Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Via David Codrea, this from Larry Keane writing for Ammoland.

For those on the pro-gun side who argue online or respond to posts with the message that the entire system should be scrapped for whatever reason, or that it will lead someday to a national gun registry, you need to hear this: Take a breath, think.

If there was not a NICS system, we would have had some other system imposed, just as we did in the five years before NICS was implemented. The Brady Act imposed a waiting period while NICS was under construction. Would you prefer that? Existing federal law prevents a national registry. That will not change with Fix NICS.

Well isn’t that just swell.  Larry Keane, head of NSSF, is lecturing us on accepting something because something else could be worse.  Nevermind that the whole thing is an unconstitutional infringement.

Smarter and more morally grounded writers, Roger J. Katz, Attorney at Law, and Stephen L. D’Andrilli, also write for Ammoland why they are concerned about “fixing NICS.”

Anti-gun proponents, through their Congressional representatives—Senate Democratic Party members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including ranking Democratic Party member, Dianne Feinstein, and her principal cohorts, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Dick Durbin, and Sheldon Whitehouse, among others—wish to move the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and other criminal and mental health databases into an efficient and massive and broad digital firearms registration scheme, embracing more and more individuals and incentivizing the military and the States to add comprehensive criminal and mental health data into NICS and other databases. Through this Hearing, and through recent comments of anti-gun proponents in news broadcasts, we see renewed efforts by anti-gun proponents, stoked by the recent mass shooting incidents—to weaken the Second Amendment beyond past efforts. Emboldened, we see efforts afoot by anti-gun proponents to transform NICS and other federal and State databases into a comprehensive digital firearms’ registration scheme, wrapping it into a more restrictive, draconian criminal and mental health background check scheme.

It’s a long article and well worth your time.  Please read it all, and thanks to David for bringing Keane’s Krap to our attention.

You know my position.  I’ve made it abundantly clear, and I don’t retreat one iota from it.  “I do not support any bill, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, that includes more gun laws.  I do not believe in compromise.”

The Baltimore Sun:

Harford County Sheriff Jeffrey Gahler has asked state lawmakers to let handgun owners bring their weapons to worship, saying he wants congregations to be able to defend themselves against a mass shooting like the one that happened last month in Texas.

Gahler backs a proposal that would let parishioners who have the written permission of church officials wear and carry a handgun on church property. The parishioner would need a state handgun license, but not a concealed-carry permit.

He was joined at a news conference this week in Edgewood by the two lawmakers who plan to introduce the legislation— Republican House Minority Whip Kathy Szeliga and state Sen. Wayne Norman — and three local pastors who support the idea. The sheriff, also a Republican, said he asked lawmakers to pursue the issue.

They called the measure the Parishioner Protection Act of 2018.

The Sheriff is to be congratulated for his stand.  It isn’t constitutional carry, you say?  No, it’s not.  But it’s all he could ever hope to get (regardless of his views on constitutional carry).  So why does he want this for Marylanders?

Gahler said there are about 300 churches in Harford County and about 20 Sheriff’s Office deputies on duty at any time.

“The police cannot be everywhere, and this proposed legislation grew out of the faith-based community reaching out to us,” he said.

But continuing with the previous report, this isn’t likely to happen.

The proposal is counter to political winds in Annapolis, where the presiding officers of the Democrat-dominated General Assembly have proposed tightening — not loosening — Maryland’s gun laws.

“We don’t need guns in churches,” Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said in a statement to The Baltimore Sun.

Miller and House Speaker Michael E. Busch, both Democrats, have jointly announced support for expanding the state’s ban on assault-style weapons and revamping the process for appealing denial of concealed-carry permit requests.

Miller and Busch want to replace the Handgun Permit Review Board, which is composed of five political appointees who can overturn decisions of the Maryland State Police, with an administrative judge — taking gun permit requests out of the hands of civilians.

“Maryland has one of the strongest gun control laws in the country — and we are not going to take a step backward now,” Busch said in a statement.

Given that environment, “I don’t see it happening,” Del. Kathleen Dumais said of the new proposal on guns in houses of worship.

“We will certainly hear the bill,” said Dumais, a Montgomery County Democrat who is vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am just not convinced that more people carrying guns is the solution.”

Under current law, those who want a concealed-carry permit must undergo training and apply to the state police. The applicant must show “a good and substantial reason” for needing the permit, and the police investigate to determine whether the applicant has “exhibited a propensity for violence or instability.”

