Southern Border Alerts: "Why So Lying?"

Recent events have shown that people lie to enter the U.S. across our southern borders.

No surprise here, but the extent of dishonesty seems to be ramping up to become a major problem.

Homeland Security to test DNA of families at border in cases of suspected fraud - Nick Miroff: WASHINGTON - Homeland Security officials said Wednesday they will start an "unprecedented" pilot program to test the DNA of families arriving at the U.S. border as soon as next week, calling the measure an investigative tool to root out fraudulent cases of migrants traveling with children who are not their own.

[emphasis added]

Coyotes?

When people present themselves for immigration, they usually come either in singles, or as families.  If the "head of the family" meets the criteria for immigration, it's assumed that the rest of his/her family equally qualified (for whatever reasons the head can prove at border checkpoints).

As a general rule, it's easier for a "family" to receive permission to immigrate to the United States than for a "single male".  

(For example, a single male may have "business" reasons to emigrate, while a family is more likely to have "social", "Economic" and/or "Survival" issues which might be alleviated by leaving a lawless environment.)

DNA TESTING: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?

If you watch enough "cop shows", you may assume that a match between a sample and a "standard" can be accomplished in a relatively short time.  Other sources suggest that it is a very long process.

One source says:

For a standard test (testing one possible father with one child) a highly-accredited lab should return DNA paternity test results in 1-2 business days once all samples are received. While the best DNA labs can provide results in 1-2 days, others can take 3-12 weeks or even longer, and for a higher price!May 22, 2018

Another source says:
(two to three business weeks)

https://dnacenter.com/blog/long-take-get-dna-paternity-test-results/


SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION but the answer is it takes more than a day and may takes weeks ... because it's not a simple "GO/NO GO" process.   Also, it requires a fairly sophisticated laboratory with special equipment (or so I've been lead to believe) and in the end it requires ...  "interpretation".

First Conclusion:  When the Southern Border Patrol needs to rely on DNA testing to determine whether all members of a "family" are truly close-relations, it's not a minor matter.  And it's not fast, and it's not cheap.

Second Conclusion: DNA matching is probably the last resource for the Border Patrol, and not the least expensive, when they're trying to prove that one person is a genetic member of another person's family.

Third Conclusion:  That I have entirely too much "Free Time" on my hands

What Gun Owners Don't Like About "Universal Background Checks"

UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION!

The thing that ticks me off about Background Checks is that the purpose is suppose to ensure that an individual who buys a gun is checked to insure that he's not a felon, or a crazy, etc. ... but what actually happens is that it turns into de facto registration of the firearm.

(Note that if someone is trying to privately sell an illegal firearm, he's sure not going to do a background check on YOU!)

The folks who respond to your background check swear upon the life of their sainted mother that they are not after your guns, so they don't keep permanent records of the transaction.

So why do they need the make, model and SERIAL NUMBER of the gun?   Their sole purpose is to validate YOUR right to legally own a firearm.

Do YOU believe they don't keep a permanent database?  Oh, perhaps not ALL of the data is permanently reserved .... but your name (etc) and the serial number (etc) are data items they will delete? 

The  Feds are like old ladies who cannot bear to throw away something they might need some day?
And do you believe them when they say:

"We are the United States of America ... why would we lie to you?"

(Notice they don't say they are NOT lying to you.)

And by the way, why do we have to go through a licensed gun dealer to sell a private firearm?  Why can't we do our own background check?  Invasion of privacy issues?   As if the feds aren't already invading our privacy.

NJT got it right:

New Jovian Thunderbolt: Grow the Second Amendment:

How bout getting rid of backdoor registration? Tie gun ownership to gun owners, rather than to guns.  You NICS check a person, not a purchase.  And gun owner they check should be people that are about to own a gun, or might want to in the future.  Does this 'gun owner' have a gun or is about to?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  

Trump Angst

During the Election Season last year, I admitted online that I was conflicted about my presidential vote.  Should I give my vote to "The Donald", who knows how to make money but is relatively clueless about how to be a president?

Or should I give my vote to "The Hillary Beast", who knows how to run a country but would run it in a direction I could not accept?

Ultimately, I voted for "Not Hillary".   And now I ... and the rest of America who faced the same difficult choice ... are paying the price.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's frightening and tightening legal noose | Fox News:

The Donald Trump I know is a smart guy who often thinks a few steps ahead of those whose will he is trying to bend. But I lately wonder whether he grasps the gravity of the legal peril that is beginning to show up around him. In the past week, we learned of an unfiltered public confession of frustration and weakness among his lawyers and we learned that his former chief confidant and campaign manager is about to be indicted. This is very bad news for President Trump.

I'm disappointed in President Trump, and I'm angry when people criticize him for his (so far) poor performance as a president.   I agree, though, that this is one of the most inept presidents we've been saddled with since ... oh, I don't know ... the Peanut Farmer?
(Jimmy Carter)

Considering the alternative, though, I continue to believe that Trumps failures to live up to his promises is the less painful outcome, compared with a potential Hillary-beast presidency.

Trump fails to live up to his promise; if Hillary had lived up to HER promise, it would be an even more grim America.

There's an old mantra about the balance between competence vs intelligence, and the mantrix I found was in reference to military officers. Generally, it looks like this:

 In self-help books I have repeatedly seen a two-by-two matrix used to evaluate individuals. The four elements in the matrix were labeled: Brilliant & Lazy, Brilliant & Energetic, Dumb & Lazy, and Dumb & Energetic. Curiously, the brilliant and lazy were extolled above all others.

