NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds

NRA enters debate on gun shows at fairgrounds:
(November 05, 2015)

NASHVILLE — The nation’s largest lobbying organization for gun rights has come to the aid of gun shows held at Nashville’s city-owned fairgrounds as the events draw greater scrutiny from the board that manages the property.

[Hat Tip: Say Uncle]

In Nashville ..... NASHVILLE!!???? ... the board of directors for the fairgrounds is contemplating the feasibility of eliminating gun shows on Country property.

There is no proposal to halt gun shows at the Nashville’s fairgrounds — however, fair board commissioner Kenny Byrd has suggested that a communitywide discussion take place to see whether the public wants to continue gun shows on property that belongs to Metro. That push comes amid proposed regulations floated by he and other fair commissioners they say are aimed at safety.

Well, they've been hosting gun shows for 3 decades and never had a problem.  But ....

On Tuesday Byrd criticized Bill Goodman’s Gun and Knife Shows for its policy of not allowing cameras and media at its events and demanded that it be overhauled.

He also grilled David Goodman, who manages the gun show, for what Byrd called objectionable paraphernalia he learned has been sold at Goodman's gun shows at the fairgrounds. They include stickers that read, “Keep America Free: Shoot a liberal,” and a T-shirt that features the Confederate flag alongside the words, “Defending freedom since 1861.”

“That’s not family-friendly events,” Byrd said. “I’m a liberal. I don’t want to be shot … and I don’t want you selling stuff with that message."

I was shocked .... SHOCKED! ... when I read that Byrd turned out to be a liberal.

Could it be that Commissioner Byrd was not as concerned with the safety of the general public, but more with the safety of Commissioner Byrd's precious self?   So much for representing The People.

“There’s things going on (at these gun shows) that this board would not appreciate,” Byrd said. “And we can’t come in and record a video or take pictures of what’s going on. That needs to change right there.”

Welcome to 1984, brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Big Brother.

Something like this occurred several years ago here in Benton County, Oregon.

The Real "Gun Show Loophole"?

What happens when Liberals get control of a county?

Several years ago (and this is a true story, children.. well, mostly ... but the names have been changed to protect the innocent) in a small North-Western town which we will call "Corn Valley",   which was the County Seat, The County took control of The People.

One day, the County Commissioners (we'll call the county ""Benjamin"),  decided that gun shows would no longer be permitted at the Benjamin County Fair Grounds.

Now, there had been no complaints registered about the Benjamin County Gun Shows, which had been an annual event for decades.  The Citizens of Corn Valley, or of Benjamin County, had not objected to a "Free Market" in firearms.   There was no external reason for the Benjamin County Commissioners to establish a restriction on County Fairgrounds events. In fact, it was a money-making event for both the county and the fairgrounds.

They just decided this was The Right Thing To Do .. and the decision was passed seven-to-one by the Board.

The people of Corn Valley and Benjamin County objected to this arbitrary decision, and so a hearing was held one Tuesday evening at the fairgrounds.

Well, we can't say THIS NEVER happens, any more

Burglars hit Orlando gun show last weekend - Orlando Sentinel:
(May 20, 2014 - EDT)

Burglars and thieves hit last weekend's Orlando gun show at the Central Florida Fairgrounds, according to police. While gun buyers looked for bargains at the Southern Knife and Gun Show, burglars broke into vehicles parked at the West Colonial Drive fairgrounds and stole guns, ammunitions and other items worth about $10,000, a report stated. The burglars smashed car and truck windows worth about $1,000 to take recently bought handguns stored inside the vehicles.

(H/T: The Gun Wire)

If this isn't blogged, and commented in Gun Control websites (and the national news, etc.) a lot in the next week, I'll be very surprised.

LOTS of talk in the comments section, about the efficacy of car alarms.  Which, as noted, are commonly ignored.

I remember going to a movie ... "The Burbs", w/ Tom Hanks .. a decade or two back.  When the movie was over, I found my 1987 Porsche with driver-side window glass all over the seat.  I talked to the ticket taker about why nobody responded to my horn-beeping car alarm:   "Oh .. " she said, "Car alarms go off all the time.  We don't pay any attention to them any more.  It's .. like .. so common."

Things have changed since then, apparently.  Comments (see above) suggest that now there are car alarms which call your phone to announce that your alarm has been activated.

Sounds if this is an idea whose time has come.

