Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Courtesy of Michael Bane.

For the progressives among us, I know what you’re thinking, or at least what you want your fellow progressives to think.  It took on all the hallmarks of a major defeat, the gun bill fiasco did.  Your President, your progressives in the Senate, and the turncoat Republicans all conspired to push your agenda, and it crashed and burned.  You’re heartbroken and outraged at the same time.

You’ve tried to convince yourself that it wasn’t really the defeat it seemed.  The tactics are to blame.  “While an A rating from the NRA has long been a point of pride for politicians, MAIG is hoping its grades soon will carry the same weight to ensure votes and donations. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns Scorecard will incorporate the voting records, bill co-sponsorships, and public statements of members of Congress to determine a letter grade, NRA-style. MAIG will look at politicians’ stances on high-capacity magazines, background checks, and state authority to establish standards for concealed carry.”

So the evil NRA just outdid you at your own game.  Copy their tactics, you will.  It must be the tactics, for it couldn’t be that America doesn’t want your gun control.  Yet another tactic you’re investigating is to convince yourselves that the NRA isn’t really as powerful as they seem.  You will talk enough to make people comfortable with your plans.  But you can’t decide if you’ve got the clout.  Joe Manchin even admitted “ff the NRA didn’t score this, we would’ve had 15 more votes.”

And oh, there are the excuses.  Poor Michael Hirsh has perhaps the best one.  ” … it is practically a iron law of politics that the larger the interest group—in this case, the 90 percent of all Americans who want background checks—the less likely it will be able to mobilize against a smaller, more organized and passionate interest group, such as the National Rifle Association.”  Nine out of ten people can’t win anything against the one holdout.

But Michael concludes that with enough money, threats, and primaried Senators, you should be able to construct a Senate that is more conducive to your interests.  So we’re back to the NRA tactics again – because, you know, it couldn’t be that people aren’t interested in your proposed gun control measures.  Surely 90%+ of the people think like you do, sensible people, who just didn’t play a role against that evil behemoth, the NRA.  Everyone was bullied by those monsters from the NRA, Wayne and Chris.

I know, you don’t want to believe that the polls are badly misleading when they ask about those ethereal platitudes, as opposed to when the specifics are presented, complicating things for you.  You don’t want to believe it even when your own press tells you this.  So the 90%+ number must be right, and the evil NRA is to blame, or your own tactics, or lack of money, or something like that.  It cannot be that the people aren’t interested in your gun control measures.

So you hate the evil NRA, and harbor even worse thoughts for the gun manufacturers who makes these ever improving products of death, convince Americans that they need them, and hand over the propaganda points to the NRA.  They all must be stopped, you think.

True enough, Wayne and Chris get beaten up a bit in the media, but that’s okay.  We gun owners expect them to take it, and pay them well for it.  We don’t feel too sorry for them.  But there is something that you really don’t understand about all of this, and I feel a bit apprehensive in telling you this, rather like I am divulging our secrets.  But I just have to say these things.

The way it really works is different than you think.

The NRA is hearing from its constituency (that would be us), and the firearms manufacturers do our bidding.  We’re the boss.  A firearm hasn’t been fully vetted until it hits the American civilian market (the military forces its folks to use the bidder of choice), and the manufacturers respond to us.  They make what we want.  They earn our money, and if you think that we sit back and wait for the manufacturers to tell us what to think, just ask Smith and Wesson what happened as a result of their agreement with the Clinton administration.

We send Wayne out with his talking points.  We set Chris up to succeed in the printed media.  They’re our front men.  But we know things you don’t.  You see, we have the guns.  We know gun owners … we know them at work and church and in our neighborhood.  We talk to them.  We see them at the range, we discuss things, we learn from each other.  We know that this 90% number you’ve thrown around isn’t right.  It’s an outright lie.  These 9 out of 10 gun owners you’re talking about just don’t materialize in reality.  We know.  We’re around gun owners every day.

The hard realities of life are sometimes difficult to digest.  But the reality is that we own the NRA.  You’re directing your hatred at the wrong folks.  The firearms manufacturers make what we want.  We keep them financially strong.  The Senators aren’t really afraid of the NRA or Smith and Wesson or Ruger.  They are afraid that smart analysts will figure out what they’re really doing and the gun owning public will be well educated in the finer legal points of the proposed laws.

They may be spewing their hatred for the NRA, but it’s us they really hate.  We are the overlords.  We are gun owners, and you don’t control the gun base you thought you did.  All your base are belong to us.  Make your time.

The collective erupts.

  Bette MidlerVerified account ‏@BetteMidler

Today, the US SENATE VOTED AGAINST 91% OF THE COUNTRY THAT WANTS BACKGROUND CHECKS. WE ARE TAKING NAMES, MOTHERFUCKERS!!