Politically speaking, you can substitute "Industrious" with "Ambitious", and "Stupid" with

Generally speaking:

Any officer who is clever and industrious is destined to positions of great responsibility, while an officer who is clever but lazy will do no great harm because he won't seek a position of responsibility.

An officer who is stupid but lazy will not have the desire (or energy) to do harm.  (In the political field, they will not run for high public office ... nor be elected; usually.)

But an officer who is stupid but Industrious will have the will to make changes, but lack the wit to avoid endangering his men.

Trump, I believe, falls under the "Smart and Industrious".   He chose to make money, and used his fiscal position to achieve positions of great power.

Hillary falls under "Stupid and Industrious".  

She chose to make her mark in the political scene, which gave her a similar position of great power. But as much as people tend to consider her 'smart' ... she took the easy route to power; she chose to seek popularity rather than industriousness.

She did not create wealth; it was donated to her.

Hillary did not create wealth for herself or others (except for the wealth she acquired which came from political contributions)

Politics is a Funny Game:

You can win it in one of two ways:
1: you can win it with Money, which Trump did;
2: or you can win it with the cult of your personality, which Hillary almost did.

But the difference is ... the Thinking Voters have to TRUST the candidate.

Nobody trusted Hillary.

Nobody trusted Trump, either,  but Hillary's history of lies and deceits worked against her so strongly that she could not escape her own past actions.

Ultimately, Donald Trump is President of the United States not because he was trusted, but because he was Not Hillary!

Personally, I would have voted for The Man In The Moon before I voted for Hillary, because she had no political or moral compass, and her past actions proved that she was not the right person to lead our country in the coming years.

Does Trump have the moral values to deserve this high office?  I don't know.

But I do know who does NOT have sufficient moral values to represent my birth nation; and she lost.

"Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting"

John Lott's Website: In the Chicago Tribune: "Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting":

Dr. John Lott has another op-ed in the Chicago Tribune based on part of the testimony that he will be giving on Tuesday morning to President's Commission on Voter Integrity in New Hampshire.  

Essentially: since Liberals believe personal background checks do not infringe on the civil rights of citizens who wish to purchase a firearms ... why not use the same mechanism to validate the civil rights of citizens who wish to vote?

Interesting concept, worth reading a short article.

Just ... go read the whole thing.

Welcome to "The System"; you are a prospective felon

(I have a hard time responding directly to posts on this "... The Porch ..." blog, but it's a serious gunblogger site and deserves serious discussion: this is the best way I could find to initiate a dialogue.)

View From The Porch: Cooldown Period.:

As far as Universal Background Checks, here's the correct and constitutional way to implement those: Since the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, the default setting is that everyone has it. If someone becomes a felon or is otherwise debarred from arms, then make a NO GUNS ALLOWED black mark on their DL/ID/passport/whatever. Show me an ID without that disclaimer, and you'd be good to go, no background check necessary. And you'd be good to go in all 50 states, at that. I'd trade that for moving suppressors to Title I, repealing the Hughes Amendment, and interstate handgun sales. Hell, I might throw in a 3-day wait on sales from FFL dealers for that package deal.But that's not what the other side means by "compromise".

I may not go quite so far in an attempt to establish a quid pro quo ... but most of the issues you cited are already haunting us, so it's not as if you're being so obdurate that Brady will be able to say:
"The Right Is Not Willing To Negotiate!"

But this negotiation needs to include one single, and essential, change:

Background Checks are supposedly established to determine that the purchaser of a firearm is not a "forbidden person".  (Felon, convicted felon, drug user, madman, alien, etc.)  The intent is all about the purchaser, right?   The manner in which this "PERMISSION" is established, is important, but not critical.

But I do have one question:

 ... why does the form to vet the purchaser require the details of the firearm in question?  Including the make, model, caliber and SERIAL NUMBER?  

The ATF does not NEED this information to confirm the validity of the exchange.    The firearm is blameless; it has no past, no future, and it has never (intentionally) brought harm to any living creature.

The only reason for requiring the (unique) serial number, and the rest of the details about the firearm, is to establish a tracking mechanism as that firearm is exchanged, from one owner to the next.

 And that AFT has a record of every single transaction; firearm, seller, buyer and date.

In a word: REGISTRATION!

I've often said: "Love your Country; Fear your Government".

This is exactly the reason I say that.

Using the thin cover of vetting the buyer of a "used" gun, the Feds have established a method by which every honest firearms owner (past and present) has self-established a trail of ownership.

The only people who aren't in "The System" are criminals, who acquire their firearms by theft or 'black market' transactions (often supplied by theft).

The thing is, eventually every firearm which has been legally sold will be in "The System", and if a couple of steps are missing ... that only serves to provide evidence to a prosecutor that the 'last seller' is probably  may perhaps be a thief.

Not ... necessarily; he may be a person who has held onto the firearm since before this egregious new set of laws were enacted.  Even so, he's still in Deep Doo-Doo because he may not be able to provide a 'chain of ownership to prove that he is the legal owner,.

(Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that just because he's innocent of any wrong-doing, he doesn't need to find a lawyer who asks more for one day of litigation than an entire month of house payments ... and probably car payments, too!)

Love your Country; fear your government.

NC Cops Oppose Constitutional Carry ( they might have seen it coming)

Fraternal Order of Police opposes NC gun permit bill | WCNC.com: CHARLOTTE, N.C.
(June 08, 2017)

New North Carolina gun bill will allow concealed carry without a permit.

But perhaps .. not just now.

(FOP Spokesman): "I just feel like it's going to put a lot more guns on the street readily available that is really not necessary ..." 

