Max McGuire writing for The Federalist.

People often ask me why I am so unwilling to “compromise” on gun control. In reality, I’m not. A compromise is supposed to mean both sides of an argument get something out of the deal. Neither side gets everything they want, but they both at least get something.

When people ask me what I would be willing to compromise on, I give them a simple answer: I would trade tougher background checks in exchange for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity. If we are going to create a system where every gun purchaser is fully vetted through the FBI’s background check system, then we should give those vetted and trusted gun owners the right to carry their guns nationwide.

And this is why compromise means that gun control always wins.

He’s willing to trade universal background checks for a system of federal licensing on guns, which national reciprocity is (where the FedGov decides who can carry and what the requirements must be in lieu of states’ rights).

So he gives up something in order to give up something else.  That’s why the controllers always win at the compromise game.  People willing to give up recognition of rights.

The Washington Post:

The White House has been briefed on a proposal to develop a way to identify early signs of changes in people with mental illness that could lead to violent behavior.

[ … ]

The proposal is part of a larger initiative to establish a new agency called the Health Advanced Research Projects Agency or HARPA, which would sit inside the Health and Human Services Department. Its director would be appointed by the president, and the agency would have a separate budget, according to three people with knowledge of conversations around the plan.

HARPA would be modeled on DARPA, the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency that serves as the research arm of the Pentagon and collaborates with other federal agencies, the private sector and academia.

The attempt to use volunteer data to identify “neurobehavioral signs” of “someone headed toward a violent explosive act” would be a four-year project costing an estimated $40 million to $60 million, according to Geoffrey Ling, the lead scientific adviser on HARPA and a founding director of DARPA’s Biological Technologies Office.

“Everybody would be a volunteer,” Ling said in an interview. “We’re not inventing new science here. We’re analyzing it so we can develop new approaches.

“This is going to have to be done using scientific rigor,” he said.

But there are plenty of researchers and mental health experts who believe that mental health and gun violence aren’t necessarily linked.

Mental illness can sometimes be a factor in such violent acts, experts say, but it is rarely a predictor — most studies show that no more than a quarter of mass shooters have a diagnosed mental illness. More commonly shared attributes of mass shooters include a strong sense of resentment, desire for notoriety, obsession with other shooters, a history of domestic violence, narcissism and access to firearms.

[ … ]

Wright sees Ivanka Trump as the most effective champion of the proposal and has previously briefed her on HARPA himself, Wright said.

“It would be perfect for her to do it — we need someone with some horsepower — someone like her driving it. … It could get done,” said one official familiar with the conversations. “We’d be able to put every resource of federal government, from the highest levels of the scientific community to say: ‘This is how people with these problems should be treated and have limited access to firearms.’ ”

The document goes on to list a number of widely used technologies it suggests could be employed to help collect data, including Apple Watches, Fitbits, Amazon Echo and Google Home. The document also mentions “powerful tools” collected by health-care provides like fMRIs, tractography and image analysis.

“Advanced analytical tools based on artificial intelligence and machine learning are rapidly improving and must be applied to the data,” states the document.

Big brother is watching you.  And listening.  And profiling.  And trying to predict your behavior.

I must remind readers that trying to predict the future is called divination in the Holy Writ, and it is considered wicked because only God ordains and knows the future.  Such actions attempt to place man in the position of God, usurping His authority and knowledge.  It is high-handed sin, shaking your fist at the Almighty.  God will not bless it, and it won’t be used for anything good.

Furthermore, we’ve discussed how “mental illness” bears no correlation to propensity to violence, and it’s bigoted and prejudiced to think that way of people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill.

Finally, turning to something like this might be called Orwellian by some, but I tend to lean more towards witchcraft and sorcery.  Trump has stated unequivocally that people who do this are mentally ill.  He doesn’t know this, and he’s in no position to decide.

But he’s turning to witchcraft for help, really no different than turning to palm readers.  The legacy Trump will leave behind will be bump stock bans, universal background checks, appointment of a controller to head the ATF, and now HARPA.  The communists are watching with jealousy, wishing they could have done this.

Desert Sun:

A Riverside man attending a firearms training class to get his concealed weapons permit was accidentally shot by a Riverside County Sheriff’s Department trainer, the department told The Desert Sun.

On Aug. 10, the man, identified only as a civilian, was participating in a course at the Ben Clark Training Center’s gun range in Riverside.

According to a department news release issued in response to questions from The Desert Sun, gun range staff inspect students’ firearms during the course and students are instructed to unload their guns.

During the inspection, the range staff member — a civilian instructor the department did not identify  — administered a “trigger pull test” and shot the student in the leg. Range staff initially treated the injured man.

And he’s training the Sheriff’s Department.  The “trigger pull test.”

David Codrea:

That makes it fair to ask – and expect answers to – how many cases are solved based on traces. How many perpetrators have been convicted that would otherwise not have been had ATF not identified a name gleaned from a retailer’s 4473 copy? Intuitively, if you catch the perp, it would seem you’ve solved the case. Ditto, what percentage of guns found at the scene trace back to the “retail purchaser” who is either guilty or able to provide a useful lead to who is? Factoring in the costs of these operations, how much does that work out to per solved crime?