The Hill:

The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama’s agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks.

It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with five Democrats voting against it. Only four Republicans supported it.

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid supported the measure but voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again.

GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted “yes.”

[ … ]

The failure of Manchin-Toomey means the broader bill still includes Democratic language passed by the Judiciary Committee to establish universal background checks. That language failed to attract a single Republican vote during the panel markup, and conservative Democrats such as Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) have said they cannot support the package without changes to the language on background checks.

The Senate’s failure to expand background checks means the three pillars of Obama’s gun control agenda have stalled. The chamber is expected to also reject proposals to ban military-style semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

The amendment perished in an ignominious, shameful way as it should have.  But it isn’t over yet.  I’m not referring to the balance of the proposals – and that’s an issue we need to watch – but the future mass shooting.  There will be one.

Furthermore, remember that totalitarians don’t give up.  They have longevity and fortitude, but ours has to be stronger.  Let it be so.  May God help us in our endeavors for liberty.

The Hill:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) on Wednesday pushed for lawmakers to enact expanded background checks and dismissed fears from conservatives that the bill would infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“I support background checks, I support universal background checks,” said Giuliani on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

He said he had no concerns the government could use information from potential firearm purchasers to keep tabs on law-abiding owners.

“I have no fear as some people do that government’s going to use that,” he said.

Just another Northeast elitist advocate of the collective.  One more reason he’ll never be President.

We have noted that the Manchin-Toomey gun bill has confusing language (a setup for abuses), and that it surreptitiously allows the construction of a national gun registry even though it claims to forbid it.  Now we learn that the situation is even worse than we thought.

One begins to wonder if Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Pat Toomey (R-PA), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) didn’t just take whatever verbiage Attorney General Eric Holder’s staff handed to them and put it in their gun control legislation without even reading it. The Schumer-Toomey-Manchin (STM) bill facilitates undercover sting operations at gun shows to arrest people for conduct they have no reason to believe is against the law. The STM bill lets the Justice Department send people at gun shows to jail for up to five years for a crime they did not even know was a crime.

Here is the zinger buried in the bill:

Whoever makes or attempts to make a transfer of a firearm in violation of section 922(t) . . . to a law enforcement officer, or to a person acting at the direction of, or with the approval of, a law enforcement officer authorized to investigate or prosecute violations of section 922(t), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

It is neither surprising nor inappropriate that, in accordance with applicable law enforcement guidelines, undercover FBI or ATF agents infiltrate, or send informants to infiltrate, a gun show to see if they can catch people breaking federal firearms laws. But this new law goes overboard, by eliminating any need for a federal prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that the individual who allegedly broke the law had any kind of criminal intent.

The concept of intent is well founded in English common law (and the Bible, both of which form the basis for much of American law), and enjoys rich history and respect in American jurisprudence.  This law undercuts all of that, and thus it is evil.  Do you need any more reasons to oppose this legislative abortion?

Mr. President, I noticed that someone on your immediate staff visited my web site today.

I’m good with that, and I hope you are too.  It isn’t the first time, and I’ve also had visits from the Supreme Court and Senate.  It’s just a function of the open society and information sharing collective in which we live.  I would rather feed the collective than be fed, and while I’m sure you don’t like a lot of what I advocate, we need to talk.

You see, I know that the recent flurry of activity on gun control has nothing whatsoever to do with safety, protecting the children or keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.  Criminals get their weapons regardless of the law because, well, they are criminals.  You know this too, and you know that I know this.

I know that the very touchstone of gun control for progressives is universal background checks, because in order to control the collective, you must know where all of the guns are and who has them.  You know this too, and you know that I know this.

I know that you have almost lost the gun control battle, and that the polls are all a lie.  They depend on the specifics rather than broad outlines and ethereal platitudes common to polls.  Even your own press, the Washington Post, knows this.  So you can’t spin it with me, and you know this.  And you know that I know this.

You and I both know than an assault weapons ban would have no effect whatsoever on crime, whether person-on-person or mass shootings.  Furthermore, you and I both know that the trend in crime these days is multi-man home invasions, and for this one needs access to all of the firepower he can get.  You don’t care that the plan to prevent ownership of certain types of weapons and magazines endangers home owners for this very reason, but you don’t care.  And you know that I know that you feel this way.  But you’ve given up on this feature of the proposed rules for the collective because you know it won’t pass.

You’ve focused on universal background checks, which as we’ve discussed is the holy grail of gun control even though it won’t effect crime in the manner you have sold to the public.  But now, even this is in trouble, hence your word search involving remoteness being an exception to universal background checks.

