He’s right enough that I’ve got very little to parse. I’d add, the aficionado’s ‘special interest’ here, that being the gun people’s interest that manifests itself as stewardship of the issue itself… is always going to dwarf that of the people who want gun control in the abstract. And you can’t gain ownership or stewardship of the issue in ways superseding that of the gun people’s with something nebulous like ‘gun control’ in the abstract. If you get my drift. Campaigning on it is another issue, but Democrats aren’t going to make any progress on policy.
I’m not a fan of Jeb, but he got this correct in ways that were impressive to me as a crypto-libertarian. And no, he wasn’t cavalier or dismissive. Needless to say: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/jeb-bushs-stuff-happens-response-was-fine.html
“Charleston Loophole” – http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/clinton-gun-control-push-sanders.html This is new language. Recall, Roof had been charged with a drug crime in state court, and his retail counter instacheck was pended/held, but then his retailer had the go ahead to sell when the BATF/FBI didn’t come back with a denial in 3 business days. BY THE WAY, the info was available to deny but the case worker dropped the ball, as I recall. Anyway, the process is in accordance with language made effective in the 94 Crime Bill. HRC et al proposes closing the “Charleston loophole’ by saying the instacheck can pend more than 72 hours and until such time that a proceed or deny can be issued with certitude. Sensible? Actually, no, because, this is a government that universally doesn’t respond to FOIA requests with any seriousness, sincerity, or earnestness. You pend these instachecks indefinitely, they’ll never get resolved, which will inevitably be an improper denial of constitutional rights, perhaps to more people than not. ‘Holds’ are not uncommon, and sometimes they are triggered by penny-ante misdemeanors.