Our Vietnam: Reflections on Operation Enduring Freedom

One of those questions GWOT (Global War on Terror) vets has never wanted to know the answer to from the previous generation of veterans was what it felt like to lose Vietnam. We have a bit more of an understanding of how that feels today. However, I will never know what it could have felt like for those returning veterans to face the ire and disdain from their fellow Americans for going to Vietnam, voluntarily or not. I was not a soldier in Afghanistan; I was a civilian working side-by-side active-duty Airmen in Kandahar for 14 months. I was a soldier in Iraq, and watching the Taliban take Afghanistan this weekend is more disheartening than it was to see ISIS rise to power. The sadness and frustration I feel are being echoed universally across my veteran-oriented social media groups/pages. We did our duty to our nation and our fellow service members, and we will need to be satisfied with that.

It was common knowledge in Iraq in 2009, once we left, a terrorist group would rise, we did not have a name for them, but we knew their tactics, techniques, and goals. ISIS filled that void in our absence. We were uncertain what our response would be? Luckily we did respond, and we defeated ISIS in 2016. As best as I can tell, Iraq has been a mostly stable nation in the region since 2016. The particularly disheartening factor with Afghanistan now is knowing it will be more challenging to go back in than 2001. I will attempt to describe my understanding of what went wrong in Afghanistan and why we are watching what we are.

The first failure of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), aka the War in Afghanistan, was the lack of clarity about the objective or victory conditions. It was not a war because Congress did not make a declaration of war; instead, like most of our overseas military operations, it was a police action via the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). President Bush repeatedly claimed we would make Afghanistan into a democratic nation. A democratic republic like that of the Western countries was a foolish goal. As we have seen with numerous non-Western nations (to include Russia and China) who have not had an Enlightenment like the European nations, democratic governments have been less stable, to say the least. To think we could create a Western country in the “Graveyard of Empires” was a demonstration of hubris and foolishness. I would point to the American Founders who described the social conditions necessary for a democratic republic to survive. The lack of understanding of what conditions are required to create a democratic nation is one of my significant criticisms of the neoliberal foreign policy model. A model we have been engaging in the post-Cold War and GWOT periods. Yet, President Bush repeatedly claimed this was the goal.

President Obama had less lofty goals. As Iraq withdrawals began in 2009 following my first deployment, President Obama surged US forces to Afghanistan. A month after we killed Osama Bin Laden, President Obama started to withdraw US Forces in 2011. I left Afghanistan in December 2011. President Obama wanted to have a complete withdrawal before the 2016 election but did not. President Trump sought to continue withdrawal and negotiated with the Taliban from 2018-2020, scheduling US Forces to leave by May 2021. This war, this failure, is one of the most bipartisan ventures of my lifetime.

In my view, the failure to have realistic, attainable victory conditions was the critical factor that lost public support. The American people were sold on a false bill of goods. What was attainable? Prevent Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. We often forget Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not the same. In 2001, Al Qaeda was about a thousand personnel by our highest intelligence estimates. Following 9/11, the refusal of the Taliban lead government to turn over Al Qaeda is what prompted our action. We took on tens of thousands of those protecting them in the pursuit to go after hundreds of Al Qaeda members. The war itself was to depose the government, which harbored terrorists. The prevention of future attacks should have been the explicit goal. There were no attacks on the homeland planned in Afghanistan from 2002 - Spring 2021.

After the initial victories in northeast Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance, US forces did not engage in major combat until 2005. From 2009-2011 were the peak combat casualties. By 2014, there were fewer combat casualties in Afghanistan than training deaths in the US Military. That is not to say those deaths were any less valuable or costly in any way. It does go to say the job of the military is inherently dangerous. If they are going to do their job, their lives will be at risk. Because of this inherent risk is why many of us recognize the sacrifice in military service, even during peacetime. The primary burden of making policy is accepting the costs which come from it. One cannot responsibly take the “just one life is worth it” position for any policy when limited resources (to include time) are in play. I hold this view on every policy.

Does this mean I support endless wars? No, not at all. At the same time, I do have a strong “you break it, you buy it policy” that we should not leave a situation worse than we started. As of today, Afghanistan is worse off than it was on September 10, 2001. We should seriously consider and deliberate before we get involved in overseas actions. Still, once we are there, we need to maintain support sustainably until they can support themselves. What else could we have done? Between General Petraeus and the Brookings Institute, I think the “Five Thousand for Five” plan was reasonable. It is worth noting that it took more than 20 years to turn South Korea into a democratic republic. Was Afghanistan an example of the sunk cost fallacy? No, because each year we stayed, it got a bit more secure. The initial decision to invest in this was made 20 years ago by our elected representatives. The idea that one can support action and then change one’s mind about it before the action is complete is a unique benefit in American politics. When bombs have dropped, blood shed, there are no redos. It should serve as a sharp reminder to deliberate well over significant decisions. We are witnessing now the cost of not completing the mission; it certainly can look like it was all for nothing.