The officer may be correct in any or all of his objections; but here's the root of the problem:

 Permits are currently granted to legal gun owners 21 and up, but the vetting process can take months.   (emphasis added)

MONTHS?   What's so hard about a simple NICS check?

So ... these guns will be on the street eventually, right?  So why bitch about the legal process?

Question: What's so special about North Carolina, that they are so slow to respond to a simple background check?

Answer: Any Honest Citizen will revolt against this administrative delay, and refuse to abide by it.

Translation:  they will ignore your silly-ass regulations and do what they think is necessary..
...

This new bill will allow NC citizens to carry without the delay of applying for a Concealed Carry License.  Which benefits the citizens, but the NC Police are reluctant to resist opposing the movement.   Which may, in part, explain the months long delay in granting Concealed Carry licenses in the past.

NC is not serving the interests of their citizens. 
 They get money for processing applications!

Any state must accept that if a citizen is not dis-allowed from purchasing a firearm, they are also not dis-allowed from a Concealed Carry License.  If you can buy a gun, you should be free to carry it.

 It's in the Second Amendment ... you can look it up.

 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Notice that "KEEP" (own) and "BEAR ARMS" (carry) are equivalent.

But it takes NC "Months" to process applications.

North Carolinians,  already frustrated by their attempts to legitimately purchase a firearm, are once again frustrated by the states refusal to promptly vet their right to bear those arms.

It may be that the citizens of the state of North Carolina have lost faith with their 'protectors', and decided to take matters into their own hands.   It's "The American Way", and perhaps part of why the Democrats among us distrust gun owners.

We don't fit their ... whatchamaycallit?  
(Someone please fill in the word; I can't keep up with current liberal hatespeach)

If The State does not trust its citizens, then why should the citizens trust the state?

I don't have and answer to that question.  

Do you?

Anyone?

Washington State Background Check Failure

New Washington State Background Check Failure Reporting Law Raises Questions:

So much for Michael Bloomberg’s I-594 living up to its promises. Not that anyone expected it to have any effect whatsoever on predators. What it did do, aside from forcing “law-abiding” gun owners to give up private transfers, was create and put a new class of “criminal” at risk for life-destroying consequences —the previously “law-abiding” who chose “I will not comply” civil disobedience over submission to new Intolerable Acts.

- David Codrea

Yep.   Look for the same results here in Oregon.   We always tread on Washington's coat tails.

Einstein's Definition of Insanity:  Trying the same thing over again, expecting different results

NOTE:   Also posted by IRONS

How Will We Survive (Another Liar) In The White House?

I don't know about you, but I grow tired of reading comments like this about President-Elect Trump:

How Will 'We' Survive A President Trump?:

“There’s a whole generation of dead queer men and dead poor women of color who didn’t survive Reagan. There’s over a million dead Iraqis who didn’t survive Bush. There’s millions upon millions whose lives were destroyed by the muscular policing policies of Bill Clinton, Margaret Thatcher and Obama. Stop saying ‘we’ survived them. Stop ignoring all those dead, incarcerated and disenfranchised people.” — Dr. Shant Paradigm Smalls

Frankly, I would be surprised to have elected a president who isn't a liar; we haven't elected one recently (with the possible exception of Eisenhower ... but I can't prove that) and we certainly managed to "survive" some proven liars.

 (*cough* Bill "I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman" Clinton *cough*)

Ronald Reagan (for example) may have been one of the most effective leaders of the Modern Era, but I was embarrassed for him when he repeatedly fell back on the "I must have mis-spoken" mantra when he was cross-examined under sworn testimony during congressional hearings on the Iran/Contra controversy.

Obama?

A Short History of Phenomenal Presidential "Mis-Speaking":



The question is not whether we will ever elect a president who is not willing to lie with a straight face, but rather whether we would WANT to elect a president who cannot lie convincingly.

They're all Politicians, and by definition they are all not only liars, but CONSUMMATE liars!


In future years, when I rant about the lies told by President Trump (and I'm sure that I will), you need not remind me that the alternative would have been to to place a second lying-Clinton in the White House.

He was elected President over the Hillary-Beast because he was a better liar.

He couldn't  have done it without her.   And he knows it.

Cops know who has a CHL

The policeman who pulls you over for a traffic offense knows if you have a Concealed Handgun License.

Another “Achtung Juden!” bill. This time from South Carolina. – Gun Free Zone:

TO AMEND SECTION 56-3-1230 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO LICENSE PLATE SPECIFICATIONS, TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES TO ISSUE A STICKER TO EACH CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER WHO IS A VEHICLE OWNER THAT MUST BE AFFIXED TO THE VEHICLE OWNER’S LICENSE PLATE TO INDICATE THE VEHICLE OWNER IS A CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMIT HOLDER.

The point of this bill is moot, and serves no useful purpose (unless you think that everyone should know you have a CHL).

Police routinely call in for a check on the license plate when they pull you over, and the information that the registered owner is a CHL owner is available to them.  You may notice a delay of a minute or two between the time you stop and the time the officer walks forward to talk to you.

The polite and prudent thing for the driver to do *while the cop is checking you out* is to use the time  to gather your drivers license, your insurance card and your CHL and have them in your hand when he approaches your car.

Roll your window down, keep your hands where he can see them.   It's not necessary for you to declare whether you have a weapon on your person; he may assume that is a 'belligerent' statement.

And remember the advice of Patrick Swaze in "Roadhouse":    BE NICE!




(Hat Top: "The Gun Feed")

Let us give Hillary our vote ... and all of our firearms

In the immortal words of Father Francis John Patrick Mulcahy (*M*A*S*H*) ....

Jocularity, Jocularity, Jocularity!