But back to the gun show:  no, the parking lots are not commonly patrolled.  The off-duty policemen who are hired to provide "security" generally (in my experience) restrict their attention to the entries.    They're there to make sure nobody brings a loaded weapon into the gun show.

Obviously, we don't trust folks NOT to do the "Negligent Discharge" thingie ... you know as well as I do that there is a lot of gun-handling at gun shows,  and an ND is a serious no-no.

On the other hand .. carry is permitted at most gun shows.  And loaded magazines in magazine carriers are typically allowed, too.  The idea isn't to compromise self-defense, but to prevent NDs.

We're not afraid of guns; we just want to give the IDIOTS among us to practice safe gun-handling.

Gun shows and gun shops remain among the safest venues, vis a vis shooting incidents.

Which we can't say for Gun Free Zones.

Tongue-tied; and "Gun Industry Blood Money"

Gun Owners of America | Facebook:
Gun Owners of America GOA's Larry Pratt leaves MSNBC host tongue-tied

(H/T David Codrea and Gun Owners of America)

There are SO many quotable quotes here, I'm not even going to try to cite them here.  You must go watch-the-whole-thing.  This is perhaps the most productive interview that Larry Pratt has ever given.  He was entirely on-point during the too-short episode.  Including that:

• ... George Washington understood that citizens must have access to firearms available
• ... matching firearms currently available to the military
• ... and citizens have the right to use firearms to protect themselves from both personal assault
• ... and to protect themselves against their own government
• ... and that the Second Amendment Rights are equivalent to the First Amendment rights!

Any argument about the first two amendments to the Constitution must be taken hand-in-hand.

The First Amendment has been ruled by the Supreme Court to include speech which was not available to Americans in the 18th Century, including email and the Internet in general.

These speech platforms were not available in the 18th Century, but the Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech extends to all currently extent speech platforms.

Since the First and the Second Amendments specifically speak to individual rights, many rulings on the 1st Amendment apply equally to the 2nd Amendment.  (The third to the tenth amendments generally apply to impositions of the government upon its citizens.)

When Pratt changed the direction of the dialogue, and began speaking of the First Amendment Rights, the moderator interrupted him:  "You mean the Second Amendment."

Pratt replied forcefully:  "No, I mean the First Amendment!"

That simple statement, equating the two Amendments, completely changed the dialogue.  Neither the Moderator nor the Opponent knew how to respond to the realization that individual rights were equivalent.  And so the discussion was terminated before anyone had a chance to respond to the canard about "Gun Industry Blood Money".

I'm loving it, when the mild-mannered Pratt brings opponents to their knees.

In the background, if you listen closely, you can hear "the lamentations of their women".

Proposed Oregon Bill Treats Private Citizens as Licensed Dealers

SB1551 - SB1551:  (SUMMARY)

Requires person to request criminal background check before transferring firearm to any other person. Specifies exceptions to background check requirement for family members, inherited firearms and antique firearms. 

Punishes violation with maximum term of 30 days’ imprisonment, $1,250 fine,or both, for first offense, maximum term of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both, for second offense and maximum term of five years’ imprisonment, $125,000 fine, or both, for third or subsequent offense.

WHAT?

This 2014 Senate Bill  ("77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2014 Regular Session")
amends  "S 166.412, 166.432, 166.433, 66.436,166.438, 166.441, 166.460 and 181.150"

This effectively treats private citizens the same as Licensed Firearms dealers when transferring firearms to any other person, with the excepts of antique firearms and if the transferee is a member of the original owner's immediate family (to include step-relationships, grand- parents/children, and aunt/uncle, niece/nephew, etc).

(I note in passing that the available information is that the bill specifically excempts immediate family transfers; this is in direct contradiction to the February 2014 member newsletter from ARPC.  I will be contacting the club .. of whom I am a member .. asking them for a more rigorous evaluation.)

The private citizen has the same responsibility as a licensed firearm dealer to perform a background check, and to maintain records.  The state responsibility is a 'instant' response (or a good faith effort with accountability) to provide a yes/no acknowledgement that the transferee is not proscribed from firearms ownership ... primarily due to a record as a convicted felon.

(see here for possible other informational links to this bill.)

This is NOT to be confused with the 2012 (76th legislative session) Senate Bill 1551, sponsored by Ginny Burdick, "...relating to weapons; amending ORS 166.262 and 166.370 ..." which

Eliminates affirmative defense exempting concealed handgun licensees from crime applicable to possession of firearm or other instrument used as dangerous weapon, while in public building or on grounds adjacent to public building.

