that the McCain camp think are inaccurate. This is esp. worrisome, given the level of inaccuracies Americans have seen in many of the past presidential elections.
Look here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html
He'll probably also follow his teacher by getting a bunch of negros together to eat beans, attend oppo events, and drive everyone out with poison (greenhouse) gas attacks.
Doesn't Barry know that methane has 10 times the GHG effect (pound for pound) as CO2?
And yes, Saul, used to to use that attack technique.
Is that before or after he takes your guns?
Is that true? I have my own doubts though I cannot avoid addressing some of the points made on that Fox News link. I remember Obama saying that he supports the 2nd Amendment, but with restrictions...kinda like...Scalia's point in DC. v. Heller. To say that Obama is going to take yer guns is not even a power that he holds, is it? Even if he is elected? After DC v. Heller, does it even matter that much? Could there ever be a ban again?
What exactly is your point? It is irrelevant whether they EVER or NEVER mislead. In this case, they have nailed Obama to a 'T'.
I've lived under Obama's 'supervision' in IL for his entire career. He has consistently voted to the extreme detriment of gun owners. Until this campaign, when he realized he had other States than IL to win, he always voiced support for gun control laws and even bans. Until the Heller decision was reached, he consistently supported DC and Chicago's handgun bans.
I have yet to see him ask Mayor Daley and the Chicago City council to revoke Chicago's handgun ban and fix its oppressive registration scheme.
If you disagree, please link to youtube video of his support for law-abiding gun owners' Second Amendment rights.
Fughetaboutit...he's not gonna buck Boss Daley.
Hide them or lose them.
But does Obama really have the money, time, and staff to take on David Kopel?
Reconsider, Obama!
And this should not be a partisan issue. Freedom of speech is an American value, not a Democratic or Republican.
http://reason.com/news/show/128973.html
It's obvious from this incident that he similarly supports the 1st Amendment, but with restrictions.
Is there any set of facts that can justify the threat of FCC action?
Wattsamatta U, no cojones?
...didn't think so.
I've never heard of a reg requiring political ads to be vetted by the opposition. And 47 CFR Part 73 ain't so big and complicated that one might remain hidden in it all these years.
Gotta love the internet tough guys.
Three points:
1. McCain's not spending any of his money on this, the NRA is spending theirs.
2. White rural men may be one of McCain's strongest demographics, but that would still typically mean that he's pulling 65% or 70% or 75% of them. Improving that by another 5% or 10% could make the difference in a close race. In 2000 many Democrats mocked Cheney as an overweight, middle-aged, bald-headed white male. I thought that was stupid, and not only because I fit the description myself. Granted that the 10 million or so overweight, middle-aged, bald-headed white males in America included at least 7 million or so who were already planning to vote Bush-Cheney, why make that 7 million into 8 million by gratuitously insulting the entire demographic?
3. Why do you assume it's just whites, or just men, who care about guns? Plenty of rural black Americans hunt, and plenty of black Americans in all areas keep guns for protection and would like to do so legally. As for women, I teach in a rural high school in the Shenandoah Valley. During orientation, new teachers were warned not to schedule any major tests for the first day of hunting season, since fully half the student body will be taking the day off to kill deer. (Students are allowed one excused absence per year for hunting.) I naively assumed that absent students would be predominantly (2-1 or at least 3-2) male, but was told that that is not so, that the gender balance of hunting students is 50-50.
My question, and in my opinion the answer is "yes", is should Bauer be sanctioned by the DC bar for sending out this travesty of a takedown letter? I'd be more confident in the answer if I had a law school Lexis account and could do free legal research again...but I'm sure some blog readers would be happy to do it for me.
I've asked this question before on this blog, and not gotten an answer. Obviously, Obama, as a Senator, has no individual power to do much of anything, let alone take our guns away. Of course, he could introduce, sponsor and/or vote for legislation to do just that, but there are 99 other Senators, so it's not so easy, Barack....
But if he is elected President, then he can issue Executive Orders, and my question is, "could a President ban firearms or ammunition, in whole or in part (recall that Scalia left a lot of legislative leeway in his Heller decision...) by means of an executive order? And if he did, can the Congress overturn his EO?
