Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Via WoG, this:

Santa Ynez business owner Gabriele Santi was left frustrated and bewildered when his local bank branch abruptly closed his accounts.

He said he walked into his local Rabobank branch recently and was handed a letter stating that the bank was terminating the accounts for his business, the Second Amendment Gun Shop in Santa Ynez.

I have never had an incident with Rabobank and this came as a shock, quite literally. I am usually a loud guy, but I was quiet, Santi said.

According to the bank’s letter, we are required by federal law to exercise due diligence and understand the financial transactions of our customers. When we are unable to meet the standards imposed by law, we have to take appropriate action to reduce risk to the bank.

I literally have no idea what that means. I haven’t broken any laws. In fact, I supply most of the local law enforcement with their guns and ammunition, and this decision is just political, Santi said.

Here is what it means sir.  Federal law doesn’t require them to close your account.  They voluntarily chose to do that because they don’t believe in your rights or liberties.

Gentlemen, cut your ties to corporate America.  It hates you.

As seen on Facebook:

This is why Facebook is stupid.  Yes, I know the hazard of saying something like that is that there are so many reasons Facebook is stupid that someone may point out the reductionism of the assertion This is why Facebook is stupid.  Nonetheless, this is why Facebook is stupid.

No one has apparently asked her to change the subject to something like automobiles.  ” … You’re already stating that having car insurance and ambulances means that cars are dangerous and a threat to those nearby.”  Consistency is only the Hobgoblin of small minds in American schools.

About the only thing you can say to something like that (because she’s not teachable) is “Shut up, go to the kitchen and make me a sandwich.”

If you have a Facebook account, delete it.  You’re stupider every day you have it.  It’s amazing that Zuckerberg actually makes a living with this crap, a testimony to the stupidity of the American people.

Trump spoke at the NRA convention in Dallas to a hero’s welcome.  David Codrea has other thoughts.

No one is expecting the president to exceed his authority or the proper bounds of federalism, but the office does come with a bully pulpit and, depending on your point of view, the man is either famous or notorious for issuing public statements through Twitter. If we’re to believe the “assault on [our] Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end,” what kind of statements would it be reasonable to expect when states are infringing on a right articulated in “the supreme Law of the Land”?

Donald “Ban the bump stocks take the guns first” Trump was heralded at the NRA convention, but by my calculus he has given us (a) a progressive Ninth Circuit judge, (b) a bump stock ban, (c) Fix-NICS, (d) more funding for the CDC to pump out anti-gun garbage.

Tim Harmsen, whom I like and whose videos I enjoy, was interviewed by NPR.  Normally I’d say as I always do, “The first rule of gun club is don’t talk about gun club.”  But NPR did a fair job.

The National Rifle Association’s annual meeting begins Friday in Dallas, and some members of the organization plan to voice their discontent with the positions the NRA has taken in the past year.

Lifetime member Tim Harmsen, the owner of Copper Custom Gun Shop in Valparaiso, Ind., and the creator and host of the Military Arms Channel on YouTube, says he’s bringing boxes of T-shirts that reflect his disappointment.

“The shirts say ‘NRA: Not Real Activists.’ So, we’re not happy with the direction that [NRA leaders] Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox have taken,” Harmsen says. “They think that the resolution to all that ails the country is constant compromise on our constitutional rights, and there’s a growing number of us who are dissatisfied with that.”

They constantly negotiate our rights away. And my opinion is this — that in a compromise, it’s assumed that both parties will get something of equal value, and that’s not what happens. We don’t really compromise — we surrender our rights, endlessly trying to appease the factions that simply want to erase the Second Amendment as though it never existed….

Two issues that they’ve recently pushed through with the assistance of Trump is their NICS fix, which is an expansion of the NICS background check system, which has about a 97 percent false positive rate. … The NRA originally wrote the bill during the Clinton administration, and then they had President Trump expand it, which is a de facto waiting period for most Americans. It inaccurately flags most people.

Then, the second thing that they did is bump stock regulation. It’s really poorly written, and it goes so far as to tell you how to get around the regulations change.