Exceptions to universal background checks isn’t a selling point for us.  We don’t care about remoteness.  We care about our rights, and allowing you to develop a national gun registry would be intolerable to us.  I know, I know, that can’t happen according to the rules.  But it can, and I know that you have a veritable army of lawyers sitting inside the beltway at the ready for rule making via the federal register.  You know that we don’t have any control over what your lawyers do, and that no one does.  You know that I know this, and I know that you know that I know this.

So we’ve opposed your proposed new law and all of the rules that would be forthcoming from it.  And for the most part, we’ve been successful at making the Senators and Representatives believe that we really do understand this and will hold them accountable.  That’s the part that you’re just now learning.  This is news to you.

You’re losing this battle.  Even though this fact is hard for you to digest, I am here to help you along all I can.  Please visit again, and take note of the fact that you cannot possibly craft selling points sufficient to convince us to go along to get along, compromise, or worse, stand down on our God-given duties.

No retreat, no surrender, no new gun laws.

Kurt Hofmann:

… like Mr. Codrea, am not ready to believe that Gottlieb is the second coming of Vidkun Quisling. I am still convinced that Gottlieb truly believes his course offers the best chance for a net gain for gun rights advocates Heck–seeing rabidly anti-gun Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in full spittle-flecked fury is always fun.

But however good Alan Gottlieb’s intentions are, and even if events end up showing him to be a tactical genius, securing major net gains for gun rights advocates, I argue that strategically, this is a serious mistake.

It’s always nice when someone understands the difference between policy, strategy and tactics, policy leading to strategy and strategy leading to tactics.  Kurt makes an interesting point, and it is that the strategy of giving a little here to take a little there is all wrongheaded.

Furthermore, earlier in his essay Kurt makes the following point: “Taking a very quick and cursory look at some of the “tactical” objections, many point out that what is perhaps the “flagship” provision of S. Amd. 715, the 15-year prison sentence for officials who attempt to abuse S. 649’s record keeping requirements in order to build a national gun registry, depends on the Department of “Justice” prosecuting itself for wrongdoing.”

Rather like asking Napoleon the pig to watch over the other pigs and keep them accountable, no?  Read it all at Examiner.

David Codrea weighs in with an analysis of Gottlieb’s support for Manchin-Toomey, along with a number of links to reactions.  There is this:

But really, all this is just arguing over dancing angels and heads of pins — the only acceptable answer for hard core gun owners is going to be “No,” and arguments about “goodies” and “Christmas tree ornaments” are hardly going to be persuasive to men and women who take their Bill of Rights seriously, because they know it was secured with powder, lead, steel and blood.

Read it all at Examiner.  This is the reaction of most serious firearms owners.  Witness reddit/guns and one commenter:

… nothing except removing NFA regulation for SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors, repealing the post ’86 full auto ban, and full 50 state CCW reciprocity would make me even VERY BEGRUDGINGLY support this bill.

The bottom line for me is unless you’re a prophet or son of a prophet, you don’t know how all of this will be interpreted and applied by armies of lawyers, judges, law clerks and law enforcement across the states.  The mere fact that so many good minds are coming up with so many different interpretations and potential problems doesn’t bode well for the law.  I warned you about this.

Finally, here is the most serious warning.  I work with the federal government on at least a semi-regular basis, and when not, I am doing things that follow federal regulation, even though highly technical (the specific nature of what I do is not the subject and won’t be discussed).

For most people who never work with federal agencies and departments, ignorance is bliss.  But for those who do, they know that the nasty little secret about the federal government has to do with lawmaking by regulation.

Laws are passed by the Senate and Congress.  But after laws pass, thousands of lawyers inside the beltway go to work writing regulations based on those laws, or not, using the law as a pretext for further regulation that Congress didn’t specifically intend.  At times, Congress has even had to pass laws undoing regulations because the regulations don’t meet the intent of the law, and yet the executive branch won’t stop enforcing that regulation (or class of regulations).

Regulation is passed merely by entering them into the federal register, allowing a waiting time for public comments (which are nothing but a chance afforded to the authors of the regulations to ignore them or write sarcastic rebuttals), and then after the waiting period, it takes on the force of law including prosecution, fines and imprisonment for failure to follow them.

This happens every day, all over the nation, and in the DOT, NRC, EPA, DOJ, ATF, DHS, and other departments and agencies that the reader cannot even name and didn’t know existed.  Any law giving the executive branch the authority to further regulate firearms will be an opportunity for abuse, overreach and exploitation.

Take it from someone who has seen it.  Don’t trust the Leviathan.  It is a monster and it has monstrous intentions.

This law doesn’t deserve the support of any serious gun owner.  It empowers the Leviathan, and as I have warned you, don’t trust the Leviathan.  If you do you’re a fool.