Also: to those people who believe that Obama will not support federal anti-gun legislation as President, keep in mind that many of his positions and statements on the subject of guns while he was in the Illinois Senate were in favor of federal laws, not just Illinois laws.
Trust me, if you own a gun, you're not likely to enjoy what comes out of an Obama administration.
Did a hunter tell you this? I'm a Virginian and a long-time deer hunter, and although female participation in hunting is certainly increasing, I find it very hard to believe that equal numbers of high school boys and girls are out there popping caps on our delicious woodland critters.
Maybe female high school students take the first day of the season off in equal numbers -- but no way, no how are there as many women as men hunting deer in central Virginia. It's not even remotely close.
He should show the ads are wrong through his actions. This is a dangerous attack on political freedom. When there is only one side, freedom of speech is dead.
If I remember from my days as a minor bureaucrat, the Prez can by EO order federal types to do things within their legal discretion. Jimmy Carter ordered us not to introduce exotic species, Bush I ordered us to do evaluations of every regulation that might affect property or its value. An EO can also carry out any power given to the Prez by Congress (which has been pretty liberal about it: no sense wasting brainpower over decisions that don't make the evening news). Hence the Bush I ban on certain gun imports -- Congress gave him some power over imports, I forget what it was.
Of course, every presidential candidate runs as if he were trying out for monarch, and if elected he will give everyone a job, increase federal spending and/or reduce taxes, etc.. But at least at the moment, the president is not a monarch. That'll probably take two years or so.
Any lawful EO can be overridden by legislation unless it concerns an Inherent Power of the Presidency. What those are may be subject to dispute.
The risks of a presidency adverse to your preferences are, as I see it:
1) He gets the Bully Pulpit. Value of this depends on how much the MSM favors him and how good a speaker he is. JFK had massive power, as did the early LBJ. Media since then were generally in opposition, more skeptical, and more apt to play it as "here is his spin" rather than "this is the President of the United States." With Obama, the situation might return to JFK days, with McCain not a fraction of that.
2) He is the leader of his party, esp. risky when that is the majority in Congress (ah, for divided government! Two bands of scoundrels keeping a watch on each other.)
3) Negotiation of treaties, if not their ratification. Ratification would depend on the Bully Pulpit and who controls the Senate.
4) Naming the people who will head up (if only in name) the federal bureaucracy. Risky because Congress has enacted many statutes which amount to "this is too complicated for us, so given federal officials may forbid conduct, or it is forbidden unless they authorize it, subject to some general standards, themselves enforceable by the courts, if they like you." Most federal wildlife statutes were of the latter class. Everything is forbidden unless authorized, and here are some general standards for authorizing them.
5) Related to the above, a lot of control over patronage. LBJ was famous for this. Hey, Congressman, oppose my legislation and there won't be a single highway grant going to your district for as long as I'm in office. Support it, and that bridge to nowhere pumps half a billion into your district.
6) Obviously, appointment of judicial nominees. When the president's party is in power, nomination equals confirmation.
It constantly amazes me how some extreme "gun nuts" are able to convince the rest of us average gun owners that any politician who isn't given a certain grade by the NRA is going to "take away your guns." I seriously doubt that Obama, or more than 10% of Congress, has any interest in taking away my guns (a rifle and a 9mm).
I do think it's pretty lame that Obama is complaining to media outlets about the ad, even if it is misleading.
Then again, Obama isn't much of a lawyer either.
If you ask him, he'll claim it's ridiculous. But that's just what a shrimp snatcher would say!
I've never heard him say he wouldn't snatch your shrimp, and if he does, he's just waiting till he gets elected.
There are no reasonable restrictions on shrimp consumption! It's a fundamental right!
You might say Obama has bigger fish to fry, like Iraq or the economy or education or health care. But take it from me - he's obsessed with taking YOUR shrimp away!
MELON LABE Obama!