WHO?

This bill was sponsored by Senator Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, who stated in a January 23, 2014, OREGONLIVE (opinion) interview that he was not " playing politics" with expanded gun control legislation.


Also, in a January 09, 2014 OREGONLIVE interview, Prozanski said he will "... have the votes to pass it".

Another interviewee quoted in the same article noted that "... Prozanski hasn’t shared the bill draft with his caucus." Regardless, he (the Republican interviewee)  said he won’t support it and that no other Republican is expected to".
The article goes on to observe that "... Democrats maintain a narrow 16-14 majority in the Senate, meaning one defection would crater Prozanski’s chances."

WHY?

Here we enter into the realm of introspection; assume that the following is based not on researched documentation .... the author of the bill has not SPECIFICALLY made this statement, but it is obvious from his parenthetical remarks.

It's all about the "Gun Show Loophole"!

Currently, when you go to a gun show, ALL sales are expected to be carried out on the show-room floor.  Dealers, who constitute the majority of sales tables, are expected to follow the requirements to check all purchasers through NCIC.  And in fact, even private owners (with a table, but no Dealer license) are usually required to perform the same checks.  It's a service that the Gun Show organizers provide, and require.

But if you are wandering through the show floor with a rifle slung over a our shoulder and a 3x5 card saying something like "private sale, $375" (or whatever), anyone is free to follow you out to the parking lot and either complete a cash transaction or ... elsewhere, off the lot.

These are obviously the "Gun Show Loopholes" that this bill is intended to address.

And I don't like it.

WHY NOT?

It has been my experience, and my observation (and it may or may not have been yours, too) that as soon as the "Government" becomes involved in private transactions, all reason climbs on a jetliner to sunnier climes.   Over-regulation, stilted legalistic jargon, and extension by hyperbole soon follow.  (For the purpose of this discussion, the term replies to, roughly, the following definition:  The Government makes a law, and then administratively applies it to coincide with it's preferred definition.  The result? Sometimes, the 'definition' or 'application' seems to bear no immediate relation to the supposed intent of the law, and increased restriction on private activities are justified by arbitrary fiat.)

What we are left with is the conundrum:  Is it better that the Government pass laws to regulate human interactions, or that we prefer the government to stick to its original purpose of serving the people and let us sort out the consequences of our private transactions in the course of normal human experience?

Personally, I think that we are all flawed, and we will make mistakes ... but our private mistakes are in the long run less intrusive than when we invite Government to control our lives in detail!

What would be the benefits?  What the downturn?

If this law were enacted, it would put one more foot on our necks.  As free, law-abiding citizens, I can only see that making criminals of us would only lead to more and greater interference in our private lives.

If we sell a gun to a criminal ... cannot they get the same guns for free by stealing them?  Almost 100% of highly publicized violent crimes involving firearms have shown that the criminals buy guns legally and were not dissuaded by governmental checks because they PASSED those checks;  or they bought them from other criminals; more commonly, that they steal them.

In the case of the highly publicized 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, Seungui Cho bought his guns legally and passed the Instant Check by NCIC.

In the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting, Adam Lanza murdered his mother and then stole the guns which she had legally purchased ... after an NCIC referral..

In the 1999 Columbine School Massacre, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold convinced an acquaintance to purchase their firearms ... who passed the NCIC check.  It was a legal transaction.

In this country, we are focused in mass shootings.  And we are traumatized every time we hear about the next one.   Others who are less traumatized see the notoriety, are thrilled by it, and begin to plot to gain the same public recognition for themselves.

What's the answer

One answer might be to muzzle the press.  Require newspapers, radio, TV .. all media to immediately discontinue reporting on "massacres".  This might have the effect of dis-encouraging similarly warped personalities from attempting to emulate these attention-getting 'events'.

But that would violate the First Amendment .. and everybody likes that one!

Instead, Politicians have focused on the Second Amendment as the one to violate.  Or, specifically, to "infringe".

As is the case of all political moves, it's a Popularity Contest.  Can't "infringe" upon the First Amendment?  Hey, kids, let's put on a show!

Let's make a big splash and "show those people" that we're worth listening to.

Sure, the criminals won't pay any attention to it, and it will put a tremendous burden on honest people, but ... heck, they'll vote for us anyway.  Why?  Because we will be seen to be "Doing Something!


Nobody will notice that we're "infringing" .. what the heck does THAT mean? ... if we go after an unpopular group!

