FBI Director Candidate Wray’s Adopting Language of Left on Guns Merits Further Scrutiny

Will Wray swear an oath to enforce “commonsense” gun legislation or to “support and defend the Constitution”? (Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing/YouTube)

Attorney Christopher Wray, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, gave a response to a “gun control” question in Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that raises flags for right to keep and bear arms advocates. Per The Daily Signal, Wray was being “pressed” by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. “on whether he would back universal background checks for gun buyers.”

Wray tried to get around specifics at first, talking in general terms about “efforts to deal with gun violence” and how he “would want to take a look at any specific legislative proposal and get back to you once I have evaluated [it].” But Blumenthal, as committed an enemy of the Second Amendment as ever put one hand on a Bible, raised the other and proceeded to lie though his teeth, was intent on scoring points by wringing out exploitable sound bites.

“I wouldn’t rule out any commonsense gun reform legislation without having a chance to review it,” Wray finally admitted. “I would have to review it and make an assessment based on the circumstances. But I can commit to you that being tough on gun violence is something that I would want to be as director of the FBI.”

While he did not actually commit to anything, the language Wray chose to use is troubling. Case in point, from Blumenthal’s website:

“I am fully committed to seeing common sense legislation to reduce gun violence signed into law.”

Does anybody see any discernible difference in professed philosophies?

“My loyalty is to the Constitution and the rule of law,” Wray told the Committee in his prepared testimony. “They have been my guideposts throughout my career, and I will continue to adhere to them no matter the test.”

What are the hearings if not an entrance exam?

It would have eased some concerns if that pledge had been the response he gave, including an explanation of why fidelity to “the supreme Law of the Land” means some edicts and orders must not be obeyed.  Instead, he won Blumenthal’s endorsement for confirmation.

For some reason a George Carlin line comes to mind.

Donald Trump was elected over Hillary Clinton because he made the right noises about the guns that she was eyeing covetously. Now that he’s in power, it shouldn’t be too much to hope for him to make good on those words in actions, appointments and expectations of his subordinates.

It shouldn’t be but chances are it is, considering the importance the elites place on their continued membership in the big club.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

About Author

David Codrea

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Comments

  1. Retired Navy Spook 14 July, 2017, 08:21

    When the subject of things like the virtually non-existent gun show loophole and universal background checks comes up in a congressional hearing, I’d love for the person testifying (in this case, the prospective FBI Director) to ask people like Senator Blumenthal, precisely what they mean by those terms and then set them straight when they make claims that are simply not true. Other than legal private sales, which, more often than not, involve collector type guns and Guido selling a Saturday night special to Juan in a back alley, we already have universal background checks, and the small percentage of sales where a background check doesn’t come into play would be next to impossible to enforce. Likewise, any federally licensed firearm dealer who sells guns in a booth at a gun show has to do the same background check he would have to do if the gun were sold in his store. I’ve been to a number of gun shows, and there actually are vendors who sell things other than guns (camping gear, first aid products, knives, swords, tools, etc. who also may have a gun from their personal collection for sale in their booth. This is the much touted “gun show loophole,” and the number of such guns that are purchased and used to commit a crime is miniscule. The Left refers to such people as “unlicensed gun dealers” when, in reality, there is no such thing as an “unlicensed gun dealer.” But as long as we let them control the language and, as a result, the definition of words that impact our freedom, they win, even when they lose election after election.

    Reply this comment
    • Nick 14 July, 2017, 08:59

      Last Sunday I was at the range with a few friends, one of whom is a lawyer with an FFL, another a former judge. We talked about the “loophole” that doesn’t exist.
      I’ve purchased a couple of guns from individuals at shows. In each case they would only do it with a background check provided by an FFL who was more than happy to oblige.
      If you want to sell to another individual without going through the paperwork that is certainly up to you. I don’t consider it to be a very smart move in this day and age.
      I can imagine selling to an FBI informant, or even an FBI agent who takes the gun and delivers it to one of their patsy’s/setups, and your name is all over the next terrorist attack.

      Reply this comment
      • WGP 14 July, 2017, 19:48

        Well Nick, that is exactly the problem in our Republic; we cower to the unconstitutional laws and regulations. People are living in fear of the rogue government. I am not an agent to that corporation. 1000 gun owners need to stand on the steps of our flawed justice, exchange, sell or whatever guns, big ugly ones, sending the message that their laws and regulations are not valid under our constitution and bill of rights. I don’t need their permission, they need mine.

        Reply this comment
      • Liberty's Advocate 24 July, 2017, 12:20

        Retired Navy Spook – You’ve done an excellent job of defining and expressing what constitutes the charade these globalist elites keep playing. With the constant, repetitive help of the willing Left-wing media, these meaningless terms become defined in the weak minds of the too-easily led public whose good intentions are enlisted to keep the charade going.