Brooks, thanks for addressing what I was suggesting above. I honestly don't think Obama would go as far as drafting and issuing an EO to ban handguns. I think he would have to know that such a move would be disastrous to his incumbency, and I just don't see him risking it, assuming he wins the election. If Obama wins, the fact that he's black and a fresh face inclines my mind to think he will be quite cautious with what he does in his term. I would have to assume he knows how much he will lose if he starts making errors in judgement. I see this election more as a 'trial' offer by the DNC after the last 8 years. Full refund if you don't like what you get. All the people leaving the GOP for Barr/Baldwin/Paul would likely run back to the GOP incident to progressive measures; a lot of why I think McCain could lose primarily hinges on this conservative diaspora.
I think it was Radley Balko who said this, but correct me if I'm wrong: The presidency has become over-important and over-valued. To add, and segueing to another point, it is more pertinent that the GOP take back the House and the Senate more than anything else. This alone could neutralize any 'threat' Obama appears to pose against individuals.
Call me an ass for saying this, but I was really REALLY disapointed how Scalia left considerable leeway to the legislature.
The "take our guns" stuff is silly though, and has been claimed about every Democrat since I can remember. Hasn't happened yet.]
But what I don't understand is why Obama is trying to get the NRA on every news station in the country. It was just a political ad then some smart lawyers decided to make it news and get it talked about all over. Not to mention feed the worries of gun owners that Obama really is a gun grabber evidenced by his apparent fears about his gun control past being mentioned.
Wow. When I was in high school they taught that the Constitution defined the duties of government and the inherent, inalienable rights of citizens.
I guess the Government gets an unwritten duty if you live in a dangerous city, then?
What if somebody in government thought that certain kinds of speech were dangerous? Like advertisements that mention a candidates name, and stuff? Would they "regulate" (prohibit) that?
Nah, that's just crazy talk.
Obama is an empty suit. An empty suit on a hanger in a closet full of Alinsky, Wright, Ayres, Axelrod, and whoever the guy is who sets up his teleprompter.
Guns? If things continue as they are right now, the Feds will be looking at private gun ownership the same way that King George did. Make no mistake about it, Obama's actions on the coming Depression in the last four days alone have been a window into vacuum land.
He's not a threat anymore. Just an embarassment.
THROW THE BUMS OUT. We can't afford to wait until 2010 to give the incumbent regime in Congress their walking papers.
We could do worse? Redi and Pelosi? Worse HOW?
Sorry; I've been out hunting for three days and actually expected some adult behavior to happen in Washington. Gotta have adults for that...
Look at the shit that Michael Bloomberg is pulling. He is dragging gun dealers from all over the country into federal court in New York and extorting them into adopting his practices or else he litigates them out of business.
The ATF is seizing property and trying to reclassify malfunctioning rifles as machine guns.
Some states are monitoring ammunition purchases and raiding homes of people who buy ammunition for guns that they don't have registered, even though registration is "voluntary."
In Pennsylvania a gun owner actually had his gun confiscated because he couldn't prove that he owned it and it wasn't in their unconstitutional registry.
Several Democrats in this country are absolutely trying to tax and regulate the 2nd amendment out of existence. With their "common sense" laws designed to promote "safety" like safe storage BS, ballistic fingerprinting, bans on lead ammunition, putting gun shops out of business, putting shooting ranges out of business, etc. Mayor Nutter in Philly thinks that the city council can defy state law and implement useless restrictions whenever they want.
And that's not to mention the fact that the UN is trying to usurp the 2nd amendment by telling us we need to ban any gun that can shoot over 100 yards.
The ATF has been bad enough with Bush in the White House (let's not forget that even Bush wanted to use the oft-criticized "No Fly" list to deny 2nd amendment rights without any means to challenge the denial).
I can't imagine how much more aggressive the ATF will be under an Obama administration.
Clinton's ATF gave us Waco and Ruby Ridge, which led to the Oklahoma City bombing. What do you think Obama will do with all of Clinton's gun banners in his cabinet?
Obama wants to address the "legitimate concerns" that give rise to Islamic terrorism against the US. But he would seek to only exacerbate the legitimate concerns that spawned such crazies as McVeigh.
