Mark Cuban Puts Up an Epic Second Amendment Airball

Mark Cuban gun rights second amendment

Mark Cuban (AP Photo/Brandon Dill)

By Larry Keane

Mark Cuban might be a billionaire entrepreneur, NBA team owner and celebrity investor with a television show. But a constitutional scholar, he’s not.

It’s time to call foul on Cuban’s latest foray into the gun rights debate. He offered to “update” the Second Amendment. What he really offered was lower the hoop to six feet so gun controllers could finally dunk. Cuban’s proposed changes include:

  • Every American has the right to own a gun.
  • The federal government can’t seize your guns.
  • States reserve the right to “manage” guns, including purchase, ownership and management – whatever that means.

That’s not an update to the Second Amendment. That’s a wholesale dismantling of an essential American right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment expressly protects the pre-existing individual rights of all Americans to keep and bear arms. Those rights – yes, two rights – don’t end at a state’s borders. Cuban’s ideas, though, aren’t surprising given his history of appeasement toward gun control demands.

Cuban’s Scorecard

Cuban’s backed White House candidates who expressly campaigned on gun control platforms. Cuban said in 2016 he wanted to see fellow billionaire and anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg run for the presidential nomination.

“We know his policies from his time as mayor of New York. We know where he stands on guns, we know where he stands on other issues,” Cuban said in an interview on “The Rita Cosby Show.” “The question’s going to be is he too meek? When I say meek, I mean just force of voice. Can he shout loud enough?”

That’s not equivocating. We know exactly where Bloomberg stands on guns and that he funds Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, both groups that want to eradicate gun rights.

It wasn’t just a billionaire’s club for which Cuban had a gun control affinity. He also backed Hillary Clinton, who campaigned on a promise to reinstate a ban on modern sporting rifles, standard capacity magazines and advocated for the repeal of the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

That last piece would have allowed victims of criminal acts to sue firearms manufacturers instead of holding criminals accountable for their criminal actions. It’s akin to suing Ford for drunk driving deaths.

Cuban Likes Rules, Just Not for Him

Still, Cuban’s latest lob isn’t a big surprise. He’s got a history of making half-hearted pronouncements that give the appearance of respecting gun rights. On closer examination, though, he’s exposing his elitist billionaire hubris.

Essentially, it’s okay for him and his family to be protected by guns, but everyone else’s family can only do so if you pass a test, get certified, register with the state and follow whatever “management” definition he’s espousing today.

Cuban talked “gun safety” with anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan in 2014. They talked “gun safety” because “gun control” would have been too honest. Cuban explained for his basketball players he instituted a set of rules when it came to guns.

Cuban’s Team Rule for Gun Use

  • Follow the state law.
  • No traveling to another state with your gun.
  • Register the gun.
  • If you are going somewhere you think you need a gun, then don’t go there.

He didn’t make these statements off the cuff. He thought about them because he echoed them again in another Piers Morgan interview, but took it a step further.

Cuban’s Gun Test Muster

“I think if you own a gun, you need to be registered and pass tests,” Morgan explained. “I’m a believer that if the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, so we ought to give the good guys registration, make them fill out forms, make them pass tests. Then you give them a white hat because no one’s going to mess with a good guy with a gun with a white hat in public. Seriously, it’s absolutely ridiculous to take a gun out in public because you think you might protect yourself.”

Got that? That’s registration of law-abiding citizens, not the criminals.

First, constitutional scholar Cuban should know Texas doesn’t require firearms registration. Second, while we encourage training for all firearms owners, the Second Amendment clearly states Cuban’s musings, and application of his business policies for his team expanded to the public, is unconstitutional.

The right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. The late Justice Antonin Scalia stated as much in the landmark 2008 Heller decision, that bearing arms meant carrying guns, not just keeping the home. It’s also why the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the forthcoming New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York case urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New York City’s law against traveling with firearms.

Topping off his laughable suggestions is Cuban’s “white hat” comment. Concealed carriers carry concealed because they don’t want to draw attention. It’s a quiet presence that doesn’t intend to draw the ire of criminals or the general public alike.

