145 CEOs (With Private Security) Want Gun Control (For You)

Ugh, Bertram, can you believe The Poors think they have a right to self-defense?

Yesterday, 145 CEOs of some of America’s largest corporations sent a joint letter to Congress demanding more of what the anti-gunners have always insisted they want: “commonsense gun laws [SIC].” Those of us who have been watching gun-rights news for longer than a couple of years can verify that, generally, when gun-grabbers insist that all they want is “common sense gun laws,” what it is they’re really referring to. It’s always the same stale list of laws that are either nonsensical, loaded with unintended consequences, or have been tried before and proven to show absolutely zero effect on America’s crime rate. Furthermore, they don’t expect those laws to ever apply to them…and this time is no different.

Let’s start with the CEOs in question: Who are they, and what do they think they’re going to gain from this? The letter can be read here (although you’ll have to give the New York Times a click to do so). Many of the names will come as no surprise; naturally, Dick’s  inserted themselves into the discussion without buying dinner first. There’s also Levi’s, a flotilla of Bloomberg-owned news sources, Twitter, and others that we already knew about.

There were, however, some very interesting signatories courtesy of our “gig economy,” like Uber and AirBnB. At first, the Uber one had me scratching my head, but then I remembered that the company has been embroiled in a number of sexual-harassment scandals at the corporate level. It’s possible that they’re hoping that virtue-signaling this particular lefty cause celebre they’ll get the public to forget that harassment thing…and maybe all of those rapes committed by Uber drivers against their passengers. (Or maybe they’re just worried that some female passengers might carry concealed, thus depriving them of a driver?)

Then there’s the actual contents of the letter, which isn’t quite as interesting–it’s the same demand for “expanded background checks” and “red flag laws” that we keep hearing about every time there’s a mass shooting. Naturally, they aren’t the slightest bit interested in exploring what either of those demands actually mean. That, for example, a person could be charged with a felony for loaning a gun to a family member. That, for example, “red flag laws” sound terrific in the abstract, but that we have yet to see one that respects our Constitutionally protected right to due process.

Part of the reason why those 145 CEOs couldn’t care less about the knock-on effects of their proposal is that they have every reason to believe that they’ll never feel those consequences themselves. No background check law will ever prevent a wealthy person from inheriting the family set of matched Purdey shotguns. And CEOs can delegate their personal protection the same way they can delegate their household chores; they’ll simply hire someone else to carry the gun for them. No “red flag” law will ever remove a single firearm from a single wealthy person, and that’s a promise–poor people are crazy, but rich people are merely “eccentric.”

All right, that last sentence is an old joke, but it definitely has its grains of truth…and that’s why pro-Second Amendment people are very leery of these laws. Financial success really can cover for a great deal of odd behavior. What’s more, we have yet to see anything like a working definition of what the “red flag” will be. There are already lots of very loud voices on the anti-gun side insisting that being pro-gun is proof in and of itself of insanity. Here, have a look (if you don’t mind giving Mother Jones a click). What will qualify as a “red flag”? Believing that Area 51 contains actual extraterrestrials? Clicking “like” on a Facebook article about chemtrails? The potential for abuse is huge, and the people who will bear the brunt of that abuse are those among us who don’t have thousands to defend our rights in court…if we get a day in court at all.

Any time you hear of a corporation demanding legislation that has nothing to do with their business, and won’t ever affect it, you should be suspicious. And when that corporation is demanding that you be disarmed, you should see that as a red flag. In fact, you should see it as 145 red flags, waving around like a Beijing parade, saying “We’d Like to Tread On You.”