“Good and substantial reason.”  You see, you basically cannot have a concealed handgun permit in Maryland.  It isn’t a shall issue state.  The Sheriff wants to allow congregants to carry on church property without one.

The communists in Maryland would rather see congregants die.  They are one Islamist away from hundreds of deaths that could have been avoided.

Do you live in Maryland?  If so, why?

Reason.com:

According to a 2016 report from the Justice Department’s inspector general that looked at a sample of 125 delayed denials from 2008 through 2014, the ATF recovered weapons in 116 cases. In two cases, the gun owners already had resold the weapons, and in one case “the matter was referred to local authorities after the subject was arrested by them on unrelated charges.” In five cases, “the subjects could not be located,” and in one case “the ATF office explained that due to competing priorities it did not have the resources to retrieve the firearm.” In other words, the illegal gun owners were disarmed 95 percent of the time. But the public safety benefit of those efforts is debatable, because the reasons people are forbidden to own guns often have little or nothing to do with the threat they pose.

[ … ]

The 2004 report noted that gun buyers who fail background checks before completing their purchases are rarely prosecuted, even though all of them, on the face of it, have committed felonies by making false statements on the ATF form they filled out while trying to buy a firearm. The FBI blocked 122,000 gun sales in 2002 and 2003, which represented 0.7 percent of background checks. Only 154 of the would-be gun owners—0.1 percent—were prosecuted. According to the 2016 report, prosecution rates in more recent years have been even lower. “These cases lack ‘jury appeal’ for various reasons,” the 2004 report noted. One of those reasons: “The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.”

If most people who are forbidden to own guns by federal law do not strike ATF agents or jurors as dangerous, maybe there is something wrong with the law. The scandal is not lackadaisical ATF agents, negligent prosecutors, or apathetic jurors; it is the casual ease with which the government deprives people of the fundamental right to armed self-defense.

But in order to understand what’s happening here, you have to remember that Form 4473 isn’t really about preventing dangerous people from buying guns.  It’s about FedGov control.

The thing that struck me in this article was the fact that buyers had stated they sold the firearm, and that apparently was good enough for either local law enforcement, the FedGov, or both.  Some states require that you keep a bill of sale for person-to-person transfers, but in the case you don’t, most prosecutors aren’t going to waste jury and judge time on failure to retain a BoS.

That means that Form 4473 – and no, I don’t like it, and I think it’s an infringement, and it could easily be turned into a FedGov gun registration list, and therefore is a dangerous thing that ought to be abolished – is not yet a FedGov gun registry.

Not yet.

News from the land of the communists.

Boston — Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun and ammunition laws in the country, but 5 Investigates put some of those laws to the test and found just how easy it is to purchase hundreds of rounds of ammunition without the proper license.

Within minutes, 5 Investigates went online and was able to buy that ammunition and get it delivered within a few days of ordering, no questions asked.

At the The Gun Parlor, a licensed gun and ammunition dealer in Worcester, ammunition is readily available for purchase by Massachusetts residents if they have a license to carry (LTC) or a firearms identification card (FID), which is required by law.

Justin Gabriel, owner of the gun shop, said no one can come in his store and buy ammunition without a proper license. “Absolutely not,” he said. “You need a license. Whether you have an FID or LTC, you need one of those licenses in Massachusetts to purchase the ammo.”

But 5 Investigates discovered that’s not always the case online when we managed to score 450 rounds of ammunition with no firearms license required.

Working with a WCVB employee who is properly licensed, 5 Investigates set up an account with Connecticut-based online dealer Target Sports USA and ordered nine boxes of .40 caliber full metal jacket bullets.

The questionable deal was done, and 5 Investigates was never asked for or any type of ID, even though our account and shipping address made it clear the ammunition was headed for Massachusetts, which is one of a handful of states that restricts online purchases like this.

It’s alarming because in our purchase, anyone with just a credit card could have gotten their hands on that ammunition. Not only must Massachusetts residents be of age and have the proper firearms license, but the companies must be licensed by the state to sell it here legally.

Just a few days later, FedEx rolled down the driveway and delivered the goods. The box containing hundreds of bullets was left on the doorstep for anyone to grab.

The 5 Investigates probe also showed this was not just a one-time event.

This story began with a tip from a licensed gun owner troubled that he could order 2,000 rounds of ammunition from the same company, no questions asked. Again, the firepower was left on his doorstep for anyone to access.

“This is just putting the stuff in the hands of the wrong people,” the man said. “You don’t want someone who shouldn’t have a gun that’s got a gun [and] now they have an unlimited supply of ammo through the mail.”

