Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Time.com.

An aide tracked down LaPierre, and soon LaPierre’s voice was coming through the gray speaker phone on the Resolute Desk. Trump and aides ran down the list of actions the White House is considering. The White House tried to impress upon LaPierre that Trump was “in a good place” and had staff working on the proposals who were concerned about the Second Amendment, mental health, and solving the problem of mass shootings, the senior White House official said.

“What we are talking about is meaningful background checks that would actually go to prevent [shootings like] Sandy Hook or El Paso or Parkland. Those are things we can work on that have cause and effect,” a second White House official told TIME. “This wasn’t Wayne LaPierre dictating to us. We were telling him, ‘Here are the things we are looking at, how big of a fight are you going to put up?’ For most of them, he was like, ‘Whatever you say.’ For a couple, he said, ‘I don’t know about that, I haven’t seen that one yet.’”

[ … ]

But by Wednesday, Trump’s tune had changed. “I have an appetite for background checks,” he said.

Sounds like Wayne didn’t put up much of a fight.

Yahoo.com.

Trump confirmed that he discussed background checks with Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, but he disputed news reports that he told LaPierre that background checks were off the table.

“I have an appetite for background checks,” Trump said from the White House South Lawn as he departed for an event in Louisville, Kentucky. “We’re going to be doing background checks. … We’re going to be filling in some of the loopholes.”

Hmm .. “loopholes.”  Sounds like he’s adopted the gun controllers’ lingo.

Very well.  One term president.  Can you sense that excitement to go out and vote among the people three years ago ebbing away?

In Utah.

After a rash of mass shootings last month, Gov. Gary Herbert said Wednesday all gun control measures should be on the table for discussion.

Speaking at his monthly KUED news conference, the governor specifically mentioned proposals such as expanded background checks and age limits. He also brought up extreme risk protection orders, or “red flag” laws, which allow law enforcement to temporarily confiscate the weapons of someone deemed a danger to themselves or others.

“I think all of those things are going to be at the heart of the discussion,” Herbert said, adding that “we need to take some action.”

So readers in Utah may want to prepare for this.  The more disappointing one for me is Greg Abbot.

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday raised concern about private firearm sales but didn’t commit to crack down on them or act on gun control issues following a meeting on ways to prevent mass shootings such as the El Paso attack that killed 22 people.

[ … ]

Right now there is nothing in law that would prevent one stranger from selling a gun to a terrorist, and obviously that’s a danger that needs to be looked into,” Abbott said.

Yea, that’s exactly what happens in 99% person-to-person transfers.  A stranger sells a gun to a terrorist.

As I said, Abbot is the real disappointment here.  I wouldn’t have guessed this of him, but here we are.  It’s the thing to do – something needs to be done, and right now.  So since terrorists don’t announce their intentions or wear shirts identifying themselves, we’ll just have to prohibit Bob from selling Frank that gun he always wanted to buy from him.  Unless, of course, the FedGov gets their say, and their cut.

The Washington Post.

President Trump talked Tuesday with National Rifle Association chief executive Wayne LaPierre and assured him that universal background checks were off the table, according to several people familiar with the call.

Trump told LaPierre that the White House remained interested in proposals that would address weapons getting into the hands of the mentally ill, including the possibility of backing so-called “red flag” laws that would allow the police to temporarily confiscate guns from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

Well, I have two brief comments.  First, it remains to be seen what is in a bill or bills that finally do pass and which Trump signs into law.  And you know something will eventually pass and get signed into law.  The problem is always in the details, and very smart people craft the details.

Second, if this is true, that’s good, but not enough.  Rejecting UBC while also signing FedGov red flag laws will leave Trump with this gun control legacy: Bump stock ban, appointment of a second amendment-hater to head the ATF, and FedGov red flag laws.

I wouldn’t want to run for office on that legacy.

Washington Examiner.

Some House Democrats will return early from the summer recess to advance gun control legislation, including a bill banning large ammunition magazines.

The House Judiciary Committee announced a Sept. 4 vote on a group of measures aimed at reducing gun violence.

“For far too long, politicians in Washington have only offered thoughts and prayers in the wake of gun violence tragedies,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said. “Thoughts and prayers have never been enough. To keep our communities safe, we must act.”

The Democratic-led House passed a universal background check bill in February, but the GOP-led Senate has ignored it so far due to a lack of significant Republican support.

House Democrats are nonetheless ready to advance additional gun control measures. Nadler, a Democrat from New York, said he’ll take up a measure that would ban high-capacity ammunition magazines which were used in a string of deadly mass shootings this summer.

The committee will vote to advance the measure on Sept. 4 and plans a Sept. 25 hearing on banning “military-style assault weapons,” Nadler said.

