Opposition to Trump Immigration Order Highlights Hoplophobic Hypocrisy

As Dan the Man likes to say, if anti-gunners didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all. The opposition to President Trump’s immigration order reveals their latest hoplophobic hypocrisy. Specifically, the liberal anti-Trumpers’ declaration that the President’s temporary ban on immigration from seven nations violates the U.S. Constitution — which they hold sacrosanct! Now. What about before, when the Second Amendment was under the gun? Not so much. For example . . .

Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson led the lawsuit that upended President Trump’s executive order on immigration. Speaking with NPR, the WA AG called the order “unconstitutional and unlawful,” and went on to declare, “We are a nation of laws, and everybody must follow our laws. And that includes the present the United States, and that’s why the order issued by Judge Robart yesterday was so important. It holds even the president accountable to our laws.”

As for the constitutional amendment that declares “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” a mandate that renders Washington State’s recently enacted “universal background check system” unconstitutional, Mr. Ferguson has no time.

In fact, less than a month ago, seattletimes.com reported that Mr. Ferguson unveiled a law that would “ban semi-automatic rifles that have a detachable magazine and a pistol grip beneath the barrel. It would also ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and semi-automatic pistols with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

Mr. Ferguson said banning an entire class of weapons based on arbitrarily selected features is OK (i.e., constitutional) because “laws in New York and Connecticut withstood legal challenges.” Would he say the same about President Trump’s executive order on immigration, based on the fact that President Obama’s EO on immigration went legally unchallenged? He would not.

Regardless of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, regardless of the motivation behind his EO on immigration, there’s only one legally relevant question: is it constitutional? If it is, regardless of how many people it hurts, it should stand. By the same token, regardless of the “logic” behind gun control, there’s only legally relevant question: is it constitutional? If it isn’t, it should go. And anyone who defends the Constitution should adopt that position.


  1. avatar Rokurota says:

    Robert, you forget for these folks, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The Constitution is not a sequence of words that mean what they say; they are open to a deconstructionist interpretation. Once you take away the skeleton of definition, you can mold anything to your liking. So from that perspective, liberals are consistent with their principle of non-consistency.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      According to libbies, the Holy Bible says that homosexuals and non-binary individuals are the Chosen People, all sex is rape, and that God is a womyn, or something.

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Defense of valid amendments to the constitution is very consistent among people with “common sense”. The second and third amendments are historical throw-backs to a time that no longer exists. These two amendments are void, based on lack of legitimate need. The first amendment covers only legitimate speech, that which is not bigoted, racist, xenophobic, offensive.

    The premise of the article, that there is convenient inconsistency in defense of the constitution, is false.


    1. avatar Brian in WI says:

      Who determines these criteria? The government? You? A board of retired judges? What exactly is offensive? What is bigoted etc. These can not be readily defined in a way that can’t arbitrarily put you in a position of committing some crime. I think there is a lot of speech that is offensive, but I believe those who use it have the right to say it. There is a line when you advocate criminal activity such as assault, murder etc.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Whell, I do declare. Offensive speech is any that offends anybody, any time, anywhere. Just use common sense, be nice to everybody. Don’t make people afraid by saying things that are unkind, even if true. Nothing good comes of that. Don’t you understand that all these public outbursts are the result of people feeling unsafe because of who they are? They think everyone hates them, and they have no way make people listen to them, so they act out. Just leave people alone, and things will be just fine.


        1. avatar Brian in WI says:

          Sounds like we need to shut down the internet then. Not to mention stop talking to anyone, what with all the micro-aggression’s and such.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You may be onto something, there. How do we proceed?


        3. avatar DMZ says:

          Your political opinions offend me Sam. Please proceed to the nearest disintegration chamber. /s

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Happy to be of service !

        5. avatar Carrucan says:

          To paraphrase Potter Stewart, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I hear it…”

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Indeed, indeed.

        7. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Offensive speech is any that offends anybody, any time, anywhere.”
          While that may be true in a very personal level, it’s impossible to codify that into a law.
          If you say anything that I find offensive, you are liable to prosecution, and, if I can testify that what you said offends me, you’re guilty, and deserve punishment under that law.
          Can you imagine the consequences under such a law?
          And that’s only one example.
          You say, Be Nice. I say, that’s a good idea. But it’s not a basis for a law. How many pages would be used to define “nice”?
          The old saying applies: You can’t legislate morality.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “While that may be true in a very personal level, it’s impossible to codify that into a law.
          If you say anything that I find offensive, you are liable to prosecution, and, if I can testify that what you said offends me, you’re guilty, and deserve punishment under that law.”

