Hey, Wayne, I got it right this time.
Steve Benen
points us to a little faux pas by House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday when he was interviewed by Jake Tapper:
It led to this interesting exchange:
TAPPER: Do you think background checks, improving background checks might be part of that?
BOEHNER: They should actually do a real background check on everyone.
It was an unexpected response. After all, a policy that requires real background checks on everyone is the centerpiece of President Obama's efforts to combat gun violence, and it's an idea that enjoys overwhelming support from Americans. But Republicans and the NRA continue to strongly oppose the policy, making Boehner's response on national television a pleasant surprise.
However, as Benen notes, the Speaker's staff was johnny-on-the-spot with a retraction. Tapper later reported that Boehner only supports background checks "that are already required that are not necessarily done." So, he actually believes they should not do a real background check on everyone.
That wasn't the only time Boehner forgot his place as leader of the Party of No. In 2010, he slipped up and said higher taxes on people earning more than $250,000 a year should be considered. Staff had to retract. And in 2011, he said he would consider ending tax subsidies for oil companies. Again, the staff had to say that what their boss had said was not what their boss had meant.
It would be terrific if Boehner decided that his misspokenness with Tapper was his actual position on gun background checks, the position of some 90 percent of Americans, those who own guns and those who do not, the position of even the majority of the members of the National Rifle Association (though not, of course, its leadership). Instead, he also said this in the Tapper interview:
“We’ve got plenty of laws on the books. Let’s go and enforce them before we just load up more laws on law-abiding citizens. Criminals don’t respect the law.”
Greg Sargent
nailed it:
The argument that we don’t need expanded background checks because “criminals don’t respect the law,” i.e., they won’t submit themselves to a background check, is a common one among the “gun rights” crowd. But this argument is self-refuting. It is actually an argument for expanding background checks, not against it. Here’s why: The loophole in the background check law — which the new proposal would close — is actually a leading reason why those who are prohibited from having guns are able to continue not “respecting the law.” The loophole in the law is a key reason they are able to get guns while not submitting themselves to background checks under the current system.
If the loophole were closed — and private sales were subjected to a background check, which law enforcement officials and other experts believe will severely limit the ability of criminals and/or traffickers to get guns — it would, in the view of those experts, become a lot harder for criminals not to “respect the law.” That is an outcome Boehner presumably wants. The fact that criminals don’t “respect the law” is why we need expanded background checks in the first place.
But the NRA is excellent at making circular arguments that elected Republicans and too many Democrats believe (or at least go along with because of the gun lobby's pressure). Gun laws that it has worked hard to dilute or eviscerate don't work, the NRA says, while simultaneously fighting hard against gun laws that would work. That's the case whether it's
background checks, or
assault weapons bans or keeping guns out of the hands of
domestic abusers. Given the organization's Catch-22 rationalizing, it's no wonder that even John Boehner would get tripped up and briefly say something reasonable instead of parroting the usual line out of the NRA playbook.