Our Brahmins
By Mitch Berg
Even in the wake of Heller and McDonald, Washington DC’s old-boy-and-girl network clamps down hard on civilian ownership of firearms.
Except for celebrities, and members of the political class:
By confirming that “members of Congress may maintain firearms within the confines of their office” and that they may transport otherwise illegal guns through the city — without any of the requisite checks, natch — the Metropolitan Police Department is effectively admitting that the standard rules do not apply to the political class. This, I suppose, should not be too surprising — this is the same police department, recall, that revealed earlier this year that it is happy to apply the city’s strict firearms laws to everybody except celebrities — but it grates nevertheless. Clearly, had Representative Buck not been a member of Congress, his behavior would have rendered him in violation of a broad array of harsh regulations — many of which carry felony charges.
It’s reminiscent of the eighties and nineties in New York City, when the average schnook couldn’t get a permit to carry a gun – but celebrities (Bill Cosby, William F. Buckley), government officials, and even media figures like the radical anti-gun NYTimes publisher Arthur Sulzberger, could; it was all in the connections.
But tying it directly to membership in the political class? As Charles CW Cooke notes:
“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,” the Constitution promises. Do tell.
Indeed.
With all the good news for gun owners lately, it’s hard – but essential – to keep in mind that the Orcs still hold sway in much of the country, and our freedom to defend our freedom is only incrementally safer than it was 30 years ago, and not until the last orc is wiped from public life will that change.
April 24th, 2015 at 6:56 am
Dana Milbank makes himself look even more ridiculous:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-push-for-a-permanent-aristocracy/2015/04/14/aa434f82-e2e5-11e4-81ea-0649268f729e_story.html
In the column he claims the GOP is trying to create an aristocracy by eliminating the federal inheritance tax. Milbank does not understand the difference between a plutocracy and an aristocracy. He seems to think an aristocracy is when rich people can leave their wealth to their heirs intact.
An aristocracy is rule by a social class, not rule by the rich. The essence of aristocracy is the title of nobility, granted by the State, which can be passed to an heir. The title is not just a fancy prefix to a name, it grants privileges and political rights that the non-titled commoners do not enjoy. The laws they follow are different than the laws the commoners follow. When they commit crimes, they are subject to different penalties than commoners, and they are judged by other titled people, not the commoners.
We only have an unofficial, non-titled aristocracy, and they get their privileges from politics, not from their bank account.
April 24th, 2015 at 9:41 am
Ever pushing, ever vigilant.
April 24th, 2015 at 12:55 pm
I am reminded of the old joke that firearm ownership in Chicago was limited to criminals and aldermen–but of course I repeat myself. And so the truth about DC is that firearm ownership is limited to criminals and politicians–and of course that is redundant as well.
Regarding Milbank’s argument, political eminence seems to proceed from family connections, educational connections, wealth, and finally personal appeal. So a huge tax on estates, if successful, more or less simply clears the way for the other means of political pull to dominate.
So what Milbank is doing is more or less endorsing the kind of power he likes–that flowing from overwhelmingly liberal political dynasties and the Ivy League, among other sources.
Me, I’m actually a fan of the idea that a family that maintains > $5.4 million in resources must have taught their children well enough to know that a fool and his money are soon parted, and quite frankly I think we need more people who think like that in Washington. Better to let the family keep their money than to have them schlepping over to a friend of mine who works in creating A-B trusts to prevent the death tax from imposing its damage.
April 24th, 2015 at 2:32 pm
I recently moved back to MN after spending way too many years in Missouri. When I wanted a gun down there, I bought that gun. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around having to get a permit from my local sheriff in order to PURCHASE a handgun or “scary” looking rifle. How does The State get away with violating my civil rights in this manner?
April 24th, 2015 at 5:27 pm
One way that a pseudo-aristocracy can be formed in the US is for a wealthy person to set up a non-profit foundation, as certain celebrities, as Bill Gates, Gordon Moore, and one-time public office holders have done. The foundation could act as a de-facto title of nobility, spending money to influence public policy, but responsible only to a board controlled by a member of the family that has provided the endowment. Inheritance taxes would not apply.
Something tells me that Dana would have no problem with this kind of unaccountable aristocracy.