I’m going for two reasons: First of all, I’m a voting member, and I plan to vote — and we keep trying to vote in a board that more reflects the opinions of the membership, which is myself and a large number of NRA members. If you get online and look, go through the discussion forms (sic) and the pro-Second Amendment forms (sic), you’ll see what I’m saying is true….

You’d think that NPR could at least get the word forum right.  As I said, I like Tim, but I don’t believe in compromise.  The problem is not just that we don’t really compromise and the other side gets everything.  The fundamental problem is that when God has spoken and decreed rights, man has no business stepping in to intercede in that right.  Man usurps the position of God, and it makes Him angry.  It also makes men who love God angry.

The problem with the bump stock ban isn’t that it is poorly written, or that it’s a slippery slope, or that we didn’t get anything in the compromise.  If it was well written and we got something in the give-and-take, it’s still wrong.

All gun control is wicked.  Compromise is evil when God has spoken and dictated the terms and conditions of our existence.  But always remember what Trump said in the debates, and what I’ve rehearsed here on these pages many times.

“Everything is negotiable.”

Writing in USA Today, Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area, is co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee.

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

I think he underestimates the scope, difficulty, magnitude, and danger of his project.  I suggest proof of principle.  Start in South Carolina.  Send FedGov agents of all kinds to Traveler’s Rest, Pickens, Spartanburg, Boiling Springs, and Marietta, and tell them to go door to door confiscating weapons.

Make sure you drop by that boy’s home who drives the loud truck with the Confederate flag waving.  He has a Molon Labe sticker on the back windshield.  Yes, yes, I know there’s a lot of them.  That’s not my problem.  This is your project, not mine.

Write me a note and tell me how that goes.

Citizen Times:

“I don’t think we’ll take up gun legislation of any type,” said state Rep. Chuck McGrady, a Henderson County Republican first elected to the General Assembly in 2010, the same year Republicans established control of the body.

“To get to a different place on guns, you’d have to have a different mix of legislators — it’s a pretty conservative state,” McGrady said. “I do anticipate we’ll be putting some monies into the school safety issue.”

That would revolve around “hardening” schools — adding security, police officers and other physical measures that would make schools more difficult for a shooter to attack — not measures designed to make it harder to buy guns.

State Rep. Brian Turner, a Democrat who represents part of Buncombe County, said it’s unrealistic to expect the Republican-dominated legislature to impose rules making it harder to get guns when the body opens the 2018 session May 16.

“If we do see something, I would imagine it would probably be along the lines of the hardening of schools and adding additional resource officers,” Turner said. “I think the focus would be less around firearms specifically and more about deterrence and prevention.”

A gun owner and hunter himself, Turner is far from anti-gun. But restrictions on “Title 2 weapons,” such as short-barreled shotguns or suppressors, might make sense, he said.

While North Carolina elected a Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, in 2016, it also went overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump, a Republican. On gun issues, the Tar Heel State is reliably conservative, according to Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University.

Cooper acknowledged Florida’s legislature raised the age to buy an AR-15 to 21 after the school shooting, as the shooter was 19, but he said “it’s unlikely we’ll see a lot of movement” in North Carolina.

“I think there was a policy window that opened briefly, but it appears to be closing,” Cooper said. “Florida had a little bit of movement, and people are talking about the issue, but I don’t think there’s a lot of persuasion going on. Even though people are talking about it more, I think both sides are drawing people more firmly into their own camps.”

Gun control legislation is “a particularly tough sell in North Carolina,” which has a strong tradition of hunting and gun ownership.

“We’ve looked to be to the left of some of the country on some issues, but gun rights is not one of those issues,” Cooper said.

Restrictions on suppressors might make sense to State Rep. Brian Turner because he is an idiot.  If he is a hunter like he says he is, he would understand the value of hearing and how much damage can be done to it.  So I think he is lying.  I don’t think he’s a hunter at all.

Moreover, hunting has nothing whatsoever to do with gun rights or the second amendment or the constitution of North Carolina.  So I think he just threw in hunting to bolster his creds thinking that we’d buy it.  I don’t.  I don’t buy any of his claptrap.  I wish people would stop mentioning hunting in the context of gun rights.  It’s stupid and it makes the person saying it look like an imbecile.