Except for the REAL orphans of Society.  You know, the kids that nobody loves.  Like-firearms owners.  And who cares about THEM?

Gun Crime is DOWN? Who knew?

Have you seen this yet?  Posted TODAY (May 7, 2013), from Allahpundit @ HOT AIR:

 Two new studies: Gun crime has dropped dramatically over last 20 years — and most Americans have no idea � Hot Air: Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.

 The article goes on to comment:

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue about the dramatic decline in gun crime. On the contrary, a clear majority thinks it’s gone up — despite dutiful news reports whenever the FBI releases its crime data, despite endless (and justified) coverage of the “broken windows” theory and NYC’s celebrated turnaround in crime under Giuliani and Bill Bratton

We talked here about the Broken Windows theory, exactly three months ago today; that was mainly in reference to the slaughter of innocents in Chicago.  You and I are obviously not the only ones who are aware of the theory, and how it has been supported by good results upon its application my municipal authorities.

It's not that there aren't answers to Gun Violence; it's just some people would rather compromise our civil and constitutional rights, than to do something that has been shown to work?

Why is this?  Other than that our "leadership" is arrogant and arbitrary?

The answer is that it's a lot easier to pass more laws than it is to do an honest day's work, for some people.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

"Universal Background Checks" and "The Gun Show Loophole"

Republican Senator Makes The Conservative Case For Universal Background Checks | ThinkProgress:

At a town hall in Oklahoma on Monday, Sen. Tom Corbun (R-OK) made perhaps the best argument to convince conservative gun owners that they should support required background checks on every single gun purchase.

Taking the recent debate over gun regulations from the political to the personal, Coburn told constituents that universal checks are “the responsible way” for gun owners to ensure that they don’t sell their own guns to “someone you wouldn’t want to have it”: Those on that list will include felons and people with mental instability. 

A concern that gun owners are on that list or one separate to it was discounted by the senator, a fact that has been and continues to be checked on by his staff on a regular basis. “I’m for enhanced background checks because it’s a way for you to go online to make sure you’re not selling your gun to someone you wouldn’t want to have it,” said Coburn.  The responsible way is to check them against this [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] list and they don’t know that you did it.”

"They don't know that you did it."

I think this statement was intended to be reassuring to firearms owners who engage in private sales.  And I also think that it was disingenuous.

The cited article goes on to cite statistics:

Currently, private sales are exempt from background checks, and it’s estimated that 40 percent of firearm sales are completed without a check. According to Bloomberg News, “A 2004 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of inmates convicted of gun crimes found that 80 percent acquired the weapons through a private transfer.” Ninety-two percent of Americans want to change this grim statistic, and support a background check on all sales.

The statement .. and the position espoused .. assumes that private sales of firearms are typically between strangers.  In point of fact, the statement that "40% of firearms sales are completed without a check" ... includes not "sales" but "Transfers" which often do not include the exchange of money.

Which is to say, TRANSFER of firearms (which is the true scope of the proposal) includes a parent gifting a firearm to a relative.  That is a "guesstimate" of the statistic, not supported by actual data because these TRANSFERS are not included in data currently gathered by the Federal Government.

But if this becomes law ... it will be gathered, and retained by the Feds:  and they can use this information any way they want to, including as a guide which firearms they should confiscate "next".

The news reports do NOT provide the source of their statistics, perhaps because their sources are public statements by public officials, such as this Republican Senator from Oklahoma.  (Which is just one more reason why I consider myself a "Conservative" rather than a "Republican".)

Private transfer of firearms has historically NEVER been restricted by the Government at any level; only the public sales between dealers and the anonymous public.    This legislation is intended to put the Government between the provider and the recipient of ANY firearms transfer; it is not only intrusive in our private affairs, but it advances the proposition that the Government has the right to interfere in family matters; a position which is not supported by the Constitution.

Is it something in the water?  What has caused our current regimes (not government, but would-be Czars) to decide that they have a right to interfere with a gift or a will which allows a parent or grandparent to privately transfer their personal arms to their progeny?

That is the effect of the "Universal Background Check" laws which are being proposed.


Gun Show Loophole

Actually, this so-called "Gun Show Loophole" is the justification for the proposal.  And .. at least in Oregon .. it is entirely bogus.  Local sponsors of  "Gun Shows" have long ago decided that it is their responsibility to avail themselves of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) as part of any firearms transaction.    Do private individual conduct firearms transfers in the parking lot of gun shows?  Possibly .. even probably.  But this is not the normal profile of firearms transfers as Gun Shows, and in fact it is not the situation which we are most concerned about protecting from governmental intrusion.