Stick to the business of basketball, Cuban. Your take on the Second Amendment is a double dribble.

 

Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel at National Shooting Sports Foundation.

This article was published in Townhall.com and is reprinted here with permission.

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    #3 negates #1 making #2 unnecessary. Way to go Mark.

  2. avatar M1Lou says:

    Billionaires that want to use their influence to spread tyranny? Here is my shocked face.

    https://www.blazingcatfur.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Im-shocked-kitten.jpg

    1. avatar anonymous says:

      Billionaires that want to use their influence to spread tyranny?

      I remember when conservatives celebrated Citizens United because “money is speech” or something like that.

      One dollar, one vote.

      But then that pesky “law of unintended consequences” that conservatives claim to take into account started happening when Bloomberg & Co. decided to spend their billions of dollars on gun-owner control.

      Billionaires should only use their influence to spread oligarchy tyranny, not socialism tyranny.

      Insert something about failing to learn from history here.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I remember when conservatives celebrated Citizens United because “money is speech” or something like that.”

        You are correct; money is speech. And any speech that offends me, or causes me to feel unsafe is hate speech, therefore illegitimate speech not protected by the first amendment. Billionaires who pay for illegitimate speech are not worthy of respect or protection of law.

      2. avatar Ad Astra says:

        Way to get it bass backwards. Citizens United was a decision that upheld the right of groups to free speech which lets average people pool their resources to advocate. Otherwise individual billionaires would have the advantage.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…the right of groups to free speech which lets average people pool their resources to advocate.”

          I’ll let someone else handle this one.

        2. avatar anonymous says:

          “…the right of groups to free speech which lets average people pool their resources to advocate.”

          I’ll let someone else handle this one.

          Democrats don’t need to take away Ad Astra’s guns.

          The Republicans have already disarmed his mind.

    2. avatar Benjamin Thompson says:

      As Marky hides behind well armed guards with the latest greatest guns money can buy.

  3. avatar GunnyGene says:

    “Seriously, it’s absolutely ridiculous to take a gun out in public because you think you might protect yourself.”’

    ********************************************************

    That’s a rather odd point of view. But I suppose it’s to be expected from an odd fellow like Mr. Cuban.

    I’ve found that having a firearm on my person in public is a fine way to protect yourself. It was true in 1965-’66 in Vietnam, in Memphis from 1967-1971, and more or less continuously in various other domestic and foreign places ever since then.

  4. avatar StLPro2A says:

    A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
    The politician only controls the good guy, which is his true agenda.

  5. avatar Huntmaster says:

    It’s pretty obvious the guy can shuffle businesses around and make a hell of a lot of money. That doesn’t qualify him as an authority on the constitution.

    1. avatar Cartman says:

      Cuban’s privileged wealth has led to his systemic arrogance.
      He’s just a fool with money.

  6. avatar Darkman says:

    As the Dumb-ocrats stumble toward picking a sacrifice for the alter of Trump. Don’t be surprised if Lil Marko Cuban. Throws his hat into the contest. He’s got the ego and is possible the only person who can go toe to toe with President Trump. In the Arena of slams and put downs. The Dumb-ocrats can’t win with ideas or plans because everything they purpose is in direct contradiction to the Trump agenda. Which is Winning. Better Economy, More Jobs,Better Pay,Border Security and Standing Up for The United States. The Dumb-ocrats are running on Bigger Government,Anti Bill of Rights,Destroy the Electoral College,Activist Judges making “Laws” and Dead Babies. They need someone who can fight in the War of Words. Cuban may be their only hope. Time will tell. Just don’t be surprised if he does.

    1. avatar Ron says:

      He has absolutely no chance of beating Trump and probably none of even placing in with the other 20 nuts who say they are Democratic.They are just nuts that’s it!!