5 Investigates’ purchase and others like it are particularly chilling in the wake of some of the deadliest shootings in our nation’s history, where in some cases thousands of rounds of ammo were bought online and stockpiled.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who enforces some of the toughest gun laws in the country, is troubled by what 5 Investigates could do.

“I think people would be very surprised by that and outraged, and that is in fact why we have laws in Massachusetts that prohibit that kind of conduct,” Healey said. “We don’t want to see people stockpiling ammunition illegally and unlawfully here in Massachusetts.”

Well, I’m sure it makes everyone feel safer with Maura on the case.  She never misses a chance to infringe.

Can you smell the self-righteous shock and indignation from the writer?  The ammunition laws in Massachusetts must make the collectivists proud.  My goodness, how far they’ve fallen from the war of independence where British gun control catalyzed the war of independence.

David Codrea:

Instead of being prosecuted for a violation of California law, which leaving his gun unsecured in his car was, BLM ranger John Woychowski was never even disciplined. Instead, El Centro’s 2011 “Ranger of the Year” was promoted five months after Steinle’s killing.

The other law enforcement “contribution” was by Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who ignored a detainer from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and put the killer back on the streets.

If you’ve monitored the goings-on in the countries heavy with gun control, such as Brazil and other South American countries, you’ll note that cops are often killed solely for the purpose of stealing their gun(s).  It happens in major American cities too.

So the Shannon Watts of the world are impaled on the horns of a dilemma.  They don’t want anyone to have guns except for law enforcement.  They are statists to the core.  On the other hand, arming law enforcement leads to killings and theft of their guns.

What’s a collectivist to do?

Via David.  Posted under “gun control,” because that’s what it is, plain and simple.

I had covered this act (H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477) here, albeit briefly.  I was skeptical.  Now I’ve read the bill, and I’m even more skeptical and I have begun to trust my initial inclinations on things like this.  I’ve covered gun rights and politics long enough to know a turd pile when I smell it.

This opinion will place be squarely out of accord with 99% of gun writers and analysts, and much of the gun community, but I’m okay with that.  We’ll see who was right, and if I’m wrong I’ll say so when proven so.

Reddit/r/firearms is simply giddy over this, as are most in the gun community as best as I can tell.  The active thread is here.  I actually read the bill before recent amendments, and the bill as passed can be located here.  Not much has changed with the amendments.

The first thing I’ll observe is that meeting the stipulations of the alleged “fix” of the NICS will be onerous and detailed, and will absolutely required a huge bureaucracy along with a permanent electronic system of prohibited persons managed and adjudicated by bureaucrats.  The details are too numerous to outline here, but go read the bill for yourself and make your own decisions.  I don’t like this aspect of the bill.

NOTE: [David Codrea sent me a note and asked me, “Where is the bump stock wording?”  My answer: It was apparently removed by amendment.  It is in the draft bill.  Thanks to David for the correction.  I missed its removal.  I’m trying.  It’s difficult to keep up.]

The second thing I’ll observe is that they throw bump stocks under the bus.  I neither have a bump stock nor am I inclined to purchase one, but if I did want one in the future, bump stocks will (I suspect) either be illegal or an NFA item.  The bill requires the attorney general’s office (he’ll assign it to lawyers in the DoJ) to study bump stocks and report back on why they shouldn’t be controlled like machine guns.

I said earlier that “I do not support any bill, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, that includes more gun laws.  I do not believe in compromise.”  I maintain my position, and I oppose “throwing anything under the bus” or sacrificing anything else to the god of the state like pagans sacrificed children to Baal.

Perhaps the most problematic thing to me about this whole effort is the way it reads straight out of the gate.  Consider the following language.

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm

Think hard about this.  Why is it necessary to include the language stipulating that this is for states that have a statute under which residents of the state may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm?

The answer of course is that it isn’t necessary.  They could have stopped without even including that stipulation.  You mark my words on this.  This will be the subject of endless court deliberations, endless contradictory bureaucratic rulings, endless AG interpretations, and endless arrests of concealed carriers across state lines.

So how many permits to carry have been issued in Hawaii?  How many permits to carry have been issued in New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts to holders who weren’t retired LEOs?  Is it possible for Maura Healey to decide that if her state doesn’t really do that sort of thing for regular people, you know, the peasants like you and me, then her state isn’t subject to this law?