This proposal is concerned that the Government be involved in ANY firearms transfer ... "if it saves just one child", as they so pompously state.  In truth, it is an unwarranted obtrusion on private family matters, and as such should be rejected out of hand.

The recent trend has been toward accepting the concept that only the Government (especially in its most all-intrusive definition .. the Federal Government) can properly protect us against the "Sale" of firearms to criminals, terrorists, and homicidal lunatics.

The NICS was originally proposed ONLY to regulate the common public sale of firearms between licensed dealers and the anonymous public;  and we accepted it, acknowledging that this was a 'stranger-to-stranger' transaction; it was "commerce", and vaguely justified by the long-abused "Interstate Commerce" provision in the Constitution.   We can live with that.

Obama's new proposals, however, have used that regulation to spring-board dramatically more intrusive governmental intervention.   Not satisfied with restrictions on "commerce", this new approach goes beyond the original "keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists and lunatics" goal;  now they want to know who has guns, and where they go.

Yes, you read that right.  The NICS carefully avoided retention of firearms sales records;  all it wanted to do was to insure that the recipient was not legally prohibited from buying a firearm; after the sale was vetted, records were deleted in that the identification of the firearm, and that of the purchaser, was necessarily deleted after a certain (in terms of hours, perhaps days) period.

The ONLY way that the "Universal Background Check" system can function properly .. which is to say, the only way that enforcement is possible .. is that the name of the prior owner, and the name of the new owner .. and sufficient personal & demographic information to insure identification of the individuals involved .. will be recorded.  Also, it is necessary that the firearm serial number, and other specific description be recorded AND STORED so that subsequent transfers can be empowered to track the ownership of each individual firearm.

This is .. ipso facto ... Registration.  But because of the current state of national hysteria, our wanna-be Lords and Masters believe that they can slip the whole "Registration" thingie in under the radar.  We won't understand what they are doing, because if we were smart enough to understand they way governmental regulations are intended to undermine our basic rights .. we would probably be smart enough to avoid selling guns to crooks and terrorists in the first place.

Go back and re-read that last sentence.

Think about ObamaCare, which requires 2,000+ (unread) pages to define how we need to have the federal government involved in our health-care plans, because we're not smart enough to provide for our own physical health.

In the same way, the Feds are here saying (dismissively) that we are not smart enough .. or sufficiently concerned about our own welfare . to avoid selling crooks the instruments by which they may rob and murder us.

(The Soviet union had the same idea 20 years ago:  they thought we were so dumb that we would sell them the rope by which they intended to hang us.)

But it's a two-tier scenario.  While we're focusing on the details of the proposal, and worrying about line-item veto .... we're supposedly ignoring the basic premise of the thing:

We aren't able to run our own lives, so they're going to do it for me.  It's their job, and .. the more laws they pass, the more likely we are to believe that they (the President, the Senators, the Representatives and all of the other detritus of Politics) are working for our betterment.

It's insulting.

They're treating us as if we were children.

Oh!  [Dawns the light!]  They believe that we ARE incompetent to handle our affairs.  In their minds, of COURSE we require the gentle guidance of their elected parental hands.

And they wonder why we thing that the Second Amendment needs protecting from their usurpation of our Constructional Rights.

They need to go back, and re-read (or read for the first time, most likely) the Constitution;  And the Federalist Papers!

(What a bunch of Maroons!)

NRA Attacks "UNIVERSAL" Background Checks

NRA chief says The Gods Gun-Grabbers Must Be Crazy! 

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 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

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."]

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.]

Bloomberg & Columbine

Bloomberg's gun control group airs ad with Columbine footage urging background checks for gun sales
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is at it again.

His political gang "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" is running adds using surveillance video from Columine in several Eastern States to continue his anti-second amendment campaign against private firearms ownership.

This time he has taken the gloves of. The use of Columbine videos milks the tragedy of child deaths for his own private political agenda, and should be universally castigated.

His point, as nearly as an honest man can decipher the bullsh*t, is:


That probably won't happen, though. Bloomberg has an in-house coterie of anti-second amendment politicians which support his un-ethical attempts to condemn citizens of other states for legal firearms transactions.