What were the conditions in Afghanistan before the Taliban’s major offensive? For the last five years, the US forces secured the major bases. They did not go out on the particularly hazardous patrols or raids that marked our operations tempo from 2009-2012. Our bases were secure; US personnel were safely assisting the Afghani military fight the Taliban. Our primary role was supporting the Afghan military via air support and logistical supplies. The air-dependent military force was how the United States fought the war. The terrain in Afghanistan is brutal. In many areas, the elevation of the mountains hinders the effectiveness of our attack helicopters’ ability to provide close air support. If we remember back to Operation Red Wings, which was one of the deadliest operations in Navy SEAL history, altitude was one of the major factors contributing to the destroyed Chinook. The downed Chinook accounted for 16 of the 19 killed. The high altitude prevented the escort helicopters from staying with the ground force team on the twin-rotor cargo helicopter. At the strategic level, the United States operated and trained the Afghan military to rely upon air support and airdrops to supply isolated bases, the same way we did. To expect the Afghan ground forces to keep fighting without air support or resupply was contrary to the methodology of warfare we had taught them for the last 20 years. Thus, when we withdrew our air support and the ability for the Afghan Air Force to operate, this was a done deal. Who should we look to for that decision?

President Trump negotiated with the Taliban for withdrawal by May 2021. The deal has two main parts, what the United States will do and what the Taliban (Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan) will do. It does call for the total pull out of “all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel.” It is not a ratified treaty. It is an executive agreement in which the new administration can change without needing any legislative action to accept or reject the change. The requirements for the Taliban were to not “use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies,” “not to cooperate with groups or individuals threatening the security of the United States and its allies,” among other conditions. As with any agreement, contract, or deal, if one side violates the terms of the agreement, the other is not required to honor it. Thus even if the current administration was merely following the previous administration’s deal, if the terms were violated, they were under no obligation to continue to follow through with our requirements.

Based on the way we designed and trained the Afghan military, to lose their Air Force was to ensure the failure of the Afghani ground forces. The Afghani forces were well equipped and trained to fight the Taliban. They have been doing for the 20 years we have been fighting too. They still relied on foreign support for repairing and maintaining the aircraft they operated. By withdrawing even the contractors from supporting the Afghan military, policymakers should have known the army would fall as soon as aircraft broke down. For those who have not been around aircraft, I spent two years in helicopter units, the ratio of maintenance to flight hours is significant. The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, for instance, requires about 3.4 Maintenance Man Hours for every one flight hour. The Afghani military did not have sufficient training or qualified personnel to maintain their aircraft. In the last desperate weeks resorted to zoom calls to get assistance with their aircraft. We expected the Afghani Army to fight without support, relief, or hope by cutting off the air support.

We saw this coming. The mobilization of the Taliban has been growing for months. In March, the New York Times reported on the Taliban’s gains. Helmand and Kandahar are the Pashtun strongholds; it should have been entirely predictable to take Southern Afghanistan. As the news kept coming in May and June, it was clear the Taliban had no interest in honoring any part of the deal. There was plenty of time available for the US to reverse course in Spring and early Summer. But we did nothing. According to Google Trends, there were small spikes of interest (28 from 17) in the second weeks of April and July (35) from its present peak at present (100). Unlike ISIS, the Taliban controls the major airports in the nation. The tribal warfare will continue as it has existed for decades, if not centuries before. Whatever allies we had will know we abandoned them twice now. If they manage to survive, they would be foolish to depend upon us again. It is sadly a bit of a hallmark of neo-liberal foreign policy more broadly. For now, the news cycle will be filled with sad emojis and disappointment by those who were not aware of the situation. It is doubtful a recoverable situation like Iraq was. This is my reflection on 20 years, 2222 American lives, almost 21000 wounded Americans, and over 820 billion dollars spent. I think I am going to watch Charlie Wilson’s War now.

Can You Drive Through a National Park without Paying the Fee?