  7. avatar guevara, ernesto che says:

    So Larry Keane does not like Mark Cuban for his rules are for little people attitude. Why does Larry love Chuck Canterbury who thinks rules are for little people and not the police? Is it possible that one has the potential to benefit Larry and the other does not, or is Larry incapable of being consistent in his beliefs? I wonder….

    1. avatar Knute(ken) says:

      Larry Keane is a spokesperson for the NSSF. He just reads whatever script they put in front of him. It’s his job. He likely forgot whatever he said three seconds after he finished typing or saying it.

  8. avatar StLPro2A says:

    “Seriously, it’s absolutely ridiculous to take a gun out in public because you think you might protect yourself.”’
    Well, Mr. Cuban, then you probably shouldn’t maintain insurance on your car, home, business, or personal liability in public as you obviously feel you will not need it. Carrying a firearm in public is exactly the same concept. It is another form of life insurance so that my son doesn’t prematurely collect on my traditional life insurance. No one expects to use any form of their insurance when they go out the door each morning. But, on that bad day when Evil, Violence and Mayhem come calling at your personal door, it is too late to call “time out” to arrange for which ever form of insurance might be required that day. Insurance is only effective if pre-emptively implemented.

  9. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Team rule #4 is a variation of “avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places.” Not bad advice.

    The rest of them … all of them, really … are none of his business.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      True, but as we know, people carry for those times when stupid/evil comes to you.

  10. avatar MyName says:

    Conveniently, I don’t have to pay any attention to any of Mark Cuban’s ideas. He’s not my boss and he’s not in congress, so, he can go pound sand.

  11. avatar Forrest Adcock says:

    So not only should we be forced to register with the government, but we should also be forced to wear identifying clothing while in public?

    Is he gonna throw us in a ghetto “for our protection,” next?

    When do we get to go shower off in the gas chamber?

    Screw this Nazi.

  12. avatar MMurcek says:

    I have a proposition: I’ll stay away from your bassetbaw games, you stay away from my rights…”

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    – Every American has the right to own a gun.
    – The federal government can’t seize your guns.
    – States reserve the right to “manage” guns, including purchase, ownership and management – whatever that means.
    – Follow the state law.No traveling to another state with your gun.
    – Register the gun.
    – If you are going somewhere you think you need a gun, then don’t go there.

    Before we all get the vapors….

    The last statement on the list (copied from the posting) is one we use quite faciley…”stay away from stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places”.

    The other statements in the list are “originalist”. We do love our originalism when we profit. In the beginning, the constitution was only a restraint on the federal government, except where the words indicated federal supremacy over States. Without specific granting of authority, the States were left to design their societies as they saw fit, regardless of the laws of a different State. Which also meant States could control who brought which weapons into their boundaries.

    Oh, but now, the federal government (through amendment) long ago forced the entire federal constitution onto the states (little “s” intentional), so we are quite happy to declare that originalism now favors us (states must abide by the Second Amendment), we are quite comfortable with abandoning originalist principals; “state’s rights”, and all that. In this, we are joined often by the political forces we oppose.

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      “– If you are going somewhere you think you need a gun, then don’t go there.”
      Today, that somewhere is merely being out in public, thanks to the Defective Citizens bred and fed by the Socialist/Democrat/Progressive masses. Evil, Violence, and Mayhem (EVM) are everywhere in society today. just more concentrated in some areas than others. However, EVM are very mobile and can come calling in any locale…….even your own home. That opening comment is akin to saying you don’t need car insurance…..just don’t drive where you might have a wreck. As has been observed…..The best way to win a gun fight is to not get in a gunfight.” But, on a bad day that might not be possible should EVM come calling. EVM never call ahead to schedule a convenient appointment.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I can actually agree with that idea of not going where you expect to need a gun. I rarely, if ever, do. However, killers often look for victims where they expect them to be unarmed, so where I DO go, I am always armed. And I have my eyes open.

        1. avatar Cartman says:

          Does this fool tell female employees to avoid going where they might be sexually assaulted? Like his business elevators at night, parking garage, etc. How about public transportation? Should they just quit their jobs?