Absolute right to speech! ALL times places and manners are reasonable!
And No Searches without a warrant ever again!
Only an Empty Suit would keep running for president when he could be in important negotiations to save us from the Economic Judgment Day.
THROW THE BUMS OUT indeed! These last 2 years have been a nightmare of liberal law passing!
I don't think third party time brokering is at issue in these NRA ads, but I think the principle that licensee has some responsibility to disallow false and misleading advertising is applicable as well to simple sales of ad time.
If Obama's counsel wants to file a complaint with the FCC for false advertising, he certainly can. Anybody can file a complaint with the FCC, about anything (and plenty of people do file frivolous or at least insufficiently meritorious complaints). The question is whether the FCC would act on it and issue an NAL.
Having read some, not all, of the factcheck.org analysis attached to the letter, as well as the allegations in the letter, I don't think the FCC would want to get involved in what seems to me little more than an attempted p*ssing match.
I think that a lawyer filing an actually frivolous complaint with the FCC would be dealt with by the lawyer's state licensing authority. Whether the threatened complaint is actually frivolous, I can't say, because I think it might fall under the "good faith argument" attorney ethics exception.
In reality, the last Democratic president did just that. With an EO he prohibited import of magazines (aka 'clips') for firearms. It made prices skyrocket --a $20 item became $200+ within a week-- for parts that are integral and necessary for (certain) firearms to operate.
No, he didn't ban the firearms, he just made it extremely hard and expensive to use one. But the final answer is: Yes, it has 'happened yet'.
The point is the threat of FCC action against stations that run ads Obama disapproves of.
This is atrocious — and worse is that he knows it won't get even the paltry play in the press it might otherwise get because, you know, there are some other rather important things going on in D.C. just at the moment.
If I call Obama a thug, would that make me a racist?
Sometimes the police are overzealous! They might one day use transfat laws to bully people. I blame the laws!
You may laugh, but our right to be the round shape we want is threatened by an Obama presidency.
People are already mocking fatties. Several Democrats in this country are absolutely trying to tax and regulate fatness out of existence. I don't know any personally, but that's what Dems do!
The FDA has been bad enough with Bush in the Whitehorse. Imagine what it would do under a fitness freak like Obama!
Not to mention the UN which is both powerless and terrifies me!
They do scream about jack booted thugs though. Of this, I am skeptical.
If it does happen, rest assured I'll take to the streets to join you, armed with the stinging bite of sarcasm.]
We don't need this kind of political thuggery.
Until then, Eat my justice!
Though I won't say that I know what Obama's stance is on trans fats or what sort of direction he'll give the FDA.
However, there is evidence to suggest that Obama is linked to George Soros, one of the world's premier gun-ban advocates, and that Obama wants to bring back on board some of the most anti-gun members of Bill Clinton's Cabinet, and hints that he'll nominate judges with an egregious anti-gun record. On top of all of the anti-gun positions he has taken in the past, and the damage he could do with a complicit Congress.
Surely Obama will want to appear tough on terrorism by giving the AG discretion to deny 2nd amendment rights to "suspected terrorists," a terrible Bush initiative that has been taken over by the Brady Campaign and I believe is now endorsed by several Democrats.
[my point with the trans fat bit was that this kind of prediction based on rather scanty data and generalizations allows one to fill in the blanks and interpolate as one sees fit. This may lead to somewhat paranoid and absurd results.]
"I want to kill a bunch of Jews and invade Europe, but I just can't! Well, I'll just take my frustrations out on Hamburgers!"
Never in my life did I think I'd every think this: Give me Bill Clinton any day of the week over these thugs that try to enforce their view of reality by force. You wackos make Clinton look good.
Obama supported a handgun ban in the 90s. He now claims that his response to a questionnaire on that issue was made by a staff member, but that's a convenient explanation for an obviously untenable election position. It's hardly off base for the NRA to say that someone who appeared to be ready to take handguns away a decade ago now supports the right to keep firearms. Add to that his wishy-washy answers on Heller and the NRA seems on even stronger ground to make this an issue. The Clinton campaign raised it first, noting that it would hurt Obama in the general election. They were right. It may be nothing more than a flesh wound, but it's a wound he invited when he supported those positions on firearms laws.