You bet it is, and it will happen.  But the language is there, right up front, and it didn’t have to be.  It could have been omitted entirely and still have accomplished everything it needed.  And it will go through endless appeals, and the SCOTUS will not – I repeat, WILL NOT – take up the cases.  This will all lead to endless fund raising emails and flyers from the NRA to fight the good fight in endless court battles.  Speaking of the NRA, they have really staked out an awful position with their name calling and the ugliness with which they are treating fellow gun groups.

“We are in the thick of the legislative process and a so-called ‘pro-gun group,’ which is nothing more than a fundraising entity, is spreading lies about the FIX NICS legislation that was attached to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” Lars Dalseide, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Their talking points are nothing but lies. Unfortunately, they are misleading well-meaning members of Congress with these false and inaccurate talking points.”

Differences of opinion and different interpretations aren’t lies, sir.  Are you calling me a liar?  Or stupid?  I have very strong opinions on this piece of legislation, and I’m willing to say I’m wrong if proven so in the future.  I’ve never once heard that from the NRA.

I suspect that no one who is permitted to carry in North Carolina or Texas will ever legally carry in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut or Hawaii under this bill.  That is, if the Senate passes such a bill, which I doubt.  It may pass something worse, and deliberations in committee may even water down what little good is there about the right to carry on federally controlled lands.

I appreciate your visits to this post.

I’m glad that you got a chance to hear me say that “I do not support any bill, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, that includes more gun laws.  I do not believe in compromise.”

As for my readers, it helps to make comments.  HoR and other readers got a chance to hear Fred say this.

Violating the 2A to fix ‘smaller’ state violations of the 2A is retarded.

Maybe burning DC to ground and hanging everyone from the neck until dead isn’t the way to go. Maybe, we need to start with the ‘gun rights’ groups.

Weigh in with robust opinions in the comments section.

Philly.com:

Sixteen of the nation’s top retired military commanders are urging Congress to pass gun control legislation, arguing that there are many steps that can be taken to curb gun deaths that do not violate the Second Amendment.

In a letter they plan to send to Congressional leaders, the retired commanders, including Army Gens. Wesley Clark and Michael Hayden, Navy Admiral Eric Olson, Air Force Lt. Gen. Norman Seip and Marine Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney, argue that Congress is “no longer speaking or voting for the majority of Americans, including gun owners” when it comes to the issue of firearms.

“There is no acceptable excuse for our elected leaders to avoid addressing this as a national crisis,” they write.

The group is part of the veterans coalition of a gun control group founded by former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. They laid out their arguments in a letter they plan to send to Congressional leaders.

[ … ]

The letter comes as a House panel this week voted to advance a measure that would expand the ability to carry concealed firearms across state lines. Under the bill, known as concealed carry reciprocity, a person with a concealed-carry permit and a photo identification would be able to have a concealed weapon in any state that allows them. The gun owner would still have to follow state and local laws regarding where and what type of weapons can be carried. The National Rifle Association has called the bill its “highest legislative priority in Congress.”

The legislation is scheduled for a House vote next week. Its sponsor, Richard Hudson, R-N.C., said in a statement that the bill is extremely popular and “momentum, common sense, and the facts are on our side.”

Giffords said the bill weakens public safety, and Retired Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal said he agrees.

“In the aftermath of two of the country’s worst mass shootings, it’s an affront to both our safety as a nation and the common sense of its citizens that Congress would consider actually weakening our gun laws,” McChrystal said. “Untrained and potentially dangerous people have no business carrying guns in our communities, but the concealed carry bill in the House would allow exactly that.”

Well isn’t this special?  A list of traitors self identifies – again.  We knew this about some of these men, such as Petraeus and McChrysytal.  We also knew that Petraeus is an adulterer and McChrystal is a murderer (of the men at Ganjgal).  I’m not certain whether we also knew that about the other signatories to this abomination, but if not, then welcome to the party.  You’re on our very own list now.

At least with people who haven’t sworn to uphold and defend the constitution (some people grow up hating liberty and never once utter words of commitment to anyone or anything but themselves), urging gun control wouldn’t be out of character, even though still contrary to duty and righteousness.

But these are men who have taken the oaths they have, and then behave contrary to everything to which they have agreed.  Oh well, Petraeus did that with his wife too, and McChrystal did that to the men at Ganjgal.  Men who can’t be trusted … can’t be trusted, ever.  They prove it in all of their ways, in all of their words, and in all of their actions.

The military is rife with such men just as is law enforcement.  You cannot use exterior accoutrements as an indication of quality of character.