          You actually answered your own question. To be prosecuted, a person must have violated a law, or ordinance. To further pursue, there are already laws prohibiting offensive speech. Such is called “Hate Speech”, and has real consequences.

          Don’t we live in just dandy times? Watch medical science closely, there is work being done on the ability to capture thoughts from a distance.

          BTW, I tried to replicate the nonsense of the modern day flower children. Maybe too well.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Well, Sam….

      The Second Amendment could be construed as no longer applicable iff and only if the following are true:

      1. The United States of American has no enemies, foreign or domestic.

      2. No American citizen is ever at any moment in danger of life and/or limb from another human being, or wild animal.

      Get back to me when those conditions prevail.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Don’t you understand that relic amendments do not apply? When was the last time you heard of the government quartering troops?

        BTW, you missed the last bit of my posting.


        1. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Don’t you understand that relic amendments do not apply?”
          You can define anything as a “relic”, but that doesn’t really mean anything, does it? Why are your definitions any better than someone else’s?
          It was exp0lained to you why the 2A isn’t a relic, but you simply ignore it in your response.
          Again, you want to be the bringer of “truth” to the unwashed, but you sorely lack the authority to enforce your actions.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The dangling “s” is the key.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      Troll level: Master.

      However, you used the “s”. Troll level: Completely fucking epic.

      Well done young Padawan. Well done indeed.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        It is more difficult to pose as an anti-gun snowflake than I thought.

        1. avatar bLoving says:

          That’s because you have a normal, functioning brain that has been trained in critical analytical thinkng…
          Can’t say the same about most of our opponents…

    4. avatar Dylan says:

      “The first amendment covers only legitimate speech, that which is not bigoted, racist, xenophobic, offensive”

      This statement is categorically false. The First Amendment specifically protects speech that IS racist, xenophobic, offensive, bigoted, etc…..

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The First Amendment specifically protects speech that IS racist, xenophobic, offensive, bigoted, etc”

        That was then, this is now. Times change, and laws with it. It’s a new world; come along.


    5. avatar Big Bill says:

      Thank you.
      You have perfectly expressed your understanding of the constitution: it is a living, breathing organism that can,and should, be deconstructed and re-constructed to fit your ideas.
      But what about the ideas of everyone else? Should the constitution be re-constructed to only fit your ideas? Why are you the one who gets to decide this?
      Can I do this so it fits MY ideas, then use it against you? Please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

      See how that works?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “But what about the ideas of everyone else?”

        The unenlightened may be susceptible to re-education. Those who are not will just live unhappy.

        Isn’t that how the new world order thinks?

  3. avatar DaveR says:

    Haha. I love TTAG’s political “insights”. Here’s the deal RF–some of us LIBERrtarians actually can BOTH support the 2A while also viewing Trump’s executive overreaching as being inherently menacing.

    I know that many (all?) of the TTAG key-strokingcrew like to view politics inside of nice, simple D vs R rubric, but the reality is that there are many of us out here who say that the whole system corrupt. Corrupt and antithetical to the vision of the Founding Fathers.

    Please stop telling us that we should some “give Trump a chance” when in fact his ego may be our (all of our) worst enemy yet.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Trump’s EO can be “menacing”, poorly implemented and even unfair without being illegal or unconstitutional.

      A Federal District Court Judge in Boston ruled that way, in a decision that actually included legal reasoning and citations, unlike the joke from Washington state.

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      What’s your point? Do you think the Constitution requires that we let anyone, from anywhere, into our nation unmolested? Please, show me that part because I can’t find it.

      I’m not an expert on immigration law. I don’t know if Trump’s order is lawful or not, based on current immigration law. But we won’t find the answer in the Constitution.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Just happened to copy this for a PM on another blog:
        “U.S. Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II, p1182(f) 2013 (Inadmissible aliens)

        (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
        Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.”

        1. avatar A Z says:

          True, but one must also keep in mind 8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A), which was enacted at a later date (thus providing constraints on immigration statutes that were passed earlier in time).

          Of course, one can argue that “entry” in 1182(f) is distinct from “issuance of an immigrant visa” in 1152(a)(1)(A), but I don’t see that argument going very far since, with limited exceptions (including the Visa Waiver Program), the bulk of non “US-persons” (defined as citizens and lawful permanent residents) entering the US must have visas.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          In the hierarchy of federal law, supercession must be stated, somewhere. Federal law is not the constitution (where the original text remains, but is amended separately). In federal contracts, changes are incorporated directly into the contract, removing clauses that are changed (there is a time when modifications exist separately, but even those must identify what previous condition is modified). Thus, lib judges will try to create law with conflict between the two. It is interesting that the case is not immediately transferred to SC. Indeed, I thought SC was original jurisdiction in cases involving the president. Seems not, but silly. Why should presidential actions be handled in inferior courts. At the top of the government (3 branches), law suits should be disposed of most expeditiously, and quickly. Trudging through layers of appeals is outdated and outmoded.