It may be the case that the NRA has overstated its claims in the past. But given the thin majority in Heller and Obama's stated positions, it's not a real stretch for the NRA to make some of those claims in this election.
Obama's pushback is heavyhanded and all wrong if it's a pattern, but I'm not sure I read that much into it at this point.
I just think the parade of horribles brought up as gospel truth the comment thread is overstated, overused and ripe for some fun.]
Well, since he bankrolls Moveon.org, DailyKOS, and Air America, which seem to serve up the talking points for the Obama campaign and the media, I think it's safe to say that he's deeply entrenched in the "progressive" politics of the Democratic party.
"[my point with the trans fat bit was that this kind of prediction based on rather scanty data and generalizations allows one to fill in the blanks and interpolate as one sees fit. This may lead to somewhat paranoid and absurd results.]"
It wasn't a very good point, considering that the stuff about gun rights that I brought up really is happening.
Michael Bloomberg and his coalition of fascist mayors really are trying to shut down gun dealers all across the country.
Your simplification to "Sometimes the police are overzealous!" is ridiculous.
Cops in some states are maintaining illegal gun registries, and using them to bully citizens. When 20 members of the SWAT members show up at your house in the middle of the night asking about why you bought some ammo for a gun that's not in the "voluntary" registry, I think that raises a little more concern than simple zealotry.
Kicking down doors and holding people hostage and killing their pets is also a pretty big concern.
Going to the wrong address and terrorizing people in their homes is a big concern.
Or frequently getting their own weapons stolen but trying to hold citizens criminally liable for the same conduct. Or that ATF tries to shut down businesses for "willful violations" because their paperwork has "Y" instead of "Yes" while having trouble keeping track of their own inventory.
Frequently shooting themselves in the foot or leg is a big concern.
Or, if you're with the NYPD, just straight-up killing people because you're poorly trained.
Police chiefs lobby against concealed carry by claiming that they're so poorly trained that they'll just kill anyone with a gun (something that you'd think they wouldn't be proud of, considering that uniformed cops occasionally kill plainclothes cops in such unfortunate misunderstandings).
When will the Brady Campaign admit that the police need to be disarmed?
That is not comforting to those who take their right to bear arms seriously.
"The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign."
(link)
I stand by my point about terrorism, however. I think one can look at the underlying motivations for some terrorist acts and seek a way to take away that motivation, whether they be foreign terrorists or domestic. Though, obviously, I'd say that some terrorist-sympathizers can't be reasoned with. You'd be hard-pressed to appease those who support lab-bombing PETA members or church-burning KKK members.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html
Some selected parts:
'Brooks Jackson, who authored the FactCheck.org piece with D'Angelo Gore, was extremely upset about the NRA ads. Jackson told FOX News: “They are lying. This is what they do. This is how they make their money. Do these people have no shame? They are just making this up. I just wish that they would tell the truth.” He said that their ads were “one of the worst examples of lying” that he had “ever seen.”'
'Brooks Jackson told FOX News that “I believe that [Obama] supported striking down the D.C. gun ban. That is what he said that he believed.” In addition, he said that the ad was “clearly discussing a national ban, not local bans. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. It is just an amazing lie.”'
'Regarding Obama’s work with the Joyce Foundation, Jackson said, “You are an academic? You are asking about the Joyce Foundation? What does that have to do with anything? You would have failed the freshman college logic test.”'
'When asked about these arguments, Jackson told FOX News, “Have you looked at the legislation? You have to look at the legislative history. This is just an amazing lie put out by them.”'
'When asked about whether Obama’s statements about what judges he would appoint could explain the NRA’s concerns, Jackson said that it “doesn’t inform [Jackson’s] view. . . . He hasn’t said that he would appoint people who didn’t believe in the Second Amendment.”'