        More insidious than that and unfortunately connected, however, is our Left-leaning, liberal-controlled, government-run educational system which has greatly modified or eliminated the study, understanding of and appreciation for our founding as a nation – the principles of freedom and liberty that created the atmosphere for her greatness, the necessary daily involvement of her citizens in its preservation and the fragile link between personal responsibility and the sustaining of these blessings.

        Lost with these lessons are the obvious meaning of the words of the Declaration which define clearly the principles on which the foundation for our constitutional republic was lain – words which clearly guide us in our understanding of the unlimited nature of our Human Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as individuals, the prime directive of fair and responsive government and the limits within which government must be constrained.

        I believe our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms was made absolute by the founders because they understood that the Right of self-defense is inseparable from our absolute (“unalienable”), exclusive Human Right to control our own Life and destiny. One cannot exist as a Right without the other. Since the Rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are considered our basic Human Rights, and since they are gifts from (“…endowed by … “) our Creator at the moment of our individual creation (When? At conception – in the fertilized egg – when the complete DNA string of the unique individual can first be identified), and since they are CALLED Human Rights because they exist IN US because WE EXIST, and since governments have no power over Acts of God … these Human Rights are beyond the jurisdiction, reach or power of governments to modify or control.

        The prerequisite requirement of self-government is that each individual is responsible for his/her own actions and must show the respect for the Rights of others through tolerance for his/her Rights – not taking any action which would interfere with the FREE EXERCISE of ANY Right of any other individual. Self-imposed limits to our actions preserve freedom.

        Irrespective of any regulation, legislation, enacted statute, or judicial decision at any level, our basic Human Rights – reflected in our value for the sanctity of human life and the protection of innocent life from the intemperate acts of other individuals or governments – must be held paramount or ALL of our ‘paper Rights’ as well are non-existent.

        Reply this comment
    • emee 14 July, 2017, 09:04

      GOD AND OUR FOUNDERS KNEW WHAT TYRANNY WAS AND WOULD BE SO WE WERE GRANTED BY GODS INFLUENCE ON OUR FOUNDERS THE 2ND AMENDMENT… and since God does not change… BUT CROOKED GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES DO… KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY for it is better to die fighting than to die/be murdered cowering and shaking from fear… God avenge America from our domestic and foreign enemies…

      FROM 1776 – 1927 there was NO infringements of gun ownership

      but in 1927 – the federal govt started restricting firearms

      congress decided to disarm the American people…

      in 1934 congress started regulating “gangster weapons”

      what more history of our gun rights being raped, sodomized and assaulted

      ? listen/watch this : All Federal Gun Control Is Unlawful ~ Publius Huldah |

      Oath Keepers

      https://www.oathkeepers.org/federal-gun-control-unlawful-publius-huldah/

      Reply this comment
    • Joe 14 July, 2017, 10:40

      Lets get to facts on Senator DICK Blumenthal. He is on The Voting Ballot of The Working Families Party, a Major Communist Front Organization in Ct. and 12 Other States, Operating in all Major Cities and 17 Other Major Cities Outside these States. Senator Murphy, Gov. Malloy, Congress Rep’s. Esty, DeLauro, Himes, Larson and 92 Others in Ct. State Government. These People are Outright Communist. They Work in Collusion with the Other 3 Major Communist Front Organizations in The Democrat Party, The Congressional Progressive Caucus, Est. in 1972 By The Democratic Socialist of America set by the Communist Party U.S.A., reorganizing every 10 years, 82-93-02-12, 93 under Clintons who also played a Major role in starting the W.F.P. in 98. the Congressional Progressive Black Caucus and the Progressive Democrats of America, Ruled an Unconstitutional Organization in 2012 By The Supreme Court. All these Criminal Communist Front Organizations have Operated under Democratic National Committee in Subversion of The U.S. Constitution following the 45 Points of Communist Take Over and Over Throw of The U.S. Government and The U.S. Constitution. Point 15 Take Over of One or Both Houses of the U.S. Congress, Now with at least with 199 Members, and still counting. Spread This Info Across America. Oath Keepers Senior Leaders, Please Take Note of These Facts.

      Reply this comment
    • autonomous1 24 July, 2017, 10:15

      There is no such word as “miniscule”. The word you intended is minuscule. It is pronounced min us qull.