The Hillarity has spoken, and plans to decree gun control by ... well .. decree.

Wikileaks Release: Hillary Clinton Press Sec Says Gun Control to Be Implemented by Executive Order - Breitbart:

Breitbart News has previously reported that Clinton pledged gun control by executive order. She began pushing executive gun control right after the shooting in the Umpqua Community College gun free zone. That incident occurred on October 1, 2015, three days before Fallon’s email that Clinton “would support…closing the gun show loophole by executive order.” This is in line with a Washington Post report that Clinton wants to use executive orders “to go further than Obama” went  on gun control.

Incidentally, the "Gun Show Loophole" played no part in the Oregon massacre (UMPQUA Community College is two hours drive from my home).   The murderer passed all the bells and whistles of the Background Check which had been recently and universally imposed in Oregon.

Good to know that with new restrictions on firearms purchases, nobody in Oregon need fear a massacre.  Other than the one in Roseburg, of course.  But it's not the fault of Oregon Voters ... they already made that a crime!

But I digress.

Hillarity's proposal (we have this only by quotes from by the members of her personal staff) is to require back ground checks on all firearms transfers, both public (dealers) and personal (private citizens who don't sell firearms for a living .... like me giving my .30-30 to my son, etc).

That will surely stop all these nasty massacres which are upsetting the people.

Did I mention that the Umpqua shooter passed a background check?

Is it possible that politicians (Hillary) know that background checks don't constrain mass murderers, but they put us honest firearms owners through massive impositions on the 2nd Amendment just because it makes the politicians look really good on video?

Oh, and the background checks require that the firearms involved be identified by make, model and serial number.   Nobody knows how that affects the verification of the buyer and the seller, but it DOES provide data to a Universal Data Base on who own why firearm.

I suppose it would be petty for us to assume that this is part of the greater plan to populate a registration database.

And ... oh, apropos of absolutely nothing at all:

Barbra Weighs In: The 500 lb Gorilla Speaks!

Barbra Streisand endorses California gun control initiative | The Sacramento Bee:

Barbra Streisand is hoping California voters will soon make gun violence the way we were. In a fundraising email Wednesday, the Oscar-winning actress and singer endorsed Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 63, the November ballot initiative that would institute background checks for ammunition purchases and other new gun control regulations. 

There's something squeaky about The Way We Were: we didn't use to have to wade thorough background checks to purchase ammunition, as Proposition 63 would mandate.

Why would this be an issue?  Is this all about "Gun Control"?

No, it's just about control, and it's an attempt to impose every impediment imaginable in the interest of impeding California Citizens from exercising their constitutional rights to Keep and Bear Arms.

BY THE WAY, this isn't the first time that California legislators have imposed draconian laws to impede the Second Amendment Rights of Californians:

GO SCREW YOURSELF MOMENTS: A Sample

• DROP TEST ... California Legislators made it a law that pistol manufacturers must subject each firearm to test-to-destruction tests to prove that their guns will not 'accidentally' fire when dropped six feet onto a concrete surface.  S&W (if I recall correctly) discontinued all sales to California rather than subject their guns to these tests ... at their own expense.
• They also passed a law which essentially required that Ronnie Barrett's  .50 BMG rifles must be regulated;   Barrett responded by discontinuing all support for maintenance for California LEO sniper rifles ... California LEOs must now perform all "factory level" maintenance on their own rifles.  Sucks to be you, California Highway Patrol!

This is only the most recent manner in which California Legislators have shot themselves in the foot, and it probably won't be the last.   But they don't care about their citizens; they only care about their own political agenda.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with firearm safety; but it has everything with California trying to get around the Second Amendment rights of free citizens.

Now they want every citizen who purchases ammunition to go through the same tiresome regulatory procedures every time they want to reload their guns.    

Someone needs to put the bridle on the horse and the bit in her mouth, to keep California from inventing new ways to impede Second Amendment Rights (which by the way, apply to ammunition as well as firearms.

SPEAKING OF WHICH, in 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects ammunition purchases as well as firearms ownership ... but it's complicated.

PS: Olympian campaigns Against The Bill!
Who you gonna listen to? The chick that sings, or the chick that shoots?
You know where my money is going .. but I'll probably lose that bet.

I Support Universal Background Checks!

I am an experienced, highly trained firearms owner and I support Universal Background Checks.

Most Gun Owners Say the NRA Is Off Target | Mother Jones:

A new survey of gun owners finds widespread support for universal background checks and provides new details on who does and doesn't support the National Rifle Association.

But I do support the NRA, and I consider Mother Jones is anathema.  (THOSE people have their collective heads firmly entrenched in their personal nether regions.)

It's all about definitions.

I like background checks, but it has to be under MY terms, not Mother Jones'!  (What a horrible website name!  I gave up mothering when I learned to drink from a bottle!  Preferably, a smooth Rye Whiskey.)

Here are my terms for a reasonable definition of "Universal Background Checks":

(1)  The Federal Government is NOT a part of it!

Oh, sure, they should be a resource of information ... for my convenience, as an taxpayer.  But they should not be interfering in any lawful commercial exchange between two CITIZENS!  I don't want the Feds to be using any of their 'arbitrary rules-of-the-day' to decide whether or not I should be selling my guns.  I don't care how they view the person I'm dealing with.  I'm not a Licensed Dealer, and all of my private transactions are PRIVATE!

You may say that this would result in a lack of control over firearms.

That's what I'm talking about.  It's part of that whole "Shall Not Be Infringed" thingie.  I'm not selling firearms for personal gain.  I determine from time to time that I own guns which are no longer important to me, and I just want to find them a good home.