    2. avatar Ad Astra says:

      You mean like when states’ management said people of color could not own guns sam?
      Also precisely where in the Constitution is registering firearms mentioned?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You mean like when states’ management said people of color could not own guns sam?
        Are you aware the constitution provides the process for an amendment that permits the return of slavery?

        Also precisely where in the Constitution is registering firearms mentioned?”
        Have a look at the ninth and tenth amendments.

        The point of the comment was that the original concept of the union was that States were superior to the federal government (subordinates cannot delegate natural, human and civil rights). This meant (is repeating the obvious still necessary?) the federal government/central government/central committee could only operate/function/rule within the limits of the delegated rights/powers; States remained completely sovereign (i.e. self-governing outside the compact). The ratification of the constitution did not mean the federal government became the sole sovereign, and the states were rendered prefectures. What does all that mean? It means States could create and enforce whatever they deemed prudent or necessary, so long as such did not violate the powers delegated to the politburo.

        Thus, everything on Cuban’s list would have been quite within the rights and powers of the individual states to establish for their citizens. Everything on the list. It is only because the union was perverted inverted in 1868, that in theory, states (small “s” is correct after 1868) are bound in all respects the provisions of the compact intended to apply only to the federal government. Thus, Cuban is adopting an originalist position (which we always love when we benefit), where states would adopt laws suitable for each individual state, while the federal government remained prohibited from removing our guns (Cuban’s first item on the list).

        If we are originalist only when it suits, we cannot criticize the gun grabbers for the same thing.

    3. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Hasn’t the 5th amendment always been applied to defendants being tried by states?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Hasn’t the 5th amendment always been applied to defendants being tried by states?”

        The original States were not in fear of themselves so much as the national government. This does not mean State constitutions did not provide for protections of the individual. Indeed, the State constitutions preceded the constitution ratified in 1788. Having per-existing constitutions, the States were jealous about the federal constitution superseding. There is nothing in the writings of the framers indicating the States surrendered their rights, powers and constitutions to the central committee.

        It is not so easy to set your frame of mind to the times of the founding, but it is important to understand the starting point, and the current status.

        In short (where I probably should have stopped), the States had provisions protecting against forced confessions, prior to the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Free online course; highly recommend it.
        http://info.hillsdale.edu/constitution_101_enroll

  14. avatar Jim from LI says:

    If you keep a fire extinguisher in your home because you’re afraid of fire, you should probably live somewhere else.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Hell, if your taxes pay for a police department! You should MOVE!

  15. avatar grumpster says:

    I guess he did not hear about the McDonald vs Chicago decision which confirms the Second Amendment applies to states though a lot of states are simply ignoring that right now.

  16. avatar B.D. says:

    More proof that money does not make you any smarter.

  17. avatar possum, destroyer of arachnids says:

    I consider myself moderately educated. Cuban I could beat in an essay contest. Comparing these peoples smarts to my 12th grade I don’t give a fck I passed attitude, That Guy Is Duhuuumb.

  18. avatar former water walker says:

    Obviously bring proficient in bizness & ‘puters does NOT mean you’re not an IDIOT😄😊😏

  19. avatar Someone says:

    What baffles me is the grabber’s insistence on gun registration. I always have to ask: To what end? How is it a Government’s business to know what I own? Only use the registration might have is to make confiscation possible.

    About not going where I expect to need a gun – if I expected need for a gun, I would bring a rifle.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If it is registered, will it not still kill you? Registration accomplishes NOTHING, show me I am wrong.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Only use the registration might have is to make confiscation possible. ”

      There are other “reasons”…

      1. Control who has a gun by intimidating people to not buy because government will know who you are, and where you are
      2. Allow police to trace a gun to criminals who use guns in committing crimes (saw it on TV)
      3. Allow people to trace a gun used in a crime, to its owner, who is responsible for letting the gun get stolen in the first place (new laws making such owners accomplices in crime are being designed as we speak, somewhere)

  20. avatar Purity of Essence says:

    I’m not a Texas resident, but I’ve spent a lot of time there. I was unaware it was even possible to register a firearm with the State of Texas. Am I wrong?

