Gun control bill clears its first hurdle in Senate

Gun control bill clears its first hurdle in Senate | US National Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress' most serious gun-control effort in years cleared its first hurdle Thursday as the Senate pushed past conservatives' attempted blockade under the teary gaze of families of victims of December's Connecticut school shootings.

The bipartisan 68-31 vote rebuffed an effort to keep debate from even starting, giving an early victory — and perhaps political momentum — to President Barack Obama and his gun control allies. Four months after 20 first-graders and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown were killed, relatives watching the vote from a gallery overlooking the Senate floor dabbed at tears and clasped hands, some seeming to pray.

Even so, few supporters of the legislation are confident of victory. Several weeks of emotional, unpredictable Senate debate lie ahead, and a mix of gun-rights amendments, opposition from the National Rifle Association and skepticism from House Republican leaders leave big questions about what will emerge from Congress. Foes of the proposed new restrictions say they would penalize law-abiding citizens and do nothing to curb gun violence.

 "The hard work starts now," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who brought the legislation to the floor for debate.

 The United States Senate today proved themselves sensitive to the needs and desires of the American People.  Yes, the effect is essentially the same, but they promise that they will provide lubricant.

Here, according to the text of the report, are some of the particulars (no, I don't have text to support the news story):

BACKGROUND CHECKS:

The Senate's firearms bill would subject nearly all gun buyers to background checks, add muscle to federal laws barring illicit firearm sales and provide slightly more money for school safety measures.

"Nearly all" means that they will NOT require background  checks for private transfers (including sales?), which implies that "legacy firearms transfers" (my term, not theirs) between family members will not require a background check.

However, it 'specifically' (?) requires that gun show transactions include an NICS background check.  I have no problems with that, personally; if you're going to have checks for dealers in their store, you might as well have checks for dealers in "off-premises" venues.

Unknown so far is whether that is going to affect the guy who wanders into the gun show with an AR slung over his shoulder, and finds some non-dealer attendee who wants to buy it.  Are "Parking Lot Sales" going to be regulated?   IF so .. how, and why?  This is one of the "fiddly bits" which suggest that the actual bill is going to look a lot like the Obama Medical thingie;  convoluted, long, and with lots of stuff that's hidden in the text.  As an aside, I think that any bill which takes takes more than 20 minutes for a high-school graduate to read should be summarily dismissed without a vote.

ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES:

Excluded and facing near-certain defeat in upcoming votes were proposals to ban military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — factors in the Newtown killings some [sic] other recent mass shootings. But keeping those provisions out of the current legislation did not mollify critics.

It would appear that results of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" test/debacle actually reached the desks of some senators.  Which is to say, it didn't work then and it won't work now, so drop it!

CRAZY PEOPLE CONTROL:

Some potential amendments could broaden gun rights and weaken supporters' backing for the overall bill.
One proposal is by Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Mark Begich, D-Alaska, who say it would improve how the federal background check system blocks weapons from going to people with certain mental problems, though critics say it would make it harder in some cases to do so. Another possible amendment would require states to recognize permits for carrying concealed weapons issued by other states.

Yes, I think that there are people who just should not have access to a firearm.  This includes all the people who think it's fun to shot up shopping malls, churches, movie theaters and schools.  I'm just not sure about the difference between "crazy" and "evil".

I'm aware that there are laws currently which prevent "permission" to sell to these people; I hear that the problem is with reporting.

I think the problem is with reporting, but not the way it has been presented.  I don't think it's so much that states get the information but aren't reporting it to the feds.   I DO think it's with defining the difference between crazy/evil people, and people who go to their "mental health provider" and piss him/her off.   The problem with reporting is "who will guard the guardians".  There are a lot of minimally qualified "Psychologists" out there whose credentials are .. can I say "IFFY"?   The folks who go into the head-shrinking business are usually caring, helpful professionals.  Or they are a bunch of libertards who think they know what's best for everyone.  Sometimes, the line between the two sub-groups overlaps.   It's kind of like the pediatricians who question the children they see, and ask them intrusive questions like: "Are there guns in daddy's closet?"

Agendas, that's the part that makes me shiver and quake.   I dread the day when some shrink arbitrarily decides that a patient is a danger and reports his patient to the feds, cancelling the patient's 2nd Amendment freedoms.  Before this is acceptable, there needs to be a LOT of references and referrals.  The U.S. Government is going to make this decision?  The psychologist may be right, or may be wrong.   The "If It Saves Just One Child" is the popular excuse for a plethora of societal ills.  How do you distinguish between a patient's "problems" and an examiner's "agenda"?

Again .... tons of verbiage in a federal bill, and a witch-hunt.

DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, AND "REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS"

In Thursday's vote, 50 Democrats and 2 Democratic-leaning independents were joined by 16 Republicans in voting to begin debate on the legislation. Twenty-nine Republicans and two Democrats facing re-election next year in GOP-leaning states voted "no" — Alaska's Begich and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

(and)

The Senate plans to debate an amendment Tuesday expanding background checks less broadly than the overall legislation would. Broadening the system to cover more transactions is the heart of the current effort on guns.
That amendment, a compromise between Sens. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., would subject buyers in commercial settings like gun shows and the Internet to the checks but exempt non-commercial transactions like sales between friends and relatives.
That accord, unveiled Wednesday, was designed to build bipartisan support for the legislation and seemed likely to do so. Toomey and Manchin are among the most conservative members of their parties and are both gun owners with NRA ratings of "A."

I don't have the list of Republican senators who supported this bill.  I intend to find out.  You should, too.  The flawed Republican Party is rife with politicians who are (a) honest in the historical sense that "when you buy them, they stay bought", and (b) Republicans In Name Only. There are overlaps, and if my contempt disrespect for professional politicians leaks through here, I am unrepentant.  However, one of the enduring planks in the Republican party is supposedly "respect for the Constitution";  this is one of the things that Obama cited in both of his presidential campaigns, and now we see how sincere HE was.