Nadler will also hold a Sept. 4 vote on the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would provide grants to encourage states to impose “red flag” laws allowing law enforcement to remove weapons from people who are deemed dangerous to themselves or others. The panel will also consider a measure that would establish procedures for obtaining extreme risk protection orders in federal court.

Finally, lawmakers will vote to advance the Disarm Hate Act, which would block the sale of guns to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime.

UBC, red flag laws, a new AWB, and gun ban for people who have said the wrong thing over social media.  This is a veritable cornucopia of gun control.

Good.  Let’s see just what everybody does now.  It’s upon us, and will continue to be upon us for years to come.  This will be a good time for flushing the communists out of the closet.

Townhall.

All we ask in exchange for Universal Background Checks is this: Stop collecting data about who’s buying what guns.  It’s like HIPPA privacy for gun owners.  A background check doesn’t require a database on gun owners and serial numbers any more than liquor laws require the government to know how often I buy my preferred spirit.

For ten bucks, any seller could phone in a buyer’s driver’s license number to find out whether the buyer’s prohibited from buying a gun (appallingly, the current check system is off limits to responsible private sellers wishing to conduct a check).  The new system could even be used by anyone to check out a babysitter or contractor.  This system would record only that the ID was checked and issued a confirmation number.   The seller can keep the confirmation as a defense to a false charge of selling to an unqualified buyer.  The system knows only that someone was checked but has no idea if they even bought a gun, let alone what model or serial number.

Stop there, and that’s the compromise we usually get: They get most of what they want, and we get nothing.   So here’s the real compromise: even firearms dealers will no longer have to keep a record (known as Form 4473) of who bought what – those eventually end up in government hands for databasing.  The dealer verifies his customer by ID, (just like a liquor retailer who cards a customer) but gun purchases are private.

Win-win.  We win our tyranny insurance, and they win the public safety they swear is their goal.  But their opposition to this type of genuine compromise belies their true goal of political control that requires their opponents to be disarmed.

Cue the crickets.

It’s difficult to tell from the rest of the commentary whether the author is playing a thought-game or he’s serious that he’d accept UBC with those stipulations.

But don’t speak for me.  I don’t accept UBC under any conditions.  That means any conditions.

Via David Codrea, I already knew this but it bears repeating.

The CFR and other illegal immigration supporting groups have made it clear that open-borders, global and regional governance over America, Amnesty for illegals, and full gun confiscation are their top agenda items.

I’ve told y’all about the CFR before.  Beware an organization like this one.

“The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence, and submergence into an all-powerful one-world government.”

I’ve mentioned the CFR when discussing child trafficking, precious gems, precious metals, oil pipelines, various military contractors, etc.  Members of the CFR include employees at the U.S. Department of State, Saudi oil tycoons, U.S. journalists, high ranking members of the U.S. military or former military (Petraeus, McMaster, etc.), former VPs (Dick Cheney), owners of large businesses in the military industrial complex, and on the list could go.  It’s the closest thing to a public face on the “deep state” as you’ll find.

They all want the same thing for you and yours.

NY Daily News.

An assault weapons ban that Democratic leaders have been reluctant to advance despite strong support among their rank-and-file members in the House just got its first Republican backer — Long Island Rep. Pete King.

You’re a liar, because you want LEOs to have whatever they want.  So you do see a need, not just a need for commoners to have what the rulers have.

Ammoland.

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was notifying him that they have suspended his concealed handgun permit.

“On or about August 12th, 2019 in Osceola County, Florida, an injunction was entered restraining you from acts of domestic violence or acts of repeat violations,” the notice read.

The letter shocked Carpenter, who has never had a run-in with the law.

“When I opened the letter stating my CCW was suspended, I was shocked and confused,” Carpenter told AmmoLand News.

Figuring it was a mistake, Carpenter called the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to clear things up since he has never committed domestic violence against anyone. The representative told him he had to get a form from the Clerk of the Courts saying that there weren’t any actions against him.

Carpenter headed to Clerk of the Court’s office to retrieve the required form. When he got there, the Clerk informed him that there was an injunction against a Jonathan Edward Carpenter.

“What do I have to do to prove that you have the wrong Jonathan Edward Carpenter?” he asked the Clerk.

The Clerk instructed Carpenter to go downstairs to talk to the Osceola County Sheriff’s office to clear things up. Carpenter still figuring that it was just a mistake that the Sheriff’s office could quickly clear up went and spoke with him.

The Sheriff’s office supplied Carpenter with a copy of the injunction. In the statement, the plaintiff stated that she rented a room out to a “Jonathan Edward Carpenter” and his girlfriend. She alleged that this Carpenter was a drug dealer who broke her furniture and sold her belongings without her permission. He had a gun, and she feared for her life. She was not sure if the firearm was legal or not.

Read the rest.  And he still doesn’t have his firearms back.  I know I feel safer today.  Do you?

CNN:

Rex gives them.