But what I do buy is that the NC legislature will do nothing to enact further restrictions on firearms freedoms without a huge fight.  For the sake of everyone, this isn’t a bridge Turner or anyone else wants to cross.  The only gun legislation I want to see is constitutional carry and repeal of the CLEO permitting process.

CNBC:

Another community group, Majority Action, is organizing retail investors to push big fund companies like BlackRock and Vanguard, Sturm Ruger’s biggest shareholders, to assert their voting power. The group organized about six weeks ago, seeing now as a crucial moment for changing the gun industry.

“We were looking at how you enable everyday investors to access the levers of power when it comes to holding companies accountable,” said James Rucker, its co-founder, who is on the board of directors of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But even before these recent demands, controversy was certain to erupt at Sturm Ruger’s meeting, scheduled to take place May 9 at a resort in Arizona thousands of miles from its Connecticut headquarters. The company has a factory in the area.

Wednesday’s vote will be the first test this year of a proposal by a faith-based shareholder group urging the nation’s gun industry to act after recent extreme examples of gun violence.

Specifically, that proposal, backed by the Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment, asks gun makers like Sturm Ruger to prepare a report about the financial and reputational risks associated with their business. The coalition plans to introduce a similar proposal on the proxy of American Outdoor Brands, which typically holds its meetings in the fall.

Two major shareholder voting advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, have thrown their support behind the coalition’s proposal, Sturm Ruger’s board, on the other hand, is advising shareholders to vote against it. “We believe that firearms safety is a laudable and appropriate goal,” it said in the proxy. “However, we also believe that adequate safety practices and procedures are available.”

BlackRock said in a note to clients in March that it is time to take action on gun violence, adding it could use its position as a large shareholder to vote against boards and management and back shareholder proposals management doesn’t like. But it won’t comment about how it plans to vote its 2.8 million shares next week.

Several companies connected to the gun industry have changed their policies in recent weeks in response to the upswell of protests after a shooting in a Florida high school in February left 17 people dead. Major retailers such as Walmart and Dick’s Sporting Goods put limits on gun sales, and banks like Citigroup said it would restrict gun sales by business partners.

Fund managers like BlackRock and State Street said they would start a dialogue with gun makers about what they are doing to promote safety. BlackRock has even rolled out new funds that specifically remove stocks of gun makers and sellers.

Amalgamated wants the gun maker to publicly endorse universal background checks, funding for government to to crack down on illegal distribution, and funding for government research into gun safety and public health. They also want a commitment to responsible distribution contracts, monitoring of distribution chains and investments in gun safety technology and commercialization.

Froman, 68, is a lawyer and long-time gun industry supporter. The Southern Poverty Law Center found her name in a 2014 member directory of a secretive ultra-conservative group called the Council for National Policy. Tax forms from 2015 and 2016 filed by that organization list her as treasurer.

The year she became president of the NRA, the gun lobby won a crucial legal battle in the form of a new law limiting liability claims against gun makers. That same year, a donor program for the NRA launched and, as reported by Bloomberg in 2012, took in nearly $15 million from gun-related companies.

Froman has pointed to Smith & Wesson’s decision in 2000 to voluntarily comply with certain gun safety measures as its downfall. Grassroots gun supporters forced the company into bankruptcy after it made that “deal with the devil,” she has said.

“The grass roots is a powerful force that the government can’t control and can’t fight,” she said in a speech in 2011 to a group that supports knife ownership. “Just look at what’s happened with the rise of the Tea Party movement. Most of the battles that NRA has won have been won by sheer political power.”

Oh, okay.  Things make a little more sense now.  The Southern Preposterous Lie Center is after her, and for very good reason.  She believes that S&W made a “deal with the devil.”  Because they did, and she’s right.  She stands in the way of forcing Ruger to make that same sort of deal, although to be quite honest, I think the other board members as well as 100% of Ruger employees see things the same way she does.

The article is lacking in detail just like all preceding articles on this – we still don’t learn the relative shareholding power of these gun controller forces within Ruger stock.  But it sure will be interesting to follow this through and see how well or poorly the controllers do with this effort.

Prior: Amalgamated Bank Pressures Ruger To Support Gun Control Measures

Greenville News:

A bill that would allow lawful gun owners to carry their firearms without a permit has been removed from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s meeting agenda, and the chairman is not saying when it may return.

