Rob Pincus On Gun Purchase Background Checks
BY Herschel Smith
3 years ago
I have not seen a significant number of things eye-to-eye with Rob Pincus. I’ll offer one brief example, i.e., shouldering stabilizing braces on AR pistols. I recall Rob’s counsel of his viewers and readers not to shoulder stabilizing braces (this was before the latest ATF “interpretation”), and his reluctance (and even refusal) to do videos showing such tactics.
On the other hand, I have long said that you should do what feels natural and what you find necessary. There are many legitimate reasons for firearms ownership: sporting, range shooting, competition precision shooting, self defense, collecting, and on and on the reasons could go. It’s no more the business of the state to interest itself in your what firearms you own than what forks you have in your kitchen drawers, or how or why you have them.
But if you have a firearm with which you intend the use of home defense, and it has a stabilizing brace, if you need to shoulder the weapon to best use it, then do so. Your responsibility is to your own life and the lives of your loved ones, not an ATF interpretation.
So I have had a difficult time trusting Rob, for whatever reason. This latest commentary at Ammoland adds to that mistrust. He co-authored a piece on common ground with Dan Gross, Former President of the Brady Campaign. I will quote extensively.
Although many other issues have understandably dominated the news cycle, we are at a critical moment for guns. Over the last year, gun sales have reached unprecedented levels, as have gun-involved homicides, and the House has recently passed H.R. 1446, The Enhanced Background Check Act of 2021, which is currently being debated in the Senate. Recently, a wave of tragic mass shootings has put the gun issue in national headlines as President Biden has called on the Senate to pass the background check bill, adding that he supports a ban of “assault weapons.”
We are two advocates, activists and leaders from opposite sides of the “gun debate” who have come together because we both believe we are at a make-or-break moment. Suffice it to say, there is plenty that we disagree on, but for anyone with the genuine goal of reducing the number of preventable gun deaths in our nation, we believe we have an opportunity for real impact that has not existed in years and, if we are not able to seize it, it is likely to have negative repercussions for years to come.
Stop there. This is strong language. It means that Rob thinks that unless the policy recommendations that we are forthwith to read in the commentary are implemented, there will be negative repercussions. No one is holding a gun to Rob’s head. He appears to desire what we are about to read. There seems to be no other reason to suspect that we need to “seize” the opportunity before us (Biden is president, the senate is split).
To expect meaningful and lasting change, we must first change the entire conversation, from one defined by politics to one defined by our common values and goals. This is not just a matter of deciding whether to call it “gun control,” “gun violence prevention,” “responsible gun ownership” or “gun safety.” It is about advocates, leaders and the media considering, far more than they have in the past, the narrative they are helping to create. It is about those who really care about impact, changing that narrative from one that is too-often divisive and counterproductive to one that genuinely unites the American public and provides the foundation that is necessary for real, lasting and fundamental change.
I have a bit of an issue with the notion of having “common goals” with progressives. Philosopher Cornelius Van Til flatly debunked the idea that Christians can have a common goal or common starting point with unbelievers. Now, this isn’t a theological debate, but the point is salient. One doesn’t come into a conversation with neutrality. There is always a set of presuppositions involved. For the progressive, this is it.
The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.
Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it. The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.
This is true at least for the commoner. For the controller, they want a monopoly on violence. This is the starting point. There is no common ground with them. But we must continue.
Fortunately, the policy area with the most synergistic message is also the one that represents what we believe is the greatest potential for impact: Expanded Background Checks. The overwhelming majority of gun owners have already accepted that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns commercially, should be required to conduct a background check. At the same time the two of us believe that many private transfers, such as gifting a gun to a family member or letting a fellow member of a gun club borrow a firearm for a competition or hunting event should be legal and remain a private transaction outside of government regulation. We believe any expansion of the Background Check requirement should be focused on transfers to strangers. Sure, there are some important details to work out around exceptions such as specific definitions of “strangers,” and exceptions that would make it impossible for the government to compile a comprehensive list of gun owners; but we are confident that there are solutions that can make a huge impact if we stick to the principle and message of only keeping guns from the people we all agree shouldn’t have them. This is also how to “walk the walk” in terms of demonstrating that we are not trying to limit gun ownership among responsible gun owners and how to give substance and true credibility to the claim of respecting gun owners and the Second Amendment.
It’s wrapped up in nice words like “Expanded Background Checks.” It’s padded to reduce the impact. The claim is made up front that people support it, which if true, would obviate the need to say it all the time.
But make no mistake about it, Rob Pincus has come out in favor of universal background checks. He, along with the former president of the Brady Campaign, supports it.
