OXON HILL, Md. (AP) — The head of the National Rifle Association is attacking President Barack Obama's call for mandatory background checks for gun owners.The 'reasonable measure' proposed by Our Dear Leader would mandate background checks (by NCIS) on the majority, if not all, transfers of firearms. [A February 10, 2013 USA TODAY article pointed out that the presidential proposal recognized"...common-sense exceptions for cases like certain transfers between family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes."]
The NRA's Wayne LaPierre says those who favor mandatory background checks may be, quote, "insane."
LaPierre says background checks won't make schools safer. Instead, he says, the checks will let the government tax gun owners or take their weapons. He spoke to activists Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in suburban Washington.
Obama has called on Congress to tighten gun laws following the Connecticut school shooting that killed 26 children and educators. The president supports a series of reforms, including mandatory background checks and a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Conservatives say they are increasingly confident Congress will reject any reforms
Unfortunately, as is the case of virtually ALL of the Obama Initiated Legislation (eg: Obamacare), the president finds it comfortable to casually throw out vague reassurances. We're not confident that these exceptions would actually appear in the statute, let alone that they will be recognized, understandable, or satisfactorily comprehensive.
"He Was For It, Until He Was Against It"
{note: all links in this article open on a separate page}
The MSM, not only the Liberal Press (but then, I repeat myself) has had a field day for the past six weeks, with an earlier statement by the NRA than much of the membership "was in favor of Universal Background Checks".
In point of fact, many (if not most) gun shows are now including a requirement for vendors (those who rent a vendor table, whether they are a federally licensed dealer or not) to include a "National Criminal Background Check" for every firearm transaction, These transactions are usually stranger-to-stranger transactions. Yes, they are still "private transactions:, but most of us who are honest citizens have no problem with the current procedure ... which merely checks the identify of the buyer in order to check that there is no criminal background on the part of the buyer (hence the name "Criminal Background Check").
BY FEDERAL LAW, all details of a successful transaction MUST be deleted within a relatively short period of time (hours, not weeks) and the information must not be made available to ANYONE outside the system, no matter the apparent justification.
In other words, there are NO elements of record keeping which include tracking information; no governmental agency can subsequently search a database to see who has how many guns, let alone their description and/or serial number.
The value of this process is that (1) criminals, and any other person legally ineligible to posess a firearm, can be prevented from completing the transaction; and (2) honest citizens need not be concerned that a future oppressive agency might apply ex post facto laws to past transactions. This also applies to a future "re-interpretation" of existing law.
(Note that EX POST FACTO laws are specifically prohibited by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.of the Constitution of the United Stats of America.)
What this means, is that when NRA members and their representatives say that they have no serious objection to application of NCBC laws to gun-show firearms transaction, they are speaking within the framework of a narrow definition. That is to say, we (firearms owners, sellers, and buyers) consider it a "responsible policy" to make a NCBC part oe normal "cost of doing business" in this context,
However, that is NOT to say that we are willing to allow the Federal, State, or Local government stick their Imperial Noses into Our Business. (If the Cow Palace, Sports Arena or other host organization which owns the property wherein the Gun Show is hosted decides that a NCBC is required for all transactions, then the sponsoring organization has the choice of accepting the conditional use permit or finding a different venue; it's a private matter, to be adjudicated between the responsible parties ... but NOT by The Feds!) Under the auspices of the Second Amendment, that's as it should be. And no, the "Commerce Clause does not, and should not, apply here.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government and their useful idiots minions (the MSM), have been working very hard to make it appear as though "we" have changed our tune.
In a disgraceful parody of the rightful approbation applied to Senator John Kerry (he served in Viet Nam), they have literally misinterpreted the circumstances [A 2004 CNN article provides Kerry's explanation for his comment that "I actually did vote for the $87 BILLION dollars, before I voted against it:]T
The two situations ... NRA's apparent "flip flop" on "Universal Background Checks" and Kerry's admitted late-date change-of-mind ... are not comparable at all.
What is is, is, that .
"It All Depends On What The Meaning Of 'IS', Is"
In the actual event, the NRA is not entirely comfortable with imposing NCBC status to "gun show" firearm sales, but that was only because efforts of the Federal (and local) governments to impose themselves in the decision-making process Obviously, Big Government does not consider Private Citizens competent to act responsibly in private business transactions,
[Something magical happens when we elect Joe from Next Door to office; he changes from the thinking man we knew when we voted for him, into an elitist snob whose only goal is to make a big splash in The Capital so he will be seen to be "doing something" ... and thus increase his chances of being re-elected to office. Career politicians .. a pox on their houses! Not a universal phenomenon, though; I've been voting for my Democratic Representative Peter DeFazio for 15 years. Not a quote .... merely a private observation.]
I've never been a big fan of Wayne LaPierre, and I've been disappointed by the NRA leadership from time to time over the years.
But here, I think he's ... well, not "bang on", but he's on to SOMETHING. By implication, if not in the important specifics.
It occurs to me that no law is useful without enforcement. Nobody knows HOW many laws exist which make a certain set of circumstances a "crime", but surely if we are required to submit to Executive Oversight (don't fool yourself that its "Merely Administrative") the "administrators" and the enforcement arm must supplement new laws by a means of tracking transactions.
For example, if Joe Blow sells a gun to Joe Sixpack and doesn't report it, then Joe Sixpack is responsible for abiding to all applicable laws, And if someone steals that gun from Joe Sixpack, then (whether or not he reports the theft) according to OTHER proposed laws .. he must report the theft within x-number or hours to the appropriate authorities ... oh, it gets very confusing from this point doesn't it?.
But the enforcement officers can only administer both laws ("Universal Background Checks" and "Reporting Stolen Weapons") if they know that the stolen weapon rightly belongs to Joe Sixpack, and no longer to Joe Blow.. So what happens if Joe Blow is found with the stolen weapon?
So, the authorities must have an audit trail to document that the gun legally belongs to Sixpack, and not to Blow.
That, my friends, demands registration of firearms ownership.
All of the evils associated with registration may be applied, even (or especially) those which perhaps were never expected by the elitist snobs who enacted the law (because they had nothing better to do today, and thought that they had to make something up and declare that they had done it "for the children".)
Who suffers?
Both Joes suffer.. And their families suffer, including their children, because the Two Joes had broken the law, and that is a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment, and/or other penalties yet to be named. And these are circumstances which the elitist snobs are completely ignoring. The primary wage-earners of two families are convicted of violating an unjust, arbitrary law. A law which serves NO useful purpose because until this not-unlikely set of circumstances applied, neither man was a "criminal". But they are now!
OH.
And, of course, they will confiscate the gun.
SUMMARY:
The MSM castigates Wayne LaPierre because he rants and raves and rails against potential governmental injustice, which Our Dear Leader is determined to impose upon us arbitrarily because he believes that only the Government can properly administer The New Laws.
They call LaPierre crazy, because he predicts abuse and injustice and a lot of other stuff. (Yes, the Chinese may hack the database, but I don't believe that's the worst thing that can happen.)
I don't fear the competence of the Chinese government as much as I fear the incompetence of our own government!
[I leave you with this one final link, If you have avoided all others, I encourage you to search here . to see what great minds and patriots have historically had to say about laws both good and bad.]