*This is not legal advice, if a lawyer wants to spend their time pro bono to correct me, please do so*

I have significant experience being in and around National Parks, in almost all of those experiences I only ever passed through those federal properties. Over those years, I have also heard numerous reports of federal employees requiring others to pay the entrance fee of those National Parks even after people have disclosed their destination was not in the Park. My curiosity getting the better of me (I should be writing my dissertation, but I need to answer this before my brain will let it go), leads me to this path.

My legal basis for this assertion is with the structure of the Constitution and more specifically, the Court’s ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), which in the very limited understanding of the Federal Privileges and Immunities, included a right to travel between the states. “The right to move with freedom, to choose his highway, and to be exempt from impositions, belongs to the citizen. He must have this power to move freely to perform his duties as a citizen.”(page 57) This is where I just might know enough law to get me into trouble, but let’s take this spontaneous assertion together. It is also worth recognizing the doctrine concerning the Right to Travel is not entirely clear. My contention is under my federal right to travel, I ought to be able to freely travel through the federal property without paying a fee. Mind you, there are collections of anti-government extremists known as Sovereign Citizens, who can be dangerous and are generally confused about the legitimacy of the American legal system. I am writing this in real-time, the ending TLDR conclusion may result in me being wrong. At no point am I advocating or arguing that one does not need to have a state-issued Driver’s License or current vehicle registration for this exercise.

The National Parks are governed by the National Parks Service, which is under the Department of the Interior (This link does a pretty good job of explaining the hierarchy of laws, rules, and regulations). They, like most executive branch agencies, are authorized by Congress to make rules and regulations which carry the force of law. Additionally, executive orders can “fine-tune” the laws passed by Congress to interpret the execution of such laws in a more specific (or not) manner. So the aspects of governance over National Parks are based on Federal statutory law (US Code), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and Executive Orders. I want to confirm, if my legal understanding/analysis is correct, that under federal law, I can freely travel through National Parks, without having to pay a fee for a pass. This is specific, I cannot stop on the federal land to park or enjoy any of the sights, this is ONLY to pass through. If my findings confirm my suspicions, to use this knowledge to avoid paying entrance fees and park use is wholly unethical and one can and ought to be fined for not paying said fees if they use the National Park without paying the proper fees.

Let me start with the Executive Orders because this will be the easiest thing to address. Of the list provides by National Parks Service, none of the executive orders would apply to my inquiry.

Next up, the Federal Law, I predict it will provide for broad authorization, and the specifics will be addressed, defined, and enforced via the Code of Federal Regulations.

54 U.S. Code § 100101 - Promotion and regulation
(2) 1978 reaffirmation.—
Congress reaffirms, declares, and directs that the promotion and regulation of the various System units shall be consistent with and founded in the purpose established by subsection (a), to the common benefit of all the people of the United States. The authorization of activities shall be construed and the protection, management, and administration of the System units shall be conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which the System units have been established, except as directly and specifically provided by Congress.

In the link, one will see “System” and “System Units” are hyperlinked terms, which refers to “section 100501” for definition. This path leads us to “The System shall include any area of land and water administered by the Secretary, acting through the Director, for park, monument, historic, parkway, recreational, or other purposes.” So basically, this is the grand authorization by Congress to the Department of the Interior to do all the details. This is going way too smoothly so far, in your best Billy Mays voice, say to yourself “but wait there’s more!”

Now I am on to the fun (tedious) part! In case you did not know, the Code of Federal Regulations dwarf the US Code (federal statutes) by at least 20x, to be honest, no one actually knows. The truly fun part is this, not only does the Department of Interior get to write the rules, but they also get to enforce the rules, and interpret the rules. If you are thinking this may violate the separation of powers, then welcome to the debate concerning the Administrative State, it has been going within the Conservative legal movement for over 30 years, call it the best-kept secret in American government. At a more layperson level, this is known as the federal bureaucracy. Before I continue a rabbit trail on this broader issue, let me dive into the CFR and see what I can find.

The bulk of the relevant rules and regulations are found in Title 36 Chapter 1 Part 71.  In addition to the CFR, there are also the Management Policies of the National Parks System which references the Park Roads Standards. I might just be bragging about how much research I did for this... Let us begin with a look at the relevant CFR concerning the National Park entrance fees.