(Bear that in mind; exceptions follow!)

(2) All transactions should be processed through the NICS database.

Notice what I did there?  The word "SHOULD" is a lot better than "MUST".   It's not what Uncle Sam's Idiot Minions require; it's what *_I_* require!  (Exceptions noted below.)

I want to know that the person who intends to buy my "cast-off" guns is not a crook, a felon, a terrorist or a Really Bad Guy!   If the potential buyer doesn't meet MY personal perquisites, then I'm not going to sell him the gun.  
That's MY decision .. it's my gun.

 So the Feds have set up this really convenient NICS (National Instant Check System) database where anyone can go to it with the name and address and SSN and stuff, and find out if that potential buyer is legally entitled to own a firearm.

The exceptions are conviction of a felony, and .. uh .. who knows what else.

But the problems are two-fold:

(A) it costs money to do the NICS check, and I'm living on Social Security so I can't afford to pay the fees (no, I don't know if there is a fee attached; I just wanted to get that disclaimer in before some crank accuses me of being cheap.  Which I am, but that's a matter of circumstances, not a character flaw.)   And why should the Buyer expect to pay another $x for a background check?   That's your problem, not ours.
If he (the buyer) has a choice of buying a gun from someone who requires a background check, and someone who does not ... if the background check costs him money, he'll go for the irresponsible gun owner every time.

(B) the NICS check is not currently available to Private Citizens!Why Not?  If we private citizens are required to vet purchasers of our guns, they why should we be required to depend on someone else to do that for us?  They may lie to us, and then we (private sellers) are responsible for the consequences!
No, if the Feds want firearms transfers to be based on their records (which they do) and they want to hold sellers responsible (which they do) then they need to give us the ability to vet our buyers.
Note the word 'give' in the preceding sentence.  That's right; don't charge us for this, fellas, 'cause it's your idea.  Not mine.
(If you can't afford to staff your call center, then cut the pay of Congress-critters by 10% and cut the budget for their staff by 70%.   Those folks are only sucking on the federal tit anyway, and 90% of the laws they pass are not necessary.  They're the ones who are proposing laws to infringe on our constitutional rights, anyway. Maybe if they don't get paid so much or staffed so deeply, they'll be less inclined to make new laws to mess up their constituents.  It's a Win/Win deal!)

(3) The Government Should Not Be Involved ...
... other than their duty to respond promptly to requests for verification (via NICS) that a prospective buyer is not a felon or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm.

They should just give the information, and whatever warnings which may seem appropriate.

This seems ... odd to you?

Keep in mind that only law-abiding citizens are going to use this facility.  Folks who don't care if they're selling guns to a felon are not going to bother accessing the legal check system.

Folks who DO use the system, need the information to guide them in their determination to only sell to people who are legal firearms owners.  (Even if they don't have a firearm the, they are legal firearms owners if they are not mentally ill or a felon.  Or perhaps if they're on the "Terrorist Watch List", or whatever other mode de jure the Feds are using to  to identify 'bad guys without guns'.)

(4) The Firearm Will Not Be Identified ...
... because when that occurs it constitutes REGISTRATION of firearms, which is NOT constitutionally acceptable because "abridged".   See Rule Two.

When a firearms transaction is contemplated, the only criteria is whether the receiver is legally 'permitted'  by law to purchase a gun.  It doesn't matter what gun, it only matters what person.   I don't want Washington to know what guns I own, because Federal Oversight is just another term for 'infringement' of my rights.  I have a right to own the gun, and as personal private property I have a right to sell it.  Just like a car .. except that a car must be licensed because its ownership is not Constitutionally protected.

If the feds have information about the FIREARM, they will record and track that.  NOT the purpose of the process.  The NICS was not (theoretically) established to track firearms transfers; it was established to keep the firearms out of the hands of felons.

Nobody who goes to the effort of checking with NICS is trying to sell 'crime guns'.  (Yes, I might be willing to discuss a 'different' set of rules for Firearms Dealers; we already know they're regulated to death, but they're in the business and have already accepted the regulations.  If they want to set up their own set of rules, fine;   these are MY rules for PRIVATE transactions of PERSONAL property.  They and The Feds can hash it out between them.  Just don't step on my rights as a private citizen, okay?)

(5) THE  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW UP ..
on any proposed transaction which fails to certify the prospective purchaser from buying a firearms.
They must do that in person, by sending a law-enforcement officer to the residence and/or place of business of the rejected purchaser.

(As the seller, it's not my job to enforce the law; I need only tell the purchaser that his application to purchase a firearm has been denied, and I'm out of it.  I don't know why 'denied', nor do I care.   The only issue is if the purchaser decides to take it out on me because I won't complete the sale.  Let The Seller Beware!)

The Federal Government has the following obligations:
The (rejected) purchaser, having already provided proof of identity to the seller, should be advised of his/her rights, and a thorough review of the reasons WHY the purchase was denied must be reviewed.  The purchaser will be advised of his/her rights and provided the opportunity to contest the denial, in a court of law.  If necessary, if the purchaser cannot afford an attorney, one shall be provided.

This whole business of arbitrary alienation and abridgement of Constitutional Rights stops right there.

If the investigation disproves of the reasons why the purchase is contravened, then any records which indicate that future purchases will be denied will be expunged.

No, I don't care if the Feds have been 'watching' him/her for months.  If the government makes an accusation, it must show just cause .. if necessary, in a court of law.

No, I don't care if he/she is a 'suspected terrorist'.  Unless and until the matter has been adjudicated, the constitutional rights of the individual apply until they have been formally rescinded and the purchaser has been duly informed.  