Thus Rob has in a single commentary thrown away what little he had left of his credibility as a defender of the RKBA. I’m sure he’ll go on with his tactical training business, but for me, I do not see him as a credible defender of liberty.
For the record, I support the liberty to conduct person-to-person transfers of firearms of any sort. We had this discussion at the dinner table a few nights ago, and I laid it out at the beginning by saying that I believe felons have a RKBA. They have as much right to self defense as I do.
Eyes opened wider, and I explained what we all know to be true. If a felon cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then a felon cannot be let out of prison to purchase fertilizer at the local Tractor Supply. Besides which, felons guilty of murder, rape or kidnapping should be executed.
So, I suspect, ends the relationship of the 2A community with Rob. I hope it was worth it for him.
UPDATE: I see that the editor has found it necessary to “apologize” for printing the article. A quick note to the editorial staff. Don’t worry about it. If you publish enough, you’ll offend someone. Ask me how I know? I found this commentary useful even if I didn’t agree with its contents. It’s useful because I know where Rob stands now. That means you did the right thing.
On March 28, 2021 at 10:24 pm, robert said:
We got a pinko senator here in the buckeye . So happens he is a Rob . Rob Portman . Never met a commie plan he didn’t like.
On March 28, 2021 at 11:02 pm, George 1 said:
Virtue signaling. Mr. Pincus is trying to ensure he will be eaten last.
On March 29, 2021 at 7:26 am, ragman said:
Hunter Biden lied on the federal form but that’s ok because he’s a Biden. A regular citizen would probably do 5-10 for committing a federal “felony”. Unless/until this POS goes to federal prison they can take their background checks and shove ’em where the sun don’t shine.
On March 29, 2021 at 9:26 am, JSF said:
Pincus/pinko never had any credibility after being associated with and pimped by the NRA.
On March 29, 2021 at 9:39 am, Herschel Smith said:
@JSF,
Well to be fair on that point, at one time a good while back I was a member of the NRA. They had done a good job of hiding their corruption.
Although even then I should have done better research into their support for the GCA, NFA, etc.
I’m not so concerned about NRA membership. But you support something like UBC, and we have to part ways.
On March 29, 2021 at 10:03 am, CM Dutch said:
Obama did not get gun control passed in 8 years. Why? Just maybe those founding fathers who just fought the worlds biggest army at the time wanted to be sure, if needed, we could do it again. That is how tight the 2A is written. Congress hears We the People and fears us at the same time. Keep up the pressure, it is working.
On March 29, 2021 at 11:02 am, Ron W said:
What about “the rule of law” and “no one is above the law”, you know, according to “the equal protection of the laws” in the 14th Amendment which, along with the 13th Amendment supposedly ended slavery?? If gun control laws are good for us, why is it that the ruling elite class , like Obama, Biden and most all leftist Democrats VIOLATE those mantras and slave ending Constitutional Amendments by EXEMPTING THEMSELVES from gun laws?? But they KEEP FOR THEMSELVES WHAT THEY TAKE FROM US!!! That’s the very essence of SLAVERY! They still support that historical chief aspect of slavery because…ONLY YOUR ENEMY WANTS YOU DISARMED!!
On March 29, 2021 at 11:25 am, EM said:
From the scant research I did on this guy, looks like he makes most of his living training law enforcement. I reckon when the time comes, he’ll cast his lot with those who use the badge to enforce immoral orders.
On March 29, 2021 at 11:39 am, JSF said:
“Well to be fair on that point, at one time a good while back I was a member of the NRA. They had done a good job of hiding their corruption.
Although even then I should have done better research into their support for the GCA, NFA, etc. I’m not so concerned about NRA membership. But you support something like UBC, and we have to part ways.”
Have no fear, I too was a member of the nra, but soon saw the error of my ways. I support GOA. I continue to get my anal renewal and begging for bux from the nra…goes immediately into the compost heap.
On March 29, 2021 at 12:55 pm, No Use For A Name said:
Breaking-WVA House passes ban on fedgov gun grabs for past, present, future.
source:tenth amendment center
On March 29, 2021 at 1:51 pm, Longbow said:
Quote:
“The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns…. Unfortunately, right now we can’t.”
So it would be “fortunate” if we could ban all guns?
Pincus agrees with this tripe?
This is the same guy who says open carry is stupid and puts people’s lives at risk, while cops everywhere in every city open carry every day.
Fuck Pincus.
He’ll be Zumbo’d
On March 29, 2021 at 2:02 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Longbow,
To be fair, IDK if Pincus agrees with that statement or not. I am saying that this is the axiomatic basis on which all gun control proceeds. All of it. Whether Pincus knows it, or admits it.
There is no common ground.