My prompt is only concerned with entering the National Park for the purpose of passing through. Of the three types of fees authorized in the CFR, only the Designated Entrance Fee Area (DEFA) would apply. No recreational activities or special recreation is to take place in this hypothetical. Therefore, the only potential legitimate fee would be the DEFA. As one continues reading the CFR, the designated areas are described and defined. My interest perks up at subsection 71.3. There is a helpful carveout, “(3) In no event shall any of the following, whether used singly or in any combination, be designated as facilities for which recreation use fees shall be charged: Drinking water, wayside exhibits, roads, overlook sites, visitors' centers, scenic drives, toilet facilities, picnic tables, and boat ramps.” To further solidify the position, at subsection 71.13, exemptions to the text above (71.1-71.12) include,

(b) No entrance fee shall be charged for travel by private noncommercial vehicle over any National Parkway, or any road or highway established as part of the National Federal-Aid System, which is commonly used by the public as a means of travel between two places, either or both of which are outside the Designated Entrance Fee Area; (c) No entrance fee shall be charged for travel by private noncommercial vehicle over any road or highway to any land in which such person has any property right if such land is within any Designated Entrance Fee Area.

Therefore, between 71.3 and 71.13, the CFR clearly states one can use the “roads” and “scenic drives” without having to pay the DEFA, particularly if you are traveling between two places outside of the National Park. To answer my question, “Can I travel through a National Park without paying the Entrance Fee?” Yes.

I also checked Part 7, for special instructions of the Parks I have experience with, Sequoia and Kings Canyon and recently Joshua Tree, no relevant information about my inquiry is in that section.

Gunpocalypse 2016: Results Are Not Good

We have the final word on “Gunpocalypse” 2016. From the original post the list expanded and contracted. 11 Bills made it through the Assembly and Senate to Governor Brown’s desk. He signed 6 into law and vetoed 5. This will try to address what will happen and how one might comply with these onerous laws. With the passage of these laws California easily jumps to the lead as being the most restrictive state in the nation concerning gun laws. It might say something that the official website of the press release of the list of signed and vetoed bills was crashed for some time. If you want a better explanation of each bill, see the original post.

The New Laws

1. SB 880 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. The bittersweet relationship the California gun owner had with the “bullet button” is coming to a close. The legislature sought to ban semiautomatic sporting rifles and capitalism responded with ingenuity only a few years later. The previous fix was a setup that required one to open the upper receiver to load cartridges into an internal fixed magazine. Much in the same way one would load a bolt-action Remington 700.
2. Fear not, innovators have already forecasted the lack of restraint the leadership in California would exercise and created this feature which complies with the new law’s text.
3. It might be worth noting that universal firearm registration did not go into effect until January 1, 2014. Any home-build long gun and long gun not voluntarily registered prior to 2014, California has no official record of its existence. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
2. AB-1135 Firearms: assault weapons.
1. This law redefines “assault weapons” from “a semiautomatic centerfire rifle” to “semiautomatic rifle” with the evil features. Semiautomatic rimfire rifles are now included in the list of banned rifles.
   
3. AB-156 Ammunition.
1. Following the reappropriation of taxes and fees gun owners pay for background checks and licenses, there are now new fees which California’s legal gun owners must pay to support the enforcement of illegal firearms.
2. I am less concerned about this law. I am confident like every other law banning interstate ammo sales since 2009, this too will be struck down in federal court because it seeks to control a power explicitly held by the Federal Government, interstate commerce. If such a law were to be permitted that would be a huge power grab away from the federal government, good luck.
   
4. SB 1446  Firearms: magazine capacity.
1. This law prohibits possession of any magazine over 10 round capacity. Because there was already a law that prohibited the sale, manufacture, and importation of such magazines since 2002, this specifically targeted the “pre-ban” standard capacity magazines.
2. This law will be difficult to enforce.
   
5. AB-1511 Firearms: lending.
1. Firearm lending is still legal, but limited to immediate family members who must also have a Firearm Safety Certificate one can acquire after passing a test and paying $25. The certificate is valid for 5 years.
2. Let us hope between this law and the still present 10-day waiting period does not have grave results for people in immediate harm.
   
6. AB 1695 Firearms: notice to purchasers: false reports of stolen firearms.
1. This bill makes false lost or stolen firearm reports a misdemeanor which includes a stripping of gun ownership for 10 years.
   

Where Do Gun Owners Go From Here?
As I mentioned, some of these laws have a legitimate chance to be struck down in the courts. If a judge places an injunction on the measure then it might not be done. 

Help us Eastern and Northern Districts, you are our only hope.