Statement from GOA:

Springfield, VA – Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt made the following statement after the House Judiciary Committee’s actions on concealed carry reciprocity and background check legislation:
“Over 1.5 million law-abiding Americans who make up Gun Owners of America commend the House Judiciary Committee for reporting H.R. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity bill.

“GOA applauds the committee passage of H.R. 38 and encourages the House leadership to take up the bill right away. This legislation will allow decent Americans to carry in any state in the country with confidence that they would not become entrapped by the fascist gun laws of anti-gun states.

“GOA also sends special kudos to Republicans on the Judiciary Committee who shot down an attempt by Democrats to delete the Constitutional Carry protections in the bill.  Gun Owners of America opposed the amendment that sought to only limit concealed carry reciprocity to permit holders and was happy to see that provision go down to an inglorious defeat.

“Finally, Gun Owners of America condemns the committee’s approval of the ‘Traffic Ticket Gun Ban’ (H.R. 4477).  This deceptive legislation would add hundreds of thousands of additional names into the NICS system, thus blocking thousands of lawful gun owners from purchasing guns for offenses as slight as unpaid traffic tickets. Not only that, it would lay the groundwork for an anti-gun administration to troll every government health and welfare program for the purpose of imposing gun bans on recipients with PTSD, ADHD, and Alzheimer’s — the latter would jeopardize the inheritance of many valuable gun collections.  The Obama administration already tried to do this with Social Security disability.  In the future, there may not be a pro-gun Congress to disapprove similar moves or a pro-gun president to sign it.”

But then there is this from reddit/firearms.

From The Military Arms’ Channel page:

I have spoken to GOA again today and here is an email as of about 15 minutes ago.

“Tim,

To clarify several things.

First, recent gun politics has been a very fluid situation, with a lot of different statements from different people on the Hill.

On the combination of reciprocity and fix NICS – currently, we do expect the House Rules Committee to combine the bills Tuesday.

On the YouTube video you sent. I believe this YouTuber mistook the markup transcript (this document) for what was actually passed by the Judiciary Committee. That document, which is over 300 pages in length, is the a transcript of the hearing, not what was passed by the Judiciary Committee. The two amendments that were added, (here and here) are not certainly 300 pages in length, nor are they killer amendments. The standalone reciprocity bill is still a clean bill.

Again, this is a very fluid situation, why don’t we talk tomorrow for a game plan?

Thanks for your activism!”

In the end, what came out of the committee is a pretty clean HR 38. They added two amendments which aren’t “poison pills” in the view of the GOA.

Now for the bad news.

GOA does now expect the House Rules Committee to combine the bills on Tuesday. It’s not done yet, but at this time it does look like Massie’s concerns are valid as the GOA are now saying they expect the HRC to try and merge them into one bill.

If this does happen, sadly, we will have to defeat the legislation. It will be another Hughes Amendment at that point. Since Bill Clinton was on the only U.S. President to have “line item veto” power for a short time before it was ruled unconstitutional in 1998, Trump won’t be able to fix a broken bill… just like Reagan couldn’t. And just like with Reagan, the NRA will likely tell Trump to sign the bill into law if it makes it to his desk as they’re strong advocates for the NICS system (they wrote the original law for Clinton).

If we pass a combined bill, we will have to accept the fact that NICS will get a whole lot worse and you can expect a whole bunch more delays and denials coming out of the NICS system.

If you ever talked to your doctor about being depressed, you’re not able to own a firearm. If you have been diagnosed with ADHD, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm. Have you sought help with your finances before? You’re no longer eligible to own a firearm. Are you over 65? You may no longer be eligible to own a firearm. Hell, if you have an unpaid traffic ticket, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm under HR 4477.

Sooo…

Blow up the phones on Monday. I’ll see if I can get a stream going with the GOA to talk about it Monday. We’ll have to do what we can to try and stop the House Rules Committee from merging them. The reality is, there’s little we can do given how fast and fluid this process has been. I’ve never seen anything like it before.

Then there are the reddit commenters who call BS on the GOA take on things.

As for my own take, I have none at the moment.  I will offer up two remarks on this and in fact any other bill that comes to my attention.  First, I absolutely do not support any bill I haven’t read in its entirety.  I have not read this one.  Second, I do not support any bill, ever, under any circumstances, for any reason whatsoever, that includes more gun laws.  I do not believe in compromise.

If readers have spent more time studying this than I have, please feel free to weigh in via comments.