SUMMARY:

This bill is at the same time less than I had feared, and more than I had feared.  The obvious issues are whether this would become (1) a second attempt at an "Assault Weapons Ban", (2) "Background Checks on Legacy Transfers" and (3) the associated "Registration/Confiscation" issues..

The first seems to have been adroitly avoided.
The second seems to have been narrowly sidestepped.
The third ... is not even addressed.  Which, to my mind, bodes ill for honest firearms owners.


HOWEVER:

Any time the Federal Government involves itself with infringements of the Second Amendment, people start calling for compromises.  What that means is, legitimate firearms owners give up a part of their rights, and nobody else.  It's NOT going to stop the school shootings, it's NOT going to stop armed robberies, it's NOT going to stop crazy/stupid/evil people from acting crazy, and it is NOT going to recognize that Americans With Guns defend themselves, their families, and their homes millions of times every year.


Oh .. wait.  Maybe it's going to stop that last part.

Post office retreats on eliminating Saturday mail

Post office retreats on eliminating Saturday mail | US National Headlines | Comcast:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The financially beleaguered Postal Service backpedaled on its plan to end Saturday mail delivery, conceding Wednesday that its gamble to compel congressional approval had failed. 

 With limited options for saving money, the governing board said the agency should reopen negotiations with unions to lower labor costs and consider raising mail prices. 

Yet the board also said it's not possible for the Postal Service to meet its goals for reduced spending without altering the delivery schedule. Delaying "responsible changes," the board said, only makes it more likely that the Postal Service "may become a burden" to taxpayers. 

Congressional reaction was mixed, mirroring differences that have stalled a needed postal overhaul for some time. Some lawmakers had urged the agency to forge ahead with its plan, while others had said it lacked the legal authority to do so. 

The Postal Service said in February that it planned to switch to five-day-a-week deliveries beginning in August for everything except packages as a way to hold down losses. 

That announcement was risky. The agency was asking Congress to drop from spending legislation the longtime ban on five-day-only delivery. 

Congress did not do that when it passed a spending measure last month.

 Still ... I have not received mail on a Saturday for ... years.  Is this a local phenomenon, or is the USPS mounting a subtle, "phantom protest"?

It doesn't really matter to me if they don't deliver Saturday mail to private residences.   Most of what I get is junk mail, and the rest is bills.  The local USPS installed a box on the corner of the cul-de-sac in which I live some years ago, so I have to walk all the way to the corner to pick up my mail!  Outrageous!  I may actually have to walk a few steps to check my mail!

And when I order bullets from Montana Gold?   * USPS doesn't put it in the "bulk mail" box ... they put a polite little pink slip in my letter box telling me to go pick up my parcel.  Well, it's 80+ pounds of lead and brass. 

Frankly, I don't blame them.  If I were the mail carrier, I wouldn't put an 80# box on my doorstop, either!

My solution?  I bought a hand-truck.

I figure, these guys are doing all they can to hold down costs.  If I can do my part to pick up the heavy stuff that *_I_* ordered (they give a good price on bulk shipping via USPS vs UPS), then it's my patriotic duty to trundle my hand-truck up to the window in my local post office.

When I can't manage a case of 2250 200-grain bullets from my car to my loading bench, I'm too feeble to shoot IPSC matches anyway.

Not an issue.
______________________________________________________
*
Update: April 11, 2013
Check the link in the body of the store, but as of this date Montana Gold Bullets is "OUT OF STOCK" on every single bullet which they typically sell.    Caliber, weight, configuration ... none of this matters.   They are apparently out of business until the raw materials become available to resume production.   "The Business of America is Business", as Calvin Coolidge is often misquoted, and due to purely political reasons, Business in America is Bad.

And by the way, I try not to include loading data here due to liability concerns.

Response to "The Hill" / 4-8-13

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292265-report-sens-manchin-toomey-in-talks-to-expand-background-checks

(In "Comments")

The whole thing about "transfers within family" is disingenuous.  In order to determine that this is an "allowed transfer" (more on this later), the guv needs to identify both the doner and the donee, and confirm the filial relationship. You have just identified both parties to the transaction .. which (to date) had always been sacrosanct. 

Next, you need to identify the transferred firearm .. including serial number. Can you say "Database", children? (I knew you could!) 

So you have three points of transactional identification Donor, Donee, and SN. This will be propagated unto the Nth generation, which means that by REGISTERING this firearm, you have not only tagged yourself and your immediate descendant you have tagged your decedents descendants forever. 

This, my friend, is the ultimate "Firearms Registration" scam. They don't CALL it that .. because that would be just WRONG! But that's what it is.

Has anyone considered that this plan requires that the United States' Government essentially is position to ALLOW firearms transfer .. and thus, firearms possession?
"THEY" cannot do that .. unless we allow them to. The Second Amendment (I'm sure this may become a 'tedious' reference to some of you) specifically disallows "Infringement" of the right of the Citizen to "Keep and Bear Arms". "Infringement" doesn't mean "YOU CANNOT STOP IT ENTIRELY"; it means " YOU CAN"T NIP 'N' TUCK IT TO DEATH!" 

You may not dance around the edges of the thing, and disallow this little thing and that. No, we're not talking about Weapons of Mass Discussion (stet) here; we're talking about the small-arms typically allotted to the common infantryman, in defense of his nation against a Government Gone Wile. CF: Concord; CF: American Revolution.

Bottom line: My guns are .. my guns. I can give them to my kids, and the guv not only shouldn't stop the transfer, but should not be aware of it! Certainly