Its removal came as lawmakers and political candidates have debated what should be done to combat school shootings, and it came just days before a bill related to school safety receives a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The bill’s sponsor and members of the committee questioned this week by The Greenville News said they were not aware of the bill’s removal.

Sen. Luke Rankin, a Horry County Republican and chairman of the committee, said the bill was pulled by him to “to give full attention” to an abortion bill that was debated and passed by his committee Tuesday.

He said he did not know when the gun bill might return to the agenda but said its absence was not due to the recent school shooting in Florida.

Asked why he did not know when it might return, he said, “It was not on the agenda today. That is the answer.”

The controversial bill had been debated briefly at the last meeting of the committee two weeks ago, but no action was taken.

The so-called “Constitutional carry” or “open-carry” bill, sponsored by Sen. Shane Martin, a Spartanburg County Republican, would not do away with concealed weapons permits for those who wanted to carry their guns to other states.

[ … ]

On Wednesday a Senate judiciary subcommittee will hear a bill by Rep. Sandy Senn, a Charleston Republican, that would create the crime of threatening, soliciting or conspiring to threaten to use a firearm to cause injury, death or damage at a school, college or university.

This is news from February that I had missed because I wasn’t watching closely enough.  State Senator Luke Rankin is dismissive and haughty because he doesn’t care about gun rights.

I’ve made it clear not only that gun control has its roots in wickedness, but gun control also to do with how a many bears his arms.  Forcing a man to conceal his weapons is an act of shaming him and making him behave like a criminal.

But, he claims, they can’t chew gum and walk at the same time.  They want to focus on an abortion bill.  Good.  We’ll see if anything comes of that.  Meanwhile, they have the time to debate a bill that makes it a crime to engage in “threatening, soliciting or conspiring to threaten to use a firearm to cause injury, death or damage at a school, college or university,” or in other words, make something that is already a crime, a crime.

I think Senator Rankin is a liar and weasel.  I think they can chew gum and walk at the same time, and I think he is being coy and dismissive in order to hide something.

What is he trying to hide?  What does he believe about gun owners and their manner of carry that he isn’t telling us because he is cowardly and doesn’t want us to know?

I also think it’s time to Larry Martin Mr. Rankin.  Mr. Rankin, you now have a target on your back.  You’re next, so look for something to do with your time other than be a state senator.

Market Watch:

Banks and credit-card companies are discussing ways to identify purchases of guns in their payment systems, a move that could be a prelude to restricting such transactions, according to people familiar with the talks.

The discussions are preliminary but could be deeply controversial. Gun-rights groups have long resisted any effort to monitor which Americans own guns; there are federal laws limiting the government’s use of electronic databases of gun sales.

The financial companies have explored creating a new credit-card code for firearms dealers, similar to how they code restaurants, or department stores, according to people familiar with the matter. Another idea would require merchants to share information about specific firearm products consumers are buying, some of the people said.

They’re driving us towards a cash-based exchange for firearms and ammunition.  It should be cash-based anyway, you say.  I understand the sentiment.  Without cash to back up credit cards, you lose the credit card.  Besides, that’s poor form.  A man always honors his obligations.

But there is more to it than that, and you know it.  Even if it’s a firearm that you hold on 90-day lawaway with the local gun shop, you seldom make all the payments in cash.  Even if you do, you seldom carry around enough cash to buy a firearm outright.  Most of the time, you float it with a credit card or ATM card until the next day, or the end of the month when you get paid.

Even if you don’t do that, many buyers do.  This will affect the financial health of everything from local gun shops to large firearms manufacturers.  I’ve warned about this before.  In addition to the advice I gave firearms manufacturers – remove all avenues of leverage, get out of debt, and cut ties with corporate America – there is much more than can be done.  Hornady is showing us the way and is an example of responsible corporate support of our rights and liberties (via TTAG).

Today, the State of New York did one of the most despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state by asking New York banks, financial institutions and insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun and ammo industry.

While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the State of NY or any NY agencies. Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that. They should be ashamed.

I don’t know if it will make a difference or not, but I know what will make a difference.  It would be like trying to herd cats, but if the firearms and ammunition industry could finally avoid the temptation to whore after government contracts, not just FedGov but state, county and local governments too, when they take positions that run contrary to our liberties, it would effectively end this charade in a single day.