If the federal government cannot allow the transaction to go through, then the purchaser should be arrested and charged with a crime.

 If the abridgement is contested by the purchaser, he/she has the right to a speedy hearing and either arrested, or the transaction allowed to go through.

If a trial before a magistrate must be effected to determine the status of the purchaser, then it should be 'speedy' as the Constitution requires.  The trial/hearing should take priority over any other cases before the local court, except for any cases which involve Constitutional Rights, or may result in the prosecution and arrest of the other cases before that court.  (If another court can be assigned the case, then that is an acceptable alternative compared to denying a citizen of his rights; non-citizens may not be afforded the same protections.)

Any Questions?

What we have here ..

Gun control: Stymied in 2016, Oregon Democrats vow to try again in 2017 | OregonLive.com:

Unable to pass new gun-control bills this year, months after the state's deadliest shooting, Oregon Democrats are diving into campaign season with promises to try again in 2017. House Majority Leader Jennifer Williamson, D-Portland, wants to revive a measure that would limit default gun sales when background checks take longer than expected, after the bill earned tepid support and died in the Senate last month.

No. Actually, it is an attempt to bypass the 'default' protection previously afforded to firearms owners who purchase firearms.  But the NICS (National Instant Check System) cannot always provide a response in a timely manner,   When this happens, the DEFAULT is to allow the firearms transfer to go through.

This FEATURE (not a "bug") protects the firearms purchaser; independent interests would be required to 'allow' the purchase of a private citizen if they (NICS) could not find just cause to DIS-allow it within a reasonable period of time.    (For the "gun grabbers", there are no independent interests; there are merely PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE GUNS, and PEOPLE WHO MUST BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS.)

Freakin' SF Mayor still wants to regulate ammunition sales

Gavin Newsom draws crowd to gun-control speech near Rohnert Park | The Press Democrat:

Gavin Newsom is nonplussed that he couldn't buy Sudefed without Identification,

 “But interestingly, you can buy ammunition anywhere,” the former San Francisco mayor told gun control supporters Friday night.

Apparently, Newsom is conflating dangerous and habit-forming drugs with ammunition.

Can he do that?  (Oh, shut my mouth .. he's the mayor of SF; he can do anything!)

But still ... what's the difference?

Dangerous Drugs are habit forming, and while they have the palliative effect of alleviating pain and medical symptoms, they are subject to abuse.

Ammunition is not habit forming, but while they (cartridges) do have the palliative effect of defending one's person, property, home and family, they are subject to abuse.

The difference is that Ammunition is 'protected' under the Second Amendment.

No, that's not JUST my opinion.  The Supreme Court says so.

Washington D.C. Ammunition Ban Violates Second Amendment-

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has declared D.C.’s ammunition possession ban unconstitutional in the case of Herrington v. District of Columbia. -
The court therefore reasoned that although neither Heller nor the subsequent Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago specifically addressed ammunition, “it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

Did I mention that this article about the Supreme Court Decision was published November 8, 2010?
(Which suggests that Newsom should have been aware that the question about the right to keep and bear firearms, and the right to buy ammunition, are equally protected by Federal Law.)

But Newsom finds it anomalous that Ammunition Sales don't require identification.

Never mind; if San Francisco hasn't YET made it illegal to buy ammunition, it soon will.

Let's call it the "San Francisco Loophole".

In the meantime, it's still legal for San Francisco to require "identification" to purchase ammunition .. along with firearms themselves.

Because they are not 'Prohibiting' the purchase of ammunition, but they may still 'regulate' it.

This is just one more reason why Americans should avoid residing in the State of California, generally, and the City of San Francisco, specifically.

Tony Bennett, eat your heart out.



(Oh .. Tony Bennett is against the second amendment; never mind)

New California Gun Laws 2016

New California Gun Laws 2016 "EDITED READ DESCRIPTION" - YouTube:
Published on Jan 1, 2016

California is going NUTS on it's new restrictions on Firearms Ownership.   It's increasingly obvious the CIOs (Chief Idiots in Charge) have the goal of pecking the Second Amendment to death via laws which nibble around the edges until honest citizens just throw up their hands and say "Enough, Already!"

(Including Background Checks on EACH AND EVERY Ammunition Sale and an ammunition permit fee !)

This ten minute video * provides a worth-looking-at summary.  If California gets away with these anti-constitutional laws, other states will try them too.



The cited bill ... SB1446 regarding magazine capacity limits, can be read here,

* EDITED READ CORRECTION: A Firearm Restraining Order can only be applied for by IMMEDIATE FAMILY!! 2016 is going to be another fight for California on the Gun Control front. With new laws affecting us every year the fight never ends. To help fight back please check out https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ and https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/ Fight Gavin Newsom in 2016 and say no to more Ammo and Gun Restrictions

" .... BUT ....."

Yes, The Australian Model On Gun Control Means Bans and Confiscation - Matt Vespa:

Nobody wants to take your guns. That’s what most mainstream pro-gun control Democrats say ad nauseam at various rallies. There’s also the “I support the Second Amendment, but…” that advocates of gun control say prior to offering some pie-in-the-sky policy proposals that usually venture into bans on so-called assault rifles, limiting magazine sizes, or an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. That’s essentially a gun ban.

I challenge you to quote any declaration about Gun Control which the liberals will proffer, which does not include the word "but".

BUT means that they don't want to take  your guns away, "BUT ...."   they really do.

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like scary rifles.
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't like "high capacity magazines".
They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't see any reason why anyone would want to have a (fill in the blank)

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they think that a 30 round magazine has no redeeming qualities (fill in the number ... either over or under "30 rounds").