Legal, even though his private agents make every attempt to coax them into selling firearms under illegal ... dubious ... even merely questionable circumstances.

In 2007, Bloomberg agents invaded Georgia in an 'operation' which is described as "going too far" by even the New York Times.

... in this town of 48,000 where Julia Roberts was born, the fight has become deeply personal. Jay Wallace, who owns Adventure Outdoors, one of the major gun distributors in the area and a defendant in one of the city’s lawsuits, is countersuing Mr. Bloomberg, alleging fraud, slander and libel. A well-known resident who has operated the business here for 31 years, Mr. Wallace has drummed up support with an online fund-raising campaign, a summertime rally that drew hundreds, and celebrity representation by a lawyer who is a former congressman, Bob Barr.

Guns Magazine, in a June, 2007 article, said "Bloomberg Stings Stink".

Last week, lawyers representing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in his lawsuit against out-of-state firearms dealers revealed the city had conducted additional "sting" operations against firearms retailers within New York state and the city. The city refused to produce the tapes of these latest stings, telling the court the dealers were not yet: aware they had been "stung."

Note that, in 2007, Bloomberg's own website (citing an October, 2007 article in Guns Magazine) states that he has agreed to discontinue his attempts to discontinue "Future actions against Virginia Dealers".

After a stern warning from Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg agreed to abide by Virginia law in pursuing any future actions involving Virginia firearms dealers. McDonnell last week warned New York legal action could be taken if private agents continue to target Virginia gun dealers in undercover sting operations.

After July 1, a new Virginia law will make such actions a felony. In a press release, McDonnell thanked Bloomberg for agreeing to obey the law.--Courtesy NSSF

That doesn't mean, obviously, that he hasn't given up his quixotic quest to demonize firearms transactions; Bloomberg has merely gone 'national' with his campaign.

This nation finds itself in a sad state when a rich man can, literally, BUY the mayorship of the largest city in the country and use that political platform as a fulcrum to leverage his own personal political agenda.

Nothing new here, folks.

Just the latest chapter in the continuing story of one man's quest to decide what is best for you and me.

But I have to say, it kind of pisses me off. When will Mike work himself so far out-of-state that he begins to attack legitimate firearms transactions in ... Oregon?

The Way Of The Gun

The Way Of The Gun - CBS News Video
From the April 12, 2009, 60 minutes program, the following is a segment by Leslie Stahl titled: The Way Of The Gun

Watch CBS Videos Online


For more background, (H/T) Opposing Views: Breaking Down 60 Minutes' Anti-Gun Bias

_____________________________________

It's not just C BS!

CNN has been jumping the shark with anti-gun stuff (regularly). Case in point, this (March, 2009?) video of an Anderfson Cooper article about .50 Caliber Barrett Rifles ... and other Evil Guns imported from America to Mexico.
xxxxx
This is part of the now-infamous "90% of Mexican Crime Weapons Come from U.S." MSM-generated Urban Legend which I discussed last week. (CNN Quote: "America is still a major source for powerful weapons which are being used by Mexican Drug Cartels.")

.50 Barrets are hard to come by ... and they're expensive (you're looking at $7,000 to $8,ooo ... if one is available).

So where are those fifties coming from? Best guess: the Mexican Army, which the US has shipped a number to within the past few years, and WE don't have any idea if they're still in control of the Mexican Army.

Mexican Police are being slaughtered by Drug "Cartels", and one of the most constant sources of their weapons are Mexican Army troops who are deserting with their weapons ... no figures are available on the number of deserters, those who took their personal weapons or other weapons, or what weapons are missing from inventory. You would expect that either the Mexicans, who are pointing fingers at Americans, or the Amreican Government would have those figures, wouldn't you?

I mean, if Mexico claims we are the source of guns for criminals, our government would at least require them to account for the guns we have provided for their military, right?

If anybody has asked question, I haven't heard about it.

The Obama Administration (and Obama, personally), seem to have bought into concept and are reacting as if tahe accusation was true:

US President Barack Obama has admitted that America shares responsibility for Mexico's violent struggle against its drug cartels. On his first official visit to Mexico City, President Obama vowed to support Mexico's fight, promising to slow down the number of US guns being smuggled across the border.

Without hard facts from the Mexican Military (for just one example of accepted minimal documentation of the accusations) on Missing Firearms, the American government can't accept responsibility for the inability of the Mexican Government to keep track of their own arsenal contents.