Prior: No, There Is No Compromise On Guns

One writer at Toledo Blade weighs in with a plea:

I’m still picking buckshot out of my hide from gun-rights advocates — I didn’t say “gun nuts” — who hated my March 31 column about how easy it is to buy an assault-style rifle with 30-round magazines.

Many readers even accused me, and The Blade, of breaking federal law by making a straw purchase of the AR-15 assault-style rifle I bought at a gun show last month. They also asked what the hell I planned to do with it.

To clear the air, it was my gun — not The Blade’s — though the company reimbursed the $1,200 I paid for it. Last week, I donated the weapon to the Toledo Police Department, handing it off to Sgt. Tom Kosmyna and Officer Roger White at the police range in the Scott Park District station.

It sounds to me like he is confessing to a straw purchase, but we’ll leave that issue behind for a moment.  He ends his rambling rant with the the following demand.

… we have to agree to do something. Maybe if we stop screaming at each other, we can find some common ground on guns.

You’re right. I am crazy.

He says that he wants many more gun laws, and so do some Senators.  They have a plan to persuade the others to go along with them.

One of the senators behind the compromise proposal to expand background checks on gun purchases will mount a Senate floor sales pitch Monday, part of a lobbying effort to ensure passage for the key piece of a larger guns bill when it comes to a vote this week.

When the Senate convenes Monday afternoon, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W. Va.) plans to take to the floor to go through his proposal piece-by-piece to dispel what he considers misrepresentations from critics of tighter gun laws. He’ll then challenge colleagues who have any questions to come to join him in the chamber for an open debate, and stay there for as long as it takes to satisfy concerns.

Manchin’s move to mount a kind of reverse filibuster in favor of his proposal aims to get ahead of critics as the Senate opens what could be a weeks-long process of considering alternative proposals that would either strengthen or weaken the legislation.

Manchin’s plan is essentially the same as the aforementioned writer.  Talk enough and everyone will eventually agree to agree, or agree to disagree but go along, or something like that.  And despite the fact that I have pointed out the inherent weakness in the language of the bill (see “notwithstanding”), Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation staked an authorship claim to the bill.

Cover, as they see it.  Toomey needs it, and thinks it will be enough, and I sense a problem with Manchin.  This has turned into his centerpiece legislation, and he knows that he either needs to convince gun owners that it’s okay, or succeed for Mr. Obama so that he has a place in the administration if he becomes so toxic in West Virginia that he can no longer function or live there.

But the reason our writer at Toledo Blade received such criticism is that the polls are wrong, and there is no cover.  Senator Chris Murphy puts the order like this: “The N.R.A., doing the bidding of the industry, ratchets up paranoia about government so that those people will go out and buy more guns.”

Murphy has it all wrong.  The NRA is hearing from its constituency (that would be us), and the firearms manufacturers do our bidding.  We’re the boss.  A firearm hasn’t been fully vetted until it hits the American civilian market (the military forces its folks to use the bidder of choice), and the manufacturers respond to us.  They make what we want.  They earn our money, and if you think that we sit back and wait for the manufacturers to tell us what to think, just ask Smith and Wesson what happened as a result of their agreement with the Clinton administration.

Having Alan Gottlieb on their side won’t work.  There is no cover large enough to protect them.  More talk won’t convince us to take part in their intentions, or to approve those who do.  As long as common ground or compromise means more gun laws (as opposed to repeal of some of the ones we already have), there is no common ground, and there is no compromise.

No new gun laws.  Period.  No compromise, no vacillation.  It’s more than the proposed bill being a “slippery slope.”  It is that, but it’s more.  The law itself does nothing for crime, and universal background checks (and the corollary national gun registry) empower the government rather than the people.  As one writer put it:

This entire gun-control farce is a rigged, premeditated sham, and the outcome was determined before a single page of this legislative abortion hit the senate floor. The bill itself is a convoluted mess, with ambiguous terms, poorly worded and broad declarations, and is nothing less than an article of outright tyranny that no civil and liberty loving patriot should be able to peacefully tolerate. This is by deliberate design. Easy to follow, clear, and reasonable laws are not a tool tyrants can easily exploit or profit from.

Because this law would empower the federal government and interfere with our rights, it would be what we call an intolerable act.  You cannot talk us into agreeing with an intolerable act regardless of how emotionally you present your case or how long you persevere, and you’re warned to tread carefully.

These are very dangerous times we’re approaching.

Prior: The Coming Federal Gun Registry

UPDATE: David Kopel writing at The Volokh Conspiracy.

The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:

1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.

2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.

Let’s start with registration. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text.

(c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
“(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
“(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
“(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
“(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius  it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations.  For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.

Which of course is what I’ve been saying, although not in as much detail.  Read it all.  On and on it goes.  The bill is more than just a sellout.  It’s Fascism, plain and simple.