So let’s suppose that Daniel Defense, CMMG, BCI Defense, Knight’s Armament, Rock River Arms, FN, Springfield Armory, LaRue Tactical, Ruger, Barrett, Savage and all other firearms manufacturers, refused to sell to governments that took positions like the state of New York where officials were working with banks to effect gun control measures or encourage non-patronage of the firearms community by banks.  Let’s also suppose that ammunition manufacturers – Remington, Federal, Double-Tap, Magtech, Winchester, and others – joined them in refusing to sell ammunition to such entities.  Thus those entities could obtain neither firearms nor ammunition for government officials, including LEOs.

What do you think would be the outcome of such a large, dovetailed response of the community to this overreach and bigotry?  I suspect the bigotry would end overnight.  It would certainly end if they inquired if any of the products were to be used in security operations for Bank of America, Citibank, Amalgamated, Wells Fargo, and the other large operations, and also refused to sell to their security teams.

It’s possible to end this bigotry, it’s just a matter of will and strategy.  We know what to do, it’s a matter of doing it.  You can help by forwarding this article to every firearms and ammunition manufacturer who will listen.  The banks can back down from this war with firearms owners before it is too late and unpleasant things happen.

As for Hornady, I suspect they will benefit immensely from this decision.  If you are a firearms or ammunition manufacturer, straighten up and pay attention.  This is how you do it.  This is how you pay your dues and earn the trust and respect of the community.  The community rewards such trust and respect.

Jon Stokes writing at Politico:

I’m for Second Amendment rights. I am a Texan and an American patriot who hauls my family to church every Sunday in a diesel pickup truck, where I sit in the pew and listen to the Word with a 9mm pistol tucked inside the waistband of my fanciest jeans.

Isn’t this the part where the author inserts the inevitable “but”—as in, “I’m a firm Second Amendment advocate, but … ”? Well I’ve got no “buts” for you, because I don’t need them. I believe there is a way to increase both our individual gun rights and our collective safety, if we can only get gun controllers to quit bitterly clinging to outmoded feature bans and gun registries, and convince gun rights advocates that “liberty” isn’t just about “what’s in my gun safe” but also about being able to exercise one’s full spectrum of Second Amendment rights in every part of this great nation.

The idea is simple but powerful: a federally issued license for simple possession of all semi-automatic firearms. This license would allow us to carefully vet civilian access to semi-automatic weapons, while overriding state-specific weapon bans and eliminating some of the federal paperwork that ties specific firearms to specific owners.

I offer this idea not only because I actually want to live in a world where it, or something like it, is the law of the land, but also because I and my fellow gun nuts are worried that a storm is coming that will sweep away a substantial portion of our gun rights without really making the country safer in return. We’re not even five months into a midterm election year, and 2018 has seen a string of high-profile incidents that have darkened the public’s view of civilian gun ownership: February’s massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, followed by this month’s shootings at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, and at a Waffle House in Nashville, Tennessee. In the aftermath of these killings, we’re hearing proposals for anti-gun measures that we thought were widely considered out of bounds in the gun control debate, like a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, a repeal of the Second Amendment, or even an outright ban on the private ownership of guns. Some of us think this will all blow over, as it always does. And maybe it will. But this time definitely feels different.

Our side faces a potent new enemy in the form of private-sector companies like REI, Delta Airlines, Citibank, YouTube and Reddit, which are taking an increasingly anti-gun stance. My fellow gun owners and I are now concerned not just with the potential erosion of our gun rights at the hands of our government, but also with the erosion of our ability to communicate and to educate about this topic in the online spaces that make up so much of modern civic life.

There is fear, despair and anger on both sides, and neither side wants to give an inch. We seem doomed to fight endlessly over the same handful of half-measures that neither side is happy with. A new approach—a federal gun license for semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15s used in the Parkland shooting and at the Nashville Waffle House—has the potential to make us all safer while offering a net increase in liberty for the country’s law-abiding gun owners.

[ … ]

If you weren’t a license holder, then simple possession of any semi-auto weapon would be a felony.