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the best response to ego-centric individuals such as this…is to remind them that their opinions count for no more than anyone else’s……

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      There is no such thing as registration in Texas, other than that which is federal under NFA or whatever.

      1. avatar Purity of Essence says:

        Pretty much what I thought. Thanks for confirming.

  21. avatar Alan says:

    The man is entitled to his opinion, which is what his output is, his opinion, nothing more. Having had the dubious benefit of Cuban’s opinion, I remain unimpressed.

  22. avatar anonymous says:

    Mark Cuban might be a billionaire entrepreneur, NBA team owner and celebrity investor

    By every objective and measurable conservative belief about capitalism, that makes him a better person than everybody on this web site; cf Atlas Shrugged.

    But you can take consolation in the belief that calling yourselves “constitutional scholars” makes you superior, if that’s what it takes to help you sleep at night.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “But you can take consolation in the belief that calling yourselves “constitutional scholars” makes you superior, if that’s what it takes to help you sleep at night.”

      Took your comment a bit more slowly that perhaps normal; read it eight times. Still do not know the linkage between us deplorable constitutional scholars, and Cuban’s opinions. Especially how his opinions make him superior to Ayn Rand’s fictional characters.

      You opened in interesting line of discussion. Would you mind elaborating?

      1. avatar anonymous says:

        Especially how his opinions make him superior to Ayn Rand’s fictional characters.

        Would you mind elaborating?

        Sure, no problem.

        I didn’t say that Mark’s opinions make him superior to Ayn Rand’s fictional characters.

        I said that Mark’s wealth makes him superior to everybody on this web site, by objective and measurable standards celebrated by conservatives and libertarians.

        Gun owners who tout their “moral superiority” because of their opinions rather than their accomplishments are as idiotarian as the Social Justice Warriors who tout their “moral superiority” because of their opinions rather than their accomplishments.

        Mark Cuban may be a successful billionaire capitalist, but what I think I know about the Second Amendment makes me superior to him“.

        To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, rather than crowing about their brilliance and superiority for being self-described “constitutional scholars”, gun owners should start by cleaning their rooms.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I said that Mark’s wealth makes him superior to everybody on this web site, by objective and measurable standards celebrated by conservatives and libertarians.”

          “Gun owners who tout their “moral superiority” because of their opinions rather than their accomplishments are as idiotarian as the Social Justice Warriors who tout their “moral superiority” because of their opinions rather than their accomplishments.”

          Aaahhhhh. Got it.

          Is there a conflation in your observation? Equating success and wealth as a mark of superiority in all things? Admittedly, we proles cannot begin to understand how a billionaire thinks (in general). Heck, we can’t even understand how a millionaire thinks. But, in a world of one opinion = one vote is it fair (valid) to allot more than one vote to an opinion stated by a wealthy person? Are those of us who did not manage to scale great mountains, or accumulate mountains of wealth wholly incompetent in all things?

          Perhaps it is not the comparison of wealth and achievement between the commenters and Cuban, but the personal attacks that are impolitely and repetitiously re-stating of the mantra, “Stay in your lane”? The ad hominem screeds, vs. dissection of opinion?

        2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

          A man is a man, wealth and stature do not entitle him to an unequal say in society. There’s parts of the Constitution that are there to clearly enumerate that all men have certain inalienable rights and those aren’t dependent on the size of one’s checking account.

          Arrogance of those who believe a set of “benevolent,” enlightened people should run a nation has led to many of the horrors of the last say 200-250 years including tens of millions dead. Anyone who read Jordan Peterson would certainly realize that as well.

        3. avatar anonymous says:

          Is there a conflation in your observation? Equating success and wealth as a mark of superiority in all things?

          is it fair (valid) to allot more than one vote to an opinion stated by a wealthy person?

          A man is a man, wealth and stature do not entitle him to an unequal say in society.