    3. avatar strych9 says:

      “I know that many (all?) of the TTAG key-strokingcrew like to view politics inside of nice, simple D vs R rubric, but the reality is that there are many of us out here who say that the whole system corrupt.”

      And while claiming to be a true believer in the Constitution you still manged to go full retard.

    4. avatar bLoving says:

      Look, Lord Dampnut may have a few lawyers with his back, but he isn’t one himself (much of the reason we elected him) thus he’s bound to have a stumble or two legally. And yes, not only are you allowed to question the legality of his orders; we NEED you to. The old adage about Absolute Power will apply to him as well as it has to his predecessors, lets just keep it civil -we’re all on the same side as far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned.

  4. avatar A Z says:

    Meh. Both sides have double standards. “Ban those scary black guns! Think of the children!” “Ban those scary brown-eyed people! Think of the children!”

    We are wasting way too much political capital on this feel-good BS when we should be focusing on repealing ACA, passing CCW reciprocity, reforming (or better yet repealing!) NFA, and rebuilding national infrastructure.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Are you seriously suggesting that every single person from every one of the seven countries on the list has brown eyes and that eye color is somehow a criteria in this?

      Jesus. The stupid here actually hurts.

      1. avatar Ad says:

        Perhaps he was not being literal and instead making the broader point that hysteria is not helpful?

      2. avatar AZ says:

        I was being facetious, friend.

        Tough crowd these days!

  5. avatar Defens says:

    2A notwithstanding, the Washington State Constitution declares clearly and unambiguously that resident rights to bear arms shall not be infringed. Fergusons gun-grabbing assault bill would be egregiously in violation of the state constitution.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Yeah, well, the CT Constitution says the same thing – it doesn’t even have the silly militia clause – but that didn’t help us one bit. The Second Circuit is reliable liberal. The Ninth is reliably batsh*t insane. Good luck.

    2. avatar Troubled Soul says:

      Washington Constitution actually says “the right of an individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired. Could that that be any plainer? Yet we have a AG and a Gov that right now are trying to pass gun laws that are patterned after California laws. Not to mention that we have a bunch of Dems that can’t wait. We had one that was trying to pass a law that would let the sheriff enter your home at any time without a warrant to see if you are storing your rifles properly. California’s started moving in during the late 80s and brought their stupidity with them. WA use to be surprising good about gun laws even though it’s been a blue state for a long time. It has been a shall issue, open carry, no mandatory training classes. It’s like a lot of states. One county controls the political system. Seattle has t had a Republican mayor since 1969.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The state constitution was modified by Heller and McDonald, wherein “reasonable restrictions” by government are permissible. Could it be any more clear?

        To borrow from Alice: “The words mean what we say they mean. Nothing more, nothing less.”

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Perfect RF. Mentioning Bury Soetoro,slick Willy or even Jimmy “2nd worst president” Carter’s banning Moose-lims is HATESPEACH. Hit ’em hard- hit’em often.

  7. avatar Mark says:

    A bit of good news today from those of us that live in WA. This from the NRA:

    House Bill 1387 and House Bill 1122 also received a committee hearing in the House Judiciary committee last Thursday, however no vote was taken. House Bill 1387 would impose an annual registration and licensing system on the most popular and commonly owned semi-automatic firearms sold today by classifying them as “assault weapons.” In addition, it would prohibit the sale and transfer of standard capacity ammunition magazines labeling them as “large-capacity magazines.” The transfer and sale of these firearms and magazines would be prohibited to anyone other than a federally licensed firearms dealer, a gunsmith or to law enforcement for destruction.

    House Bill 1122 would mandate that firearm owners lock up their firearms at all times when not in use. At this time, no further hearing or vote has been scheduled but it is important for you to continue contacting members of the House Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote “NO” on these egregious bills. For more information about House Bill 1387 and House Bill 1122, please refer to our previous alert.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Didn’t someone around here say, “As California goes, so goes the nation?” Everyone taking note of the number of these bills appearing around the nation? Seems like a bunch, but maybe it is the same measures reported frequently.

  8. avatar John Fritz, HMFIC says:

    …there’s only one legally relevant question: is it constitutional?

    No, there’s two. Always two.

    1. Is it constitutional?
    2. Will it blend?

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