      Reply this comment
      • BE 24 July, 2017, 16:11

        So…how do you spell pompous??
        In “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage” (1989), part of the entry “miniscule, minuscule,” notes:
        “This spelling [miniscule] was first recorded at the end of the 19th century (minuscule dates back to 1705), but it did not begin to appear frequently in edited prose until the 1940s. Its increasingly common use parallels the increasingly common use of the word itself, especially as an adjective meaning `very small.’ ”
        During the last half of the 20th century, dictionary lines have been adding “miniscule.” A telling case comes with the “Concise Oxford” dictionaries. The Eighth Edition, published in the mid-1980s, does have an entry for “miniscule,” but labels it as “erroneous.” However the “Concise Oxford Dictionary,” Ninth Edition (1995) lists “miniscule” as simply a “variant” spelling.
        The “American Heritage Dictionary,” Third Edition (1992) gives “miniscule” as a full-fledged variant of “minuscule,” as does “Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,” Tenth Edition (1993). Merriam-Webster’s has been listing “miniscule” in their dictionaries since at least 1971.
        “The Random House Unabridged Dictionary,” Second Edition (1987) lists “miniscule” as a variant, with a usage note stating that while “this newer spelling is criticized by many, it occurs with such frequency in edited writing that some consider it a variant spelling rather than a misspelling.”
        I am told (on an Internet newsgroup) that “Macquarie’s Australian Dictionary,” Second Edition lists “miniscule” as a variant spelling as well.
        Also noted in the “miniscule, minuscule” entry in “Merriam- Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage” is this:
        “It may be, in fact, that miniscule is now the more common form. An article by Michael Kenney in the Boston Globe on 12 May 1985 noted that miniscule outnumbered minuscule by three to one in that newspaper’s data base.
        That entry concludes with this statement on the spelling “miniscule”:
        “Our own view is that any spelling which occurs so commonly, year after year, in perfectly reputable and carefully edited books and periodicals must be regarded as a standard variant.”
        By Cornell Kimball

        Reply this comment
  2. Nick 14 July, 2017, 09:04

    BTW, can anyone tell me why no one objects to the “gun violence” mantra when there is plenty of other violence taking place?
    Is other types of violence acceptable?
    I’ve yet to hear anyone make any statement regarding the fact that there are people killed by knives, axes, machetes, bats, poison, and fists.

    Reply this comment
  3. AllieCRNA 14 July, 2017, 09:14
  4. Gale 14 July, 2017, 09:32

    I don’t care for him, he constantly has a smirk on his face. Also, he is friends with Mueller and others. He does not fill me with confidence that he will do the job without corruption and not go after all of the Trumps. He has made that clear.

    Reply this comment
  5. Kansas Scout 14 July, 2017, 09:33

    It seems to me that anyone who skirts around the issue of the Second Amendment by using the words above in his response to Senator Blumenthal really doesn’t have a clue about what he is about to swear to protect and defend. One would think an attorney would know the Constitution. Mister Christopher Wray what part of, “Shall Not Be Infringed,” do you not understand?

    Reply this comment
    • Attila 24 July, 2017, 10:02

      Like most of the left, the senator knows the 2nd very well, but dances around it to evade the voters’ wrath. Wray, like Comey, Mueller, and many others is prepared to play any act to get the job.

      Reply this comment
  6. WGP 14 July, 2017, 09:56

    After Lyndon Johnson’s take out of John F Kennedy, any sense of trust from the Washington DC Corporation evaporated.

    Does anyone really know how many laws and regulations their are? We’ve all been made felons, they just haven’t prosecuted us yet.

    Reply this comment
  7. jer 14 July, 2017, 11:07

    My question is: why did President Trump nominate this guy for FBI Director?

    Reply this comment
  8. Victoryman 14 July, 2017, 11:13

    Couldn’t the POTUS find someone better than this Wray character? I watched the hearings on him and was underwhelmed by his todaying to the democ-rats.

    Reply this comment
    • RavenBeauty 14 July, 2017, 20:27

      Me too. On one hand he felt milky toast just like Comey! but with that SAME glory hound snarkiness on the other! and for some reason I did not trust him. NOW that said. I am PRAYING that he is a straight shooter SOMEHOW who said all the right things but is gonna go in there and kick some major democrat traitor BUTT! its either one of the other. He is just like Comey. or he is a fantastic actor and fooled the dems. Right now. I can’t find any more silver linings 🙁 The evil is so much bigger than anything that was ever invented on Star Wars. The Dark Side? These people are monsters!

      Reply this comment
  9. James 14 July, 2017, 12:37

    I watched the hearings. I’m far less concerned with Wray and his response than I am with Blumenthal. He like the other members of our Corrupt Congress of Cowards don’t have a problem distorting facts. He can ask all the leading questions he wants. The law is what matters and until they change it…….. That said, they aren’t going to stop trying.

    Reply this comment
  10. Jack Crabb 14 July, 2017, 14:04

    Those on the right lose the battle at the outset as soon as they adopt the language of the left. Most of those on the right are cowardly and PC to begin with. That’s one of the biggest reasons the left is winning – they determine the battlefield. What Mr. Codrea’s story tells me is that Wray is just another cowardly political hack that refuses to speak the truth.