          Only a Communist would question the divine right of the Job Creators™ to have disproportionate representation in our political process.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Only a Communist would question the divine right of the Job Creators™ to have disproportionate representation in our political process.”

          There’s that, of course.

  23. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Am I supposed to give a crap what a Mark Cuban thinks. Much less says???
    Well I don’t.
    This blog shouldn’t care either.
    Nobody should. Thankfully most don’t.
    Hes not worth the time it takes to read it.

  24. avatar Frankly says:

    I read a story in the Dallas Morning News a few years ago about how Cuban runs his business. They said he is a nasty, abusive screamer that even comes in a yells at phone solicitors who don’t sell enough season tickets.
    He has always been a complete jackass in my opinion.

  25. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Another multi millionaire that knows everything because he’s smarter than the rest of us. Let’s make these changes, one term limit for congressional politicians, popular vote required for spending bills or tax hikes over 5 million bucks, recall rights for citizens to use when their elected officials have betrayed their promises or introduced bills or backed bills that are unconstitutional, background checks for anyone running for political office.

  26. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Another one of “that could be me” millionaires who think “if a clown like Trump can do it then I can do it”. Cuban and Bloomberg have a lot in common none of it is good for regular firearms owners.

  27. avatar Ardent says:

    I sort of like the white hat concept as an option: Get extra training and this a quote the option to wear some highly conspicuous indicator that you are well vetted, well trained and well armed…

    On the other hand mandatory anything for a free people is right out, but while we are merely musing, how a about a symbolic “black hat” for required wear in any public place for any person convicted of a felony crime of violence. I’m not advocating it, but it has a certain utility, identifying who to watch out for, and makes a lot more sense than identifying who poses the least possible threat of criminal action (concealed carry permit holders as a cohort).

    That said, it seems to me a certain authoritarian government of the last century had a thing for color coded indicators for various groups within society, now who was that again?

  28. avatar GEORGE BILL says:

    Cuban is a blowhard who likes to hear himself talk. He spends his life stealing deals from his associates, and is an ego maniac. He also thinks he’s an expert in every field and subject. It must hurt to keep patting yourself on the back so much.
    None of these dumbass rich bastards understand what normal people have to deal with, because they are used to being protected and driven around. If you saw him try to hit the punching bag on Shark Tank, you could see how flat footed and uncoordinated he is.

    1. avatar Cartman says:

      Ann Coulter said the people who want to tell you how you should live have hands that never open their own car doors.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Ann Coulter said the people who want to tell you how you should live have hands that never open their own car doors.”

        Well…..she is wrong, just flat wrong. I revel in telling everyone how to live, and have never had assistants available to open my car doors (or front door, or doggie door, etc.)

  29. avatar Hannibal says:

    Nah I think it’s cool brah, it doesn’t need ‘updating.’ Guns are still guns. Government is still government.

    Go ahead and try to repeal it though, at least have some intellectual honesty doing it.

  30. avatar ozzallos says:

    “Seriously, it’s absolutely ridiculous to take a gun out in public because you think you might protect yourself.”’

    You dont happen to carry insurance on anything you own, do you? Is your property or money or even yourself in any way protected by armed security?

    Another person whose money has completely divorsed themselves from reality.

  31. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Mark Cuban is just another very rich white (Liberal) man who believes only people like him should have guns.

  32. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Mr. Cuban is a rich arrogant pompous ass. Other than that I guess he’s o k . Don’t know why anyone would give a s#!t what he thinks.

  33. This guy is bad news. He is corrupt and says silly things he knows make little sense. He is a wimp and a phony. I do not trust him.

  34. avatar Don Poggendorf says:

    I thought I would add some remarks about the Mark Cuban tirade but it looks like everybody beat me to it!
    Lets all pray that this totally uninformed dim wit is ever put in a position of running anything or any part of our country pertaining to freedom and rights! This man child has no idea on how to stop mass shootings and has no idea about wht causes them . I’ll bet he supports “Climate Control” as well! Mark is a joke and a bad one1

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email