On March 29, 2021 at 2:04 pm, Brad said:
Have you ever been exposed to any of his training or any of his classes? Nuff said.
On March 29, 2021 at 2:11 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Brad,
No.
On March 29, 2021 at 2:26 pm, Brad said:
Another interesting thing about Pincus to come out a make a statement like this is he’s been promoting the heck out of 3d printed Glock frames. Seems a little hypocritical.
Herschel, Pincus is the father of what I like to term the frightened turtle stance.
On March 29, 2021 at 2:43 pm, Herschel Smith said:
IDK anything about that. I use an Isosceles stance. I square up against the target. It’s natural for me. I lean into the shot just a little because I shoot .45 ACP (mostly) and it will roll you back just a bit.
I don’t do this to be good. I have no idea whether I’m good or not. I’m decent. I can put shots where they’re needed, fast enough. I do this because it’s natural.
On March 29, 2021 at 6:20 pm, Jack said:
Fudd POS.
Never dug his style.
another boot licker
On March 29, 2021 at 6:37 pm, Chris Mallory said:
I took a class locally from a trainer who had bought into the Pincus method. If you have ever been at the range and noticed a shooter moving like a robot, he is probably a Pincus disciple. Shoot, draw your firearm directly back to your chest, look around like a scared cat, then push the gun forward again. Sorry, my arms no longer work that way. Damage to my left shoulder makes a Weaver stance a better fit for me.
On March 30, 2021 at 8:48 am, Sanders said:
Meh! Tories! I got no use for ’em! *spit*
The biggest opponents we had/have against Constitutional carry in my state are the trainers. The ones who people have to pay if they are to obtain one of those permission slips from the state to exercise their right. I quit going to a really nice indoor range (complete with holographic targets) because the owner was the biggest opponent of Constitutional carry.
On March 30, 2021 at 9:43 am, Ned said:
I love it when our “friends” out themselves.
On March 30, 2021 at 10:43 am, Roger J said:
Pincus can go put it where the sun don’t shine. But let’s suppose for a second, he got his way – background checks for everyone except “friends and family.” What do you suppose is going to happen the very first time a friend or family member has a hidden mental illness and commits a mass shooting or other unjustified homicide with that “exempted transfer” gun? You got it, “friends and family” exemption revoked by act of Congress or (illegal) EO. And it might even have been a “false flag” incident because: moral relativity, and someone “has to die to make a better world for the rest” – almost makes me sick to write those words but that’s how collectivists think.
On March 30, 2021 at 3:22 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
When criminals agree to extensive background checks … they won’t, they’re criminals, they break laws for a living. So far as they’re concerned, people who obey laws are suckers and deserve what they get. And I’ve talked with more than a few criminals, they do their best to make sure their intended victims can’t shoot back – they want to go home at the end of their day, not get shot or something. It’s funny that no one really talks about this part, maybe few people know about it. And the police have no duty to protect you, either – https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again – and that doesn’t get brought up, either, oddly enough.
On March 31, 2021 at 4:02 am, Henry said:
I need to call shenanigans here, on the quote section that begins:
“The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns.”
This article makes it look like this section was part and parcel of the article Pincus wrote. It is not. Nothing like this verbiage appears anywhere in it.
Where is this quote actually from, and who wrote it?
On March 31, 2021 at 8:36 am, Roger J said:
Henry, you are correct in that that paragraph was not part of the Pincus-Gross article. If you work your way back through the links, it is from a Daily Kos piece that appeared after Sandy Hook. Didn’t note the author’s name, but I would guess “Just Another Communist.”
On March 31, 2021 at 8:44 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Henry,
Good grief. Slow down. Read more carefully. Good grief.
The quote – IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINKS BACK TO THE SOURCE – was from a Daily Kos commentary. I didn’t attribute it to Pincus. In fact, the fact that Pincus DIDN’T say this IS MY POINT.
He assumes a common starting point, shared goals, common assumptions, presuppositions and axioms.
There is nothing shared or common. We have no common goals with the controllers. Pincus is naive and assumed the wrong things because of faulty philosophy.
On March 31, 2021 at 9:46 am, Rob Pincus said:
You’ve got some mistakes in this piece that I’d love to discuss with you. If you’re up for it.
On March 31, 2021 at 10:31 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Rob,
I’m always up for conversation. I can be reached at the email on the contact page, at which point should I receive an email from you, I’ll reply with my usual email (the one on the contact page is a “throw-away” mail checked only so often.
On April 1, 2021 at 10:40 pm, Odysseus M Tanner said:
“felons guilty of murder, rape or kidnapping should be executed” Ideally perhaps but impracticable as such a system can never be perfect.