They don't want to take your guns away "BUT" they don't understand why anyone needs an automatic weapon?  (and By The Way, they don't really have a clear understanding of the difference between "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" weapon;   it doesn't really matter, though, because to them they're all the same and they don't want you to have them!)


They keep asking for legal firearms owners to "compromise" on gun control issues, but they don't often suggest compromises which they are willing to offer.

That's because they don't  have to offer anything ...  the Second Amendment already acknowledges the right to keep and bear arms, and there's nothing left for them to give which will expand the rights which WE already have.

All they can do is to chip away at our constitutional rights with niggling little dings and dents, until all we have left is the car-wreck which they will allow us ... and then they want to take the hubcaps and the chrome off the fender, too!

It would serve no purpose to identify "they" or "them".  You know who they are.

THEY are the people who think that 'guns' are so bad, there is no legitimate purpose for anyone to own one.   They think that guns have no redeeming value, and guns are the source of mayhem and destruction.

They forget (or choose not to remember) the Watts riots , and armed Korean shop owners standing guard on the roof of their stores .... those stores which, after the riots were over, were the only commercial establishments left standing, unlooted: and those businesses were where the local residents calmly went to shop when the riots were over.



So when somebody tells you that you're over-reacting about your second amendment rights, and "nobody wants to take your guns", you might think about their lying eyes and remember that they either intend to stab you in the back, or take away your means to defend your self, your home, your family and your property.

Everybody wants to take away your guns.   Anybody who says different is not your friend.

Background Checks on Ammunition Purchases?

Really?

People are now seriously considering background checks on ammunition purchases?
(H/T: Joe H. referring to California law .. which might be imposed by other states.)

I'm not certain how, exactly, this would lead to a safer community in America.

Most likely, this is a punitive measure which is designed solely to make everyday life more difficult for those of us who choose to celebrate our freedom as guaranteed under the Constitution.

We get a lot of that.

This is a transparent copy of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's attempt in 1999 to impose a 1000% tax on amunition, [sp] for similar and obvious reasons.

But in actuality, this is a much more insidious attack on your Second Amendment Freedoms.

Scenario "A":
You do nothing in protest, but meekly accept the new way to make it more difficult for you to buy ammunition.

The consequence is that the people who sell ammunition are legally required to perform background checks ... with no consequence other than the vendors have to spend more time to transact a sale.  The best you can do is to either buy your ammunition online, reload your own ammunition as much as possible, or buy your ammunition in bulk to mitigate the impact on the merchants.

Scenario "B":
In protest, you buy your ammunition in the smallest lots possible, to tax the resources.

The consequence is that the vendors quickly realize that the returns from a single sale are beyond their capabilities, and they discontinue sales of ammunition.

This overloads the process which was originally intended to vet people who are trying to buy firearms legally.

THAT scenario is what the authors of this bill are looking for.

"They" don't care if you are an honest citizen.

The intent of the bill is not to insure that terrorists cannot buy ammunition which they will use to kill Americans;   the intent is to insure that NOBODY will be able to purchase ammunition for any purpose, legal or otherwise.

Missoula City Council poised to tackle gun control

Missoula City Council poised to tackle gun control | Missoula Local News - NBCMontana.com:
(September 24, 2015)

An ordinance under consideration by the Missoula City Council is taking heavy fire from gun rights advocates.
Sponsored by Council Members Bryan von Lossberg, Marilyn Marler and Emily Bently, the draft ordinance aims to close a loophole that allows private transactions and gun transfers to happen without a background check. Licensed firearms dealers are required to run a check on gun buyers, but there is no federal or state law that requires the same check for private parties.

(H/T: The War On Guns)

We just suffered through this kind of  bastard legislation in Oregon, and I hope that the good folks in Missoula (and Montana in general) will find the wisdom to give the ordinance the sound trouncing it so richly deserves.

Why?

Well, not just because (a) criminals will not observe it; and not just because (b) it will make criminals of honest citizens who recognize the ordinance for the intrusive kind of needless governmental oversight it is, and refuse to comply with it.   These are only third level reasons why this kind of ordinance (or "law") is to be avoided.

The real problem is that it is tantamount to Registration ... which is the first step toward confiscation of private firearms, and that's the reason why it seems to attractive to liberals ("They Who Do Not Want To Take Your Guns").   The only way the law can be enforced is if they register the serial number of the firearm, and enter it into a database. That way every change of ownership can be traced.  

Just in case they want to .. oh, I don't know ... check up on you from time to time to see if you still have the gun you bought.  And if you can't produce it, and if you haven't filed a report of stolen property, then you the buyer will be fined ... or jailed.  Because you have obviously sold the gun, but didn't follow the "ordinance", so you are now a criminal.

What if you sold a gun and it is later used in a felony?  Well, you sold the gun to a felon; that makes you and accomplice before the fact.  You must know that there is a movement afoot to enact laws which make a seller liable for 'bad actions' involving a firearm which you have sold.  Even though you followed the law as best you could (more on that later), and should not be liable for the bad-actions of the buyer --- you might just end up doing hard time in the pokey for not insuring that you are selling to an "honest person".

These are some of the secondary reasons why this is a Bad Law.

Lets talk about the PRIMARY reason why this is a not-good thing:  it is registration, which leads to confiscation.   And brother, if Big Brother knows you have a gun, he can take it away from you or throw you in jail (see above) .. or both.

So what do you, as the seller, need to do to obey the law?  Why, you do an NICS  (National Instant Check System) check on the buyer.