Obama seems to have willingly skipped this step. He could have learned from Ronald Reagan, who espoused the policy: "Trust, then Verify".
_______________________

So we have CBS, CNN and ABC coming down on the side of "The Day of the Evil Gun". Add to that the Obama administration, and the American Citizen has no hope that the Second Amendment will survive the next four years without experiencing some major predations.

Foreigners, MSM, Politicians and Liberals constitute the Four Horsemen of The Apocalypse.

Mother Jones as "Yellow Journalism"

Opinions are like Assholes: everyone has one.

The trick is to avoid being an obvious asshole by publishing your ignorant opinion in a public place.

(Note: in anticipation, I admit that this is a trick which I have not yet mastered.)

In the July/August edition of Mother Jones [MoJo], the editors manage the not-too-difficult hat trick of seeming to be authoritative but (to those who know the subject) making the perquisite minimum of three basic errors, in the article Semiautomatic for the People.

(For a real understanding of the MoJo bias, pay attention to the URL of the article. It is:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/07/
outfront-bush-to-cops-drop-dead.html

I'm sure there isn't a subliminal message there, nor is there an attempt to undermine the Bush Administration.)


This isn't the Main Stream Media, which tries not-too-hard (but usually fails) in attempting to be objective. This entire website is devoted to writing opinions cloaked in the armor of good research. That is; they find a subject, research it to determine the facts, and then slant it to present the facts in a manner which will logically lead the reader to reach their pre-determined conclusions.

Way to go, MoJo! You have just put the reader in the unenviable position of needing to wade through the morass of opinion in a vain attempt to decide whether your hidden agenda is supported by the facts.

In this article ... it isn't.

But that doesn't matter, because the way you twist the truth is so skillful that, unless the reader is cognizant of facts not presented in the article, the average reader will accept your interpretation without question.

Read on:
_____________________

This article is about the author's quest for "... something with a bit more Firepower" at a gunshow. Specifically, a firearm "designed to circumvent federal regulations on the import of assault weapons."

Whoa! That's a heavy agenda! Don't we have laws against that?

Well, yes. We do.

But it kind of depends on the meaning of the phrase "Assault Weapon".

There are (and here I'm quoting Wikipedia, always a dubious source but adequate for this purpose) Assault Weapons and Assault Rifles.


Assault Rifles are 'selective fire' (either semi- or full-automatic modes available) firearms of 'intermediate' caliber. Assault weapons include semi-automatic firearms that look like Assault Rifles, even if they don't have the same functional characteristics. Assault Rifles, being capable of full-automatic fire, have been regulated since 1934.

Assault Weapons were only regulated by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and were subject to a 10-year Sunset Clause:

SEC. 110105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This subtitle and the amendments made by this subtitle--

(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) are repealed effective as of the date that is 10 years after that date.

[emphasis added]

Essentially, this last provision was added by the Republican contingent of Congress because, if after 10 years there was no evidence that the law provided an ameliorating effect on Gun Crime, it would be subject to either permanent enactment or rejection, depending on the vote of Congress.

In 2005, the Sunset Clause was proffered to Congress for ratification or for rejection. President George W. Bush famously (or infamously, if you will) declared that if congress ratified the act, he would sign the permanent bill.

In the actual event, Congress defeated the measure and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was defeated ... not because Bush chose to, but because Congress chose to.

Yet in the MoJo article, we see this statement:

" ... not only did the current Bush administration allow the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse, it has also, through the atf, permitted gun manufacturers to game the import rules, effectively reopening American borders to foreign assault weapons. While the import ban remains nominally in force, gun importers are now able to easily skirt it by assembling the guns in the US."

The first clause implies that President G.W. Bush "allowed" the ban to lapse, while in fact Bush was willing to agree to whatever decision Congress would make. The rest of the paragraph referred to subsequent actions not under control of the Bush Administration.

In fact, original legislation attempted to define "Assault Weapons" not by only brand and model, but by 'characteristics' or 'features':

At a table near the entrance, I found it: a Chinese-made mak-90 semiautomatic rifle, a variation of the Russian AK-47 designed to circumvent federal regulations on the import of assault weapons. "It's the same gun," the dealer told me. "They just eliminated the pistol grip, replaced it with a threaded thumb grip, and took off the flash suppressor."

(Examples include flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, and threaded barrels for attaching silencers). The law bans 18 models and variations by name, as well as revolving cylinder shotguns. It also has a “features test” provision banning other semiautomatics having two or more military-style features. In sum, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has identified 118 models and variations that are prohibited by the law. A number of the banned guns are foreign semiautomatic rifles that have been banned from importation into the U.S. since 1989.