'Jackson said that “Obama agrees with the NRA on this issue (that the Second Amendment is an individual right). They should just accept it rather than lying about it.” He noted that “Obama had to accept all sorts of abuse for coming out and saying this. It was the brave thing for him to do. He had to endure all sorts of abuse – claims of going back and forth on the issue, that he was vague on the issue.”'
It really will be a treat to watch people who feigned concern over the Fourth Amendment during the last eight years, suddenly abandon all concerns over the First and Second amendments. After all, why should they worry, none of their guys would ever do something which offends the Constitution...right.
That said, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Esper's comment. I don't think I've ever agreed with a single thing he has posted on this site but I'll be the first to admit that his honesty with respect to this issue is commendable. It is indicative of someone who can ignore what "team" he's on and focus on what's right and wrong. A skill that I, and virtually every one I've ever met, has trouble demonstrating. Particularly in the political arena.
Someone needs to push him to get the NRA's DC gun bill into and through the Senate. Make him account for his lies about his support for the 2nd amendment.
True. THAT kind of change, he ain't bringing. Why, was that the kind of change somebody wanted?
Let me list a couple of anti-gun items past Presidents have done with Executive Orders (I believe):
In 1989 Bush I expanded the sporting clause of the '68 GCA to include several scary 'assault type' weapons so they could no longer be imported. (HK91/93, Steyr AUG, etc)
Clinton stopped importation of certain Chinese firearms for similar reasons (ex. Norinco M14S &1911s).
Clinton made a deal with Russia top stop importation of certain surplus Russian firearms (ex. SKS, Makarov)
Clinton stopped the sale of surplus ammunition from US stockpiles &decreed that it must be demilled (disassembled) &sold as components &the powder discarded. (Doesn't apply to obsolete ammo like 30-06)
Major infringements? No, just sliding further down the slippery slope.
Right, that's why I tend to ignore items like this, even though I agree that Obama should be countering allegedly false speech with more speech, not trying to shut down the commercials.
The NRA is like the NAACP -- it relies on a constant sense of outrage in order to drum up donations. Things cannot ever be allowed to get better for either organization, because then, what's the point?
His first act in office will be to pass Federal anti-Blasphemy legislation that outlaws any negative statements about chosen ones.
That said, I'm not a gun-banning freak. I actually own a handgun and a hunting rifle. The handgun is locked up safely at the shooting range, and the rifle is locked up at the family land. Nowhere near my children and nowhere near populated areas.
Finally, if the conservative lunatics that support gun rights were so vehement about other constitutional rights, there would be no Republican party.
But Republican's are the intolerant jack booted thugs?
At least Rs only want to use the power of government to control your bedroom and body....Ds go straight for your mind.
Moreover, this letter is tantamount to a legal blackmail threat ("give us what we want or we will turn you in to the authorities"). As such, it may represent an ethics problems for Obama's lawyers - especially Robert Bauer (a partner at Perkins Coie (email: http://www.perkinscoie.com/rbauer/). Bauer is licensed in DC - under DC's ethics rules (Rule 8.4(g)) it is a violation of the professional ethics codes to threaten government action to gain advantage in civil matters. That is, it is a violation of professional ethics to extort. For instance, Ethics Opinion 339 deals with threats of criminal referral (the threats must be specific, which they were not in that particular case), and Ethics Opinion 220 deals with threats to report acts to regulatory or disciplinary boards to gain some advantage. I strongly believe that Bauer has made such a threat ("we will report you to the FCC for discipline unless you give us what we want" - notice he did not threaten civil action by the Obama campaign, because they have no such option). Maybe Bauer needs to be reported for his acts?
To believe otherwise would be tantamount to questioning Mr. Obama's qualifications for teaching Con Law at the U of C.
Hopefully the individual in question does not have designs on joining the DOJ or any other federal agency/commission should Mr. Obama prevail over Mr. McCain.
It's called motivating the base. In politics, it is not only important what perecentage of a certain demographic you get, but also how many actually show up to vote.