    Reply this comment
  11. TyranniCull Industries 14 July, 2017, 14:18

    NO fidelity to the Constitution = NO rule of law

    “When policemen break the law, then there isn’t any law. Just a fight for survival.” — Billy Jack

    IMO, all government employees – of any stripe – have a conflict of interest and should be DEBARRED any vote [or voice in the process] that empowers them or their bureaucracies over the People they claim to “serve.” They will lie and say there is no conflict but that deceptive claim, unlike their constant ratcheting of tyranny, is NOT self-evident. Those who believe are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and should THEMSELVES be debarred any vote or voice in the process.

    It is not service but BETRAYAL to the American People, when our Constitution is replaced with the “common sense” of committed tyrants. And, it is not ignorance but COMPLICITY when an American offers validation to such unlawful “common sense” by abiding it.

    And why WOULD they keep their oath when no one holds them to it? Well, not beyond vacuous and mealy-mouthed “scoldings” followed by endless BLM platitudes and support for everything they do [and apologia for every way they do it], anyway.

    You can’t “love” an enemy into submission and anyone who breaks their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution (i.e. any sworn employee who works every day without arresting and charging everyone else in their ranks) is an enemy of the People AND the state that was formed under our pure and unpolluted Constitution – Original +12 – their flawed understanding of the Constitution, notwithstanding.

    Reclaim the Republic! Restore the Constitution! Then, votes will belong to We the People and NOT the “people” at large.

    Reply this comment
  12. Ricki 14 July, 2017, 19:25

    Senator Blumenthal reminds me of a lying sleaze used car salesman who sells bs and Sh-it sandwiches to the public at large. If the shoe fits he wears it.

    Reply this comment
  13. Ne Oublie 14 July, 2017, 23:28

    I watched the Carlin clip. When did it become ok for comedians to preach their politics instead of making us laugh, They’re all doing it. I saw George Carlin about a year before he died and he came of as just an angry old man telling everyone to get off his lawn.

    Reply this comment
  14. 175gr 15 July, 2017, 05:16

    All gun control is unconstitutional whether “common sense” or not. The fact that he said he would review it and assess the circumstances indicates he committed himself to judge and infringe. His answer contradicts his alleged support for the Constitution and the rule of law. To me, this is a deal breaker.

    Reply this comment
    • skyhawk 24 July, 2017, 10:09

      Another wolf in sheep’s clothing. Or just another lying liberal who will work against America.

      Reply this comment
  15. Sun Tzu 16 July, 2017, 14:25

    Nothing burns me worse than this old man get off my lawn gas. What is it about private proprrty don’t you understand. Oathkeeper, antifa, Muhammad, the tooth fairy, Un bidden stay off my land.

    Reply this comment
  16. Arizona Don 17 July, 2017, 09:37

    For now I neither support or disapprove of Wray. However, I do support President Trump and at this time I have to trust his judgement which means also the judgement of his advisors. Making a determination now of the future is something few if any can do successfully. I do realize during the process of “confirmation” questions are asked to get a handle on a personal commitment to personal preferences however, there is usually bobbing and weaving to get around specific intentions. If one specific opinion is announced someone somehow will be dissatisfied with the candidate. Consequently, that is avoided when possible. Therefore, we will not nor can we know what Wray will do. We never do regardless what is said during confirmation. Look how many conservatives have been nominated as supreme court justices and turned out to be at the very best moderate if not progressive democrat. Democrats can no longer be considered liberal. Read the dictionary definition of liberal and I’m certain you will agree. (liberal>adjective 1 Willing to respect and accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own.)

    Who knows even one progressive democrat these days who fits such a description? I do not! Perhaps a John Kennedy democrat may but not a progressive democrat of today.

    Reply this comment
  17. DORIE 24 July, 2017, 10:09

    PRESIDENT TRUMP, PLEASE LOOK DEEPER INTO “WRAY,” I DON’T TRUST HIM. HE WORKED FOR THE BUSH’S AND THERE STAFF ONE SUCH EMPLOYEE AMONG OTHER LIKE CHENEY, RICE, ETC,ETC. SOME OF THE BIGGEST TRAITORS . OWN BIG DRUG CARTELS. WE HAVE HAD … STARE FRESH, DON’T TAKE THE LEFT OVERS FROM THE PAST PRESIDENTS. WE LOVE AND TRUST YOU, BUT SOMEBODY IS GIVING YOU BAD ADVICE.

    Reply this comment
  18. Dr. Darkpool 24 July, 2017, 10:34

    Seems more like James Comey II.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*