So the MoJo statement that ".... the current Bush administration (allowed) the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse (and) permitted gun manufacturers to game the import rules, effectively reopening American borders to foreign assault weapons ..." is pure hyperbole. Which is another, and much more Politically Correct, word for "Bullshit".

Let us look at another MoJo statement:

But not only did the current Bush administration allow the 1994 assault weapons ban to lapse, it has also, through the atf, permitted gun manufacturers to game the import rules, effectively reopening American borders to foreign assault weapons. While the import ban remains nominally in force, gun importers are now able to easily skirt it by assembling the guns in the US.

They can't have it both ways, but they're trying!

AWB advocates and opponents alike stated that the AWB allowed firearms manufacturers to make minor changes to make their affected firearms legal, and they both described the features affected by the ban as "cosmetic"... Supporters pointed to the ability to fire a large capacity magazine without the need to reload as frequently; the ability to fire from the hip with a pistol grip; and greatly reduced chances for detection when using a silencer in the perpetration of a crime (silencers were already regulated by federal law prior to the AWB)...

Critics also noted that many of the defining features included in the ban did not necessarily make a weapon more dangerous or more desirable to a common criminal (for example, bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds.) ...

Once certain combinations of features were banned, manufactures complied with the law by removing such combinations of features. ... As the production of large-capacity magazines for civilians had also been prohibited, manufacturers sold their post-ban firearms either with newly-manufactured magazines with capacities of ten rounds or less, or with pre-ban manufactured high-capacity magazines, to meet changing legal requirements.

Those of us who found the AWB 'laughable', because it relied on 'cosmetic' definitions of an Assault Weapon, had little reason to disagree with a practical response to petty tyranny.

Those who didn't themselves have a viable definition of the term "Assault Weapon", but didn't like the image of "Ugly Guns", considered the actions of the "firearms industry" (removing objectionable characteristics from nominally unobjectionable firearms models) considered these changes to be an effort to "skirt" the law.

This only pointed out the shallow definitions used to describe "Assault Weapons", but the folks who objected to the changes in firearms configurations were bound to protest. They had painted themselves into a corner, and there was no graceful way for them to bow out of the controversy.

Another loophole was created for the sks semiautomatic carbine, developed in 1945 for use by the Soviet army until it was replaced by the more rugged AK-47. The Bush administration reclassified the sks as a "curio," adding it to the atf's [sic] list of such weapons, most over 50 years old and considered collectors' items, that are automatically authorized for import.

This is more bullshit. The AWB specifically excepted:

`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--

`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

`(B) any firearm that--

`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;

`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or

`(iii) is an antique firearm;

... and an "antique firearm" is defined as any weapon that is more than 50 years old.

One assumes that the Legislature is composed of lawyers, and that they are competent in their profession. If they wanted to exempt a firearm which is more than 50 years old, they had ample opportunity to specify it during the extended period when the original bill was being considered. Now that it had been enacted, MoJo finds fault in the law and blames gun-owners for not predicting that MoJo would object to their lawful possession of a lawful gun?

I call this the "LIMBO" interpretation of Federal Law: "How Low Can You Go?" Apparently, MoJo can go as low as it takes to denigrate the actions of lawful firearms owners.

...

Getting back to the original article ...

At the Fishersville gun show, crowd members seemed particularly drawn to the assault weapons on display ... At one table, a little boy admired a .50-caliber sniper rifle, capable of downing a jumbo jet, while at another a man held a cheap Romanian AK knockoff to his shoulder. His T-shirt read "'Freedom At Any Cost.'—Randy Weaver, Ruby Ridge, Idaho." The only thing that prevented me from becoming the proud owner of a mak-90 was my Washington, DC, driver's license: The district has the nation's strictest gun rules. (At press time the law was under review by the Supreme Court.) But if I really wanted the mak-90, one dealer pointed out, all I had to do was move to Virginia.

The author is disturbed that "a little boy" admires a ".50-caliber sniper rifle, capable of downing a jumbo jet". Is he honestly concerned that a child will use an 80-pound rifle, costing from $3,000 to $13,000, to shoot down an airplane?

Then he seems to object that Federal Firearm Laws prevent his indulgence in "The Gun Show Loophole".

If there really WAS a loophole, would he have been able to write this article?