 The biggest question which I think the Attorney General will have to clarify on the FAQs page, will the newly Registered Assault Weapons (RAWs) be classified differently than the original RAWs from the early 1990’s. If so those who comply with the new laws will be able to have semi-automatic centerfire rifles with all the fun accessories. The manner by which I read the text, says yes, I’m not a lawyer. It should be worth noting no RAW is transferable to any person in the state. If an owner of a RAW wishes to pass it on to family, it cannot be owned in California before the owner dies.
This is the less popular part of the message especially to the frustrated gun owners. I understand the frustration. I recognize the sabre rattling. I know the impossible nature of enforcing the most onerous laws. I also recognize the estimates of non-compliance from the first round of registration in 1990, when AR-pattern rifles were not yet mainstream. I also recognize the philosophical factors concerning unjust laws, most especially in American history MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Despite these frustrations, if California gun owners want to proclaim that we are indeed law-abiding, then we must comply. I recognize the rough impossibility of enforcement for those who have not featured their firearms on social media. If we wish to abandon that description then we are in a much graver place as a state and nation. Even stirring the masses to “shall not be infringed” fails a history test. Per the 10th Amendment, and due to the present jurisprudence, the State has every right to ban these commonly owned firearms. I deeply disagree with the state of affairs, but I think it a much better solution to move to a less restrictive state than to knowingly violate the law. The Federalist experiment which allows for these many petri dishes known as state governments looks to be failing. I am reminded of this scene from The Patriot.

“And my principals”? I am fearful of any serious talk of rebellion or revolution. I have been to war, twice. One ought not threaten such things lightly. We glorify war in entertainment and speech. I am proud of my honorable service in the recent wars. I am also confident in peaceful resolutions. The way things look, we might be due for a Convention of the States.

Bills Still at the Legislature

7. AB-2510 Firearms: license to carry concealed: uniform license.
8. AB-2459 Firearms dealers: conduct of business.
9. SB-1006 Firearm Violence Research Center
10. SB 1407 Firearms: identifying information.

The 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply...

Today the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals finally delivered their opinion* to Puerta v. County of San Diego. This is the rehearing of the original case that ruled 2-1 to strike down the restrictive means of issuing concealed carry permits. Anyone familiar with the proud reputation of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals this judgement is of no surprise. The only surprise was the delinquency of the judgement. After a short summary of laws that brought us here, I will summarize the majority decision and highlight significant arguments in the dissents.

Concealed carry permits (CCW) or Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHL) are available in all 50 states. In 42 of the 50 states the law requires any resident who is legally eligible to possess or own a firearm who applies and completes the process to get a CCW/CHL, this is known as Shall Issue. In other parts of the nation with growing frequency, states are passing Constitutional Carry which allows a person to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. The remaining 8 states practice, May Issue, that is for whatever reason, a person may be denied a concealed carry permit or in some of these states a firearm permit. New Jersey Second Amendment Society has an interesting undercover series on YouTube.

Taken from USA Carry

California is one of the eight states which are May Issue. As it stands, the issuance is based on the individual policy of each county’s sheriff. The sticking point in order to get a CCW is the “good cause” and “good moral character.” The point of this case was Yolo and San Diego counties had stringent understandings of “good cause.”

Both counties define “good cause” as requiring a particular need. San Diego County defines “good cause” as “a set of circumstances that distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way.” Similarly, Yolo County’s written policy requires “valid” reasons for requesting a license. Importantly, under both policies a general desire for self protection and protection of family does not constitute “good cause.” (pg. 68)

The majority opinion narrowly addresses if the 2nd Amendment applies to protect concealed carry. The vast majority of the opinion’s argument approaches this issue from a historical legal analysis that is rather thorough. I would question why the Court looked to the restrictions of serfs and colonists under the King as positive examples showing the “reasonability” of such carry restrictions. There are also 19th century case examples in which numerous localities banned concealed carry to also include bladed weapons. Within the narrow scope of the case and question, the majority does a fair shake…

Except one thing. None of the other states who are may issue have also banned unloaded and loaded open carry statewide. The primary reasons the 3-judge panel struck down the “good cause” requirement the first time was precisely because California banned open carry in populated areas. Here are some quotes from the dissents to elaborate the weakness of the majority opinion.

