Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke should probably coordinate his campaign message with his campaign team. Because they do not seem to be on the same page right now, especially in regards to his proposal to have agents of the state forcibly confiscate millions of firearms.
On Wednesday, after what will probably be his last debate appearance, the flailing 2020 Democratic candidate appeared on MSNBC to discuss his euphemistically named “mandatory gun buyback” program, fielding questions about the legality and the practicality of his plan.
“What’s the next step for the federal government there?” Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough asked, suggesting a “rancher in Texas” as an example of someone who refuses to comply with O’Rourke’s confiscation plan.
“I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law,” O’Rourke responded. “So, in that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else [emphasis added].”
That seems clear enough. But Lauren Hitt, who works rapid response for the former Texas congressman, wants to make you think that you just don’t understand what he really means when he says it.
“If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law, as in Joe’s scenario, of course, there will be legal consequences. This is how it works with any law. Republicans are usually pretty in favor of that concept,” she tweeted this week in an attempt to clean up her boss’ public remarks.
“Beto couldn’t have been more clear last night, but for my Republican friends, this is how a buyback works: After the law is passed, people would be expected to turn in their assault weapons in exchange for payment,” she added. “If they did not, and they bring those weapons into public space or if a police officer discovers them in the course of their regular duties, the officer would take that assault weapon into custody.”
Silly me for thinking something else when O’Rourke himself said “there would be a visit by law enforcement” should someone not comply with his mandatory, enforced-by-law program. Silly me for taking him seriously when he said Tuesday during a Democratic debate in Ohio that “there will be other consequences from law enforcement” if a person is found to be noncompliant with his “buyback” program. Silly me for taking him seriously when he declared during a yet another Democratic debate in response to a question about whether his plan would require that the state forcibly confiscate AR-15 and AR-15-style rifles, of which there are an estimated 16 million, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law, as in Joe’s scenario, of course there will be legal consequences. This is how it works with any law. Republicans are usually pretty in favor of that concept. https://t.co/iWagmZxQ7h
— Lauren Hitt (@LaurenHitt) October 16, 2019
You’re just not getting it, Hitt insists. O’Rourke is not talking about door-to-door confiscation.
“Beto would not send officers door to door to collect weapons — just as we do not send the IRS door to door to collect taxes,” she said. But then, just try not paying taxes — if you file a return but refuse to pay what you owe, then the IRS has a way of showing up and seizing your assets.
Hitt added, “With any law in this country, there are a few people who may not comply, but the overwhelming majority of Americans do voluntarily comply with our laws, even when they don’t like them, and we have every reason to expect that Americans would do the same with a buyback program.”
Perhaps O’Rourke should have her do all the talking from now on. She seems to be better at it than he is.