If it's the result of a good faith belief that the Commission will act to Obama's benefit on the threatened complaint, then it's a poorly armed excursion into a practice area that requires specialized expertise. Bauer's firm, as well as he, are doubtless experts in PI litigation. Nothing I've read at his firm's website indicates expertise or experience in practice before the Commission.
I think the chance of the Commission ultimately issuing an NAL based on the complaint (as threatened in the letter) is somewhere between zero and zilch. I think the chance they could even complete an investigation before election day is even smaller, much less be inclined to try.
That all assumes the Commission would do anything more than send back a letter to the effect of "thanks for your inquiry, but we can't do anything for you."
If it's a cynical "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" tactic, then res ipsa loquitur. Either some broadcasters will be intimidated and drop the ad, or they won't. I think most won't. Most broadcast licensees have lawyers who actually know something about Commission practice and procedure. In that sense the effort is also naive.
Either way, the letters and the shouting match create a tempest in a teapot. It may be useful to outrage the faithful on either side, but it's unlikely to result in an actual case or controversy.
Short form: Nothing is going to happen, even if they file a complaint.
How can you justify that?
AS Spitzer pointed out at 9.26.2008 10:35am above, the correct Robert Bauer is at Perkins Coie LLP: However, my greater point about his experience remains. Nothing in his background indicates significant expertise or practice experience before the Commission.
I don't think it is so much that the commission will do anything as it is intended to intimidate the tv stations.
But they've added more and more restrictions at the federal level, from the National Firearms Act to the Gun Control Act of '68 to Brady to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.
Funny, the Obama-endorsing American Hunters and Shooters Association uses the rhetoric of the gun control advocates. From their website: sportsmen overwhelmingly support reasonable gun safety proposals. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of hunters support proposals like background checks to purchase guns, keeping military style assault weapons off our streets and the elimination of cop killer bullets.
"Reasonable" gun control proposals are uniformly unreasonable; "military-style" assault weapons are merely cosmetically challenged, and "cop-killer" bullets are absent from the Hornady catalog. Further, I have never seen any kind of firearm on our streets; if I found one I would turn it into the Lost and Found.
Moreover, the Illinois SB 1195 "assault weapons" bill (93rd GA) declared possession of a magazine capable of holding between 11 and 17 rounds a Class 4 felony, making every old-style Glock owner a felon.
Finally, Kennedy quite unashamedly titled his amendment: An amendment to expand the definition of armor piercing ammunition and for other purposes. What constitutes armor-piercing ammunition would have been left to the Attorney-General's sole discretion: He could devise the test, and in particular decide if rifle ammunition exceeded "standard" ammunition, thus becoming armor-piercing.
An amendment to S. 397 [109th]: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Offered: Jul 27, 2005
Sponsor: Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Actions:
Jul 29, 2005: Amendment SA 1615 proposed by Senator Kennedy.
Jul 29, 2005: Amendment SA 1615 not agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 31 - 64. Record Vote Number: 217. [Vote Details]
For more information, see the the official record on THOMAS for S.Amdt. 1615.
Text of amendment
SA 1615. Mr. KENNEDY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 397, to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:
SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.
(a) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.--Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be capable of penetrating body armor; or
``(iv) a projectile for a center-fire rifle, designed or marketed as having armor piercing capability, that the Attorney General determines, under section 926(d), to be more likely to penetrate body armor than standard ammunition of the same caliber.''.
I disagree: That's an excellent neologism.
Obama can destroy the Second Amendment through appointments to the court and a return to a politically motivated investigation hungry administration and lawsuits like NYC tried. Can anyone stand up if DOJ and ATF become aggressive in enforcing some crack-pot theory about use of guns in crimes or something else- they are dangerous to kids- the Government has more money than the NRA.
A few months ago we almost lost an enumerated right written #2 in our 10 amendments! 5 justices are so confused that they can't agree on a way to protect that right (no standard of review). It looks to me like 5 justices agree on the idea of some sort of rational basis for gun regulations which any lawyer out there knows means that the people have no more right left to anything based on ratinal basis.
Yes- and now the First amendment is treated the same as the second. Show that campaign commercial and I'll have your license looked at...Liberal Fascism.