Just one problem:  Only licensed dealers are authorized to use the NICS system.  So you and your buyer need to traipse before a dealer (in person) and have him run the check.  For which he will charge you something between $40 and $100 dollars .... and plan on the $100 charge, okay?

Cause and Effect: You're Not In Kansas Any More .. you're in MISSOURI

Missouri’s lax gun laws makes it too easy for criminals to be armed | The Kansas City Star:
(by Mary Sanchez, September 18, 2015)

MARY WRITES AN OP-ED BLAMING HONEST PEOPLE FOR ABUSE OF THE LAW BY DISHONEST PEOPLE!

The question is, how did a felon get the gun? Pretty easily in Missouri or Kentucky was the point made by Kentucky chapters for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, which is affiliated with Everytown For Gun Safety. Both Missouri and Kentucky have lax gun laws. Even people with serious records wouldn’t be flagged during many  gun sales. ,,, Studies have indicated a connection between when Missouri repealed its gun permit system in 2007, eliminating background check requirements for private handgun sales, with a doubling of the number of guns winding up at crime scenes. Loosening up the rules for the good guys who want guns also loosens the rules for the bad guys who want guns. It’s that simple.

I question Mary Sanchz's statement that eliminating gun permits doubled the number of "guns ...at crime scenes".   Her statistics may in fact be accurate, but to ascribe that increased statistic to local (state) recognition of the Constitutional Rights of her fellow citizens is wrong-headed.

The rejoinder is obvious, and Ms. Sanchez meets that head-on.

Well, almost:
,,,

 And yet, calls for evaluating gun ownership are always met with a dismissive response. It’s the reply that says: Criminals don’t abide by the law anyway, so don’t bother thinking that gun regulation will affect them? But why make it easier for them? This is what the legislators fail to grasp. Their intention is to stoically protect the Second Amendment. They give credence to conspiracy theories that believe any tracking of guns sold or backgrounds checked will open the door to federal troops confiscating America’s firearms.

You cannot eliminate crime by punishing honest, respectable people.  The only effect is to turn them into, essentially, assumed criminals without any evidence that they have bad intentions.

Mary, you do have a Crime Problem in Missouri.  We've watched your state turn into a shooting gallery over the past several years.

But that isn't caused by the Constitution.  It's caused by societal factors which your state  is unable, to address.   Nobody is pointing the finger at you; we know that these societal ills are endemic to today's social environment, where we try to make it right for poor people by making it more difficult for people who don't share their problems. As in: people who own guns legally are responsible for the crimes caused by people who own guns illegal

Why do people who should not be allowed to buy guns from private persons still get to do so?  It's a two-part question:

1. People who have guns don't want their guns to be registered, because it leads to confiscation.  There's an entire huge body of discussion behind that, but it's still true ... historically.
2. People who own guns and sell them privately do NOT have access the the National Instant Check System, which registered gun dealers do. AND By The Way .. there is no such thing as an non-licensed dealer.  Not in America.   We're either a Dealer, or we're a Private Citizen.  Don't ask me why, I'm not sure .. it should be possible for a private person to call into the NICS system and ask if Joe Blow who wants to buy their gun is legally permitted to do so, but we can't.  So blame it on the NICS, on Congress, on the President ... blame it on the Bossa Nova, but don't blame it on honest private citizens. 

So why is there so much gun crime in Missouri today, if not because of private gun sales?

Single parent homes; low income; dearth of honest jobs; and an entire segment of society that thinks it's admirable to break the law because the criminals they see on the streets have expensive cars, while honest people have to walk to work.  (IF they can find work!)   These are the conditions which lead to violence .. they're not the cause of violence.

Neither is the possession of a firearm a cause of violence.  Still, it is not a "condition of violence", either.  Millions of people own firearms and do not break the law, do not harm their neighbors, do not undermine the economic viability of their neighborhood.

And your presumption of guilt without rational justification isn't helping, Mary.  You're just letting your emotions cloud your thinking.  You think that there's too much violence in your state, and you are correct.  But you also think it's because "It's Too Easy For Criminals To Be Armed".

You have made the rhetorical assumption that Cause and Effect can be determined by your outrage.  In truth, it's much, much more complicated than that.

By conflating gun violence with gun ownership, you not only do a disservice to the millions of law-abiding gun owners who do not deserve to be the object of your outrage, but you distract our attention to the true progenitors of violence in our neighborhoods, in our cities, in our states and in our country.

Got an old gun to sell? Maybe you should just give it to somebody you don't like

Kaine Gun Bill Reflects Opportunistic Deception, Not Public Safety - AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News:

“It looks as if the only way to shield yourself from criminal liability is to put the prospective buyer through a NICS check, but doesn’t make the NICS system available to anyone new,” Hofmann remarked. “Talk about a Catch-22.”

(H/T: AMMOLAND)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is looking to crack down on gun dealers that sell firearms to criminals,” The Hill reported Tuesday.  “The Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act introduced Tuesday would hold gun dealers liable for sales made to people who are prohibited from owning guns.”

But not just dealers:It would apply to both federally-licensed gun dealers and private sellers.What the guy wants to do is outlaw private sales.  What he wants to do is everything he can to prevent all sales. And destroy some people who don’t vote for him in the bargain.

{emphasis added}

I haven't bothered to research to this article, it's from a "Trusted Source", although it is admittedly "single-sourced" at this time.  But on the surface it appears that gun-grabbers are making an even more concerted effort to convert honest, sane, legal gun-owners into criminals.

So yes, the only way you can protect yourself from this kind of litigation is to confirm the buyer's eligibility to purchase a firearm by referencing NCIS; but no, you as a private citizen do NOT have direct access to NICS.


It kind of sucks to be you, doesn't it?