So how’d you like that tweed suit?  And the extreme unction with which they work?  Is this good use of your tax money?

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.

Politico.

I’m a long-time gun rights proponent with pretty solid credentials. I lobbied for the NRA. I am the president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association and I even gave Ronald Reagan his first shooting lesson with a customized AR-15 when I ran the Firearm Industry’s Trade Association in 1992. I am also someone who has worked successfully on bipartisan gun control measures, specifically a child safety lock agreement supported by Bill Clinton, which explains in part why I am also a former NRA lobbyist.

So now that he’s established his creds, let’s take a look at what he’s proposing to mend the wounds that America suffers.

Today’s current gun control mantra is “universal background checks.” The Brady law passed in 1993 mandated background checks for gun purchasers at retail gun shops. These transactions are commercial in nature and generally between strangers—the firearms dealer and the buyer. Twenty years ago, the firearms industry (and even the NRA) supported these checks at gun shows as well as retail gun shops, but the original legislation extended only to federally licensed dealers, with no attempt made to extend that jurisdiction to nondealers. Today, you’ll find gun owners support background checks for all commercial transactions. That includes gun shows, flea markets and internet sales purchases. Strangers can’t possibly know the backgrounds of the buyer and these checks can prevent the unintentional transfer of a gun to a disqualified individual.

But when the word “universal” is used, gun owners rebel. Why? They don’t want to be turned into criminals for giving a firearm to their wife, their kids or their parents without a background check—which is exactly what they fear could happen if a law mandates background checks for all gun sales in the U.S.

So why not extend the Brady background check to all commercial sales, including gun shows, internet sales and flea markets, while carefully and responsibly crafting exemptions for relatives, friends and co-workers whom the seller has personally known for more than a year? And in cases where there is some doubt about the relationship, let’s encourage people to get the checks by giving them the same liability protection when crimes are committed with those guns that retail dealers have now. Compromise, that dirty word, means we both get something in the transaction that’s useful to us.

With these exemptions in place, opposition would be diminished, and legislation based on sound policy not “gotcha politics” will more easily be enacted. Most importantly, disqualified individuals would find it harder (though admittedly not impossible) to obtain guns. Isn’t that what we seek?

So right out of the gate, he proposes a compromise.  Extend the background check to all sales.  Give up person-to-person sales as long as there is an exemption for family gifts.  In other words, universal background checks.  Just don’t call it that – it’ll get everybody on my side riled up.

“Red Flag Laws” are getting a lot of attention, but I prefer the term Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). Something about the words “red flag” reminds me of “red herring.” But there’s a good reason for them. The theory behind this initiative is that people sometimes give us useful signals that they intend to commit violence—whether it’s against themselves or others—and if we act upon those signals by removing their guns we might sometimes prevent tragedies. But gun owners have legitimate fears that the system can be abused to their detriment. In order to amplify the good and minimize the bad, we need to build safeguards against a surveillance state that, in the wake of 9/11, has proved susceptible to overreach. If the process becomes punitive, not salutary, faith in the stated objective is defeated and people loss more respect for the laws and any changes are seen as new retributions to be opposed from the get go. A detailed description of a workable and fair policy can be found in David French’s article “A Gun-Policy Measure Conservatives Should Consider” from National Review of February of last year.

So, let’s put a few things in places to keep the Leviathan state from overreaching and prevent abuses, and we’ll support these confiscatory policies.  David French says so.  And so does he.

Sheesh.  With friends like this, who needs enemies?  Is it any wonder with “Lobbyists” like this, we’ve been compromised almost to the point of no return?

CNN:

Three more National Rifle Association leaders have stepped down, CNN has learned, in a broadening of a leadership exodus amid a controversy over the group’s spending.

Country music singer and NRA board member Craig Morgan has resigned, sources with knowledge of the matter tell CNN, and NASCAR team owner Richard Childress stepped down on Monday. David Lehman, the deputy executive director and general counsel at the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, also is leaving the organization, the sources tell CNN.

Both Morgan and Childress were prominent public faces for the NRA. Morgan appeared frequently on the group’s now-defunct streaming video service NRATV and even hosted his own program on the network. Lehman was the deputy to then executive director Chris Cox, who resigned in June and was also the NRA’s top lobbyist. Lehman was filling the role of top lobbyist when he departed the organization.

NRA President Carolyn Meadows puts a happy face on this, but the defections are beginning to add up, and the “we’re all still bestest friends … really, I promise” resignation statements are becoming almost amusing.  What are we down to now – perhaps only several hundred members of the board left?  How can they function?

The real question issue this: they must be hemorrhaging money by now.  How long do they circle the wagons, and how long does Wayne “ride the tiger?”  Will he kill the tiger, or will it turn around and eat him?

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.