[ … ]

An initial set of licensing requirements would undoubtedly include having one’s fingerprints on file with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and a thorough background check that screens for things like domestic violence convictions and inclusion in the government’s terrorist watch list (assuming that list has been fixed by adding a way for innocent people to get their names removed). Gun controllers have long desired a national firearm licensing scheme that includes safe storage requirements and a demonstration of basic weapon proficiency; these things would be part of the negotiations. If they didn’t make the first cut, there would be a place to implement them should they gain popular support. Maybe gun controllers could offer the pro-gun side something it badly wants, like relaxing the federal restrictions on suppressors, in exchange for them.

Here’s the best part.  “Jon Stokes is a founder of Ars Technica and a former editor for Wired. He writes about guns and technology for TechCrunch, AllOutdoor.com, TheFireArmBlog.com and other publications.”

So it remains to be seen if he will ever write again for AllOutdoor or TFB, but Stokes has seriously and passionately embraced the dark side.  It may be no accident that he’s done it in Politico.

Only a dolt and simpleton believes things like what he is advocating being an advantage for personal safety.  Only some in the gun community will actually do this, and certainly not criminals.

Second, he apparently doesn’t believe in the predilection of mankind towards evil and wickedness, witness his sophomoric belief in the idea that a national registry will be given up by the progressives, and that we should later (after already succumbing to the wishes of the progressives) be at the mercy of ideas that “gain popular support.”  The Armenian genocide had popular support too.

Third, a fundamental error he makes runs contrary to the intent of the founders.  He advocates centralization of power, which is exactly what the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent (albeit imperfectly).  He we are again at his naïve belief in the inherent goodness of man, whereas Paul advocated a different viewpoint (Romans 3:23).

Fourth, when he considers the effect on public safety, Stokes ignores the biggest effect, which is mass shootings in gun-free nations at the hands of government actors, which in the twentieth century was near 170 million souls.  Jon’s math is all screwed up.

Finally, he actually appears to believe that his gun creds are stamped and sealed because he is a so-called “gun nut.”  He writes for TFB and AllOutdoor.  I too love to talk guns, love to work them, love to clean them, assemble and disassemble them, study barrels and twist rate, study reticle holdover subtensions and scope design, love to build and reverse the process, love to study ballistics, and on the list goes.  Rather like boys working on cars when you could rebuild carburetors with float and gasket kits, change the plugs and ignition wires, and set timing on the points all without the involvement of onboard computers or professional mechanics.

But that doesn’t mean anything more than I’m a gearhead.  Jon’s “gun nut” creds means nothing whatsoever to me, and it shouldn’t to you either if he intends to compromise the observation of our liberties to progressives on a naïve promise of good will.  The second amendment, as I’ve pointed out, is a covenant.  It is an agreement, not the source of our rights to be armed.  Loving mechanics and being a gearhead obviously doesn’t translate to loving liberty or being devoted to doing what it takes to preserve it.

The fountain of our rights and liberties isn’t the state.  It is the almighty Himself who issues forth such edicts, and because He has done so, let no man feel the freedom to whisk them away in panicked compromise because he fears loss.  There are worse things than losing, and worse things than death.  Losses are only temporal, and death isn’t the end.

My hope is that Jon Stokes never again writes another word for TFB, AllOutdoor or any other gun related publication.  To the gun community, Jon’s name must be Ichabod.  He is anathema.

Roll Call:

If Democrats control the House in 2019 they would quickly schedule floor action on gun violence prevention, protections for “Dreamers” and infrastructure, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday.

“When we win and we take over in January, some of the issues that will come up soon are the issues we are asking the speaker to take up now,” Pelosi said, naming those three issues.

Speaking during a town hall event with students at Georgetown University, the California Democrat several times used phrasing that suggests she’s not thinking about “if” Democrats retake the House but “when.“

She’s right, I’m certain, it’s not if but just a matter of when.  And they’re not even waiting until they have a democratic president.  They want it now.

What do you think will happen if the democratic house hands Mr. Donald “Ban the bump stocks take the guns first” Trump a spending bill with gun control attached to it?  For the answer, consider what he did when a republican congress did that very thing with CDC spending for “gun studies,” support for a bump stock ban and Fix-NICS.