The majority sets up and knocks down an elaborate straw argument by answering only a narrow question—whether the Second Amendment protects a right to carry concealed firearms in public… Indeed, the majority’s lengthy historical analysis fails to appreciate that many of its cited cases either presumed a right to openly carry a firearm in public or relied on a pre-Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment. (pg. 60)

The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” U.S. Const. amend. II. Heller held that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Indeed, Heller adopted Justice Ginsburg’s definition of “carries a firearm” to mean “wear, bear, or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” (pg. 61)

Heller defined the right to bear arms as the right to be “armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” (pg. 70)

The counties and California have chipped away at the Plaintiff's’ right to bear arms by enacting first a concealed weapons licensing scheme that is tantamount to a complete ban on concealed weapons, and then by enacting an open carry ban. Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining its constitutionality. (pgs. 75-76)

The majority’s holding—that California must accommodate the right to bear arms in public through open carry—is unsupported by Supreme Court precedent and contrary to federalism principles. The Supreme Court has never dictated how states must accommodate a right to bear arms. (pg. 77, emphasis added)

However, the County Defendants and California have failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that there is a reasonable fit between the challenged laws and these two objectives… This distinction is important

because the County Defendants and California have not provided any evidence, let alone substantial evidence, specifically showing that preventing law-abiding citizens, trained in the use of firearms, from carrying concealed firearms helps increase public safety and reduces gun

Violence… There is simply no evidence in the record showing that establishing a licensing regime that allows trained law abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public results in an increase in gun violence. (pgs 82-83)

*This is the link of my reviewed text. If you want a blank version of the opinion here you go. The key to my highlights are yellow

President Obama's Town Hall and Gun Rights

Okay, in light of the tragedy at UCLA this last week the President’s Town Hall clip responding to the gun control issue has been making its rounds again. I’ll address each claim. I am not trying to shut down the conversation with a wall of text. I only hope to inform people unaware of the state of gun rights in California and in politics. I would be more than happy to address any particular point in more depth.

Democrats are not “hell bent on taking away folks guns.”

Not according to some places where Democrats speak freely. There are some bold Democrats who will propose outright confiscation. What I have yet to see are any gun control/safety advocates speak against such measures to prove they do not support confiscation. For all I know there are many “gun safety” advocates who approach their goals over time.

Gun Violence Restraining Order was passed after the Isla Vista Rampage. The original text allowed any person to make a claim against another to have their weapons confiscated. The law that passed only allowed family members to make such a claim. AB 2607 is currently on route to the governor’s desk to expand the list of people who can make the claim to include: employers/employees and teachers. Given the state of Civil Discourse in society does anyone seriously think this addition would not be abused?

There are several new gun laws also at the governor's desk to be signed that require gun owners to turn in certain types of previously legal firearms and their accessories. Here is a list of all the gun laws headed to the governor’s desk this year. It might be worth noting the only anti-gun law that didn’t make it through the CA legislature was a ban on all semiautomatic firearms.

More guns have been sold since he’s been president, ever.

This is true. This is due to the rallying cry Democrats start after every mass shooting to put forward gun control. Anytime something people want that is threatened to be banned is believed to be banned, there is a surge. Most calibers have been reasonable to find at their pre-surge prices the .22 Long Rifle rimfire cartridge has gone from about $.02/ea to $.12/ea. Yes, a 6x price per round increase, this is my conservative estimate of what one can find in bulk online sales. If we are talking regular price retail, then it is closer to $.16/ea.

He has never proposed confiscation.

Following the Umpqua killings President Obama lauded the Australian model. Australia required by law many lawful gun owners to turn in their firearms. This endorsement was not an isolated incident. Democrats have frequently lauded the policies in the UK and Australia as positive policies.

We should treat guns like cars.

The President described how seatbelt laws, airbags, DUI crackdown, road design, and the ability to study the events lead to reduced auto deaths. The President wanted to approach gun deaths like public health.

This is a common comparison. Except that every driver’s training class begins to remind us potential drivers that driving is a privilege. If one believes what the Supreme Court said in 2008, then gun ownership is a fundamental right, not a privilege. A more appropriate issue to compare public safety and gun rights would be other fundamental rights such as: speech, religion, assembly, association, unreasonable searches and seizures, self incrimination, etc. See Incorporation of the Bill of Rights for a better list.

Suspected terrorists can buy guns, compares to no fly list.

The President looks at the no fly list a an effective tool, there have been numerous problems with the administration of such a thing. The ACLU has a pretty clear position on watchlists. This at least is a better comparison to driving cars, as the right to freely move between the states is a fundamental right. Then again, this only questions the legitimacy of watchlists in general. If a person has not been charged with a crime or been adjudicated through Due Process, should a fundamental right be lost? The most telling of the President’s response. By his language, he does not think of the 2nd Amendment as an incorporated fundamental right. There is a long history with President’s disagreeing with the Court and he is fine to do so, but he ought to be forthright about such positions.