Hasn't happened yet? Nationally maybe. Every place that has actually outlawed guns, you know made them illegal to have, has been Democratically controlled. Like Washington DC, New York and Chicago. So it isn't some sort of absurdist fantasy that politicians on the record as supporting those laws (like Barack Obama) might seek to expand their scope to make them national.
Of course we will fight them tooth and nail at every step down the slippery slope, but it I don't think it is rationaly disputed that they (meaning Obama) will take every inch that we gave them. Just because we would win almost any fight against gun control doesn't mean we should look forward to fighting it.
And what happens when a Democratic Congress and a President Obama appoint the Justices they want and the members of the FCC Commission they want?
Mayor Nagin did precisely that after Hurricane Katrina. Diane Feinstein has said she would do this if she could get the votes. There are any number of comments by leading Democrats that this is what they would like to do. This is what has been done in Britain and Australia. It is ridiculous to claim that the NRA is whipping up some bogey man, when it is obvious that the gun controllers would like to do this. The only reason they haven't is that they don't have the votes, and this is in no small part due to the NRA.
Now I'll go do something similar for the "Barackrolled" video.
Fair and balanced, that's me!
Mac wrote at 9.26.2008 4:15pm:I don't know, but to accomplish a clean sweep of SCOTUS and FCC Obama would have to commit almost as many murders as wingnuts accused Clinton of committing, only of much higher profile victims.
Bottom line: Bauer's letter was politically dumb, and ultimately worse than ineffective. It likely caused the opposite result from what he intended.
That might be a better comparison if (1) he came from a large city whose government HAS banned shrimp because it hates them; (2) he had repeatedly in the past voted to ban at least large shrimp; (3) he sat on the board of a large foundation that hated shrimp and had spent millions to get them outlawed; and (4) the leaders of his party had just blocked efforts to allow at least registered and licensed shrimp lovers to eat shrimp in Washington, D.C. and had (until they started taking losses at the polls) sought to outlaw eating certain types of shrimp and making eating the rest as difficult as was political feasible.
It would be logical at that point to suspect that he does, in fact, have a peculiar obsession with shrimp and those who eat them, and might just be in a position to do something about it.
http://www.democrats.org/page/speakout/stopthenra?js=true
Thanks for the link. I used their form to send an email praising the outlets for running that truthful ad, closing by saying "Keep up the good work."
Pyschos raises the standard talking point that's completely untrue. Find a written policy position by the NRA where they support no restrictions. They recently supported efforts to help states update the NICS database of persons restricted by mental incapacity. If there was a foolproof way to keep firearms away from criminals without causing undue burden to firearms owners, they would be in favor of it.
Then the debate begins as to what 'undue burden' is. NYC thinks its not an undue burden to require thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to obtain a permit to carry. I would call that completely unreasonable.
Britain knows where it's at.
The "roundup" simply points to several different stories about the SAME INCIDENT. How in heaven's name does that suggest a broader trend?
What I mean is, don't hold it against Instapundit or his purpose, but do hold it against they guy who didn't read what he linked to.
Thank you.
That's a charitable, and understandable-to-me, interpretation; but not necessarily what was intended.
Which is why the Democratic party has turned the NRA into some bogey man, with the aid of urban press that do not like the idea of private citizens owning guns, and who help spread the lie that Tony Tutins identified above -- i.e. the lie that the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting is limited to so-called sporting firearms. Steve in CT, the NRA was also one of the earliest supporters of Project Exile, a program that makes sure that anyone who is convicted of using a gun to commit a violent felony ends up serving an enhanced sentence in federal prison.
Read the linked materials more closely. Not all of the items in the Instapundit post are about the Obama camapign's response to this ad.
JHA
But that is not the Obama way.
Obama supports a total handgun ban.
He even voted against a law allowing people who used handguns to defend against intruders to assert self-defense as a legal defense against prosecution for violating local handgun bans.
That is indeed the bigger scandal.
It was a 5-4 position.
He is doing things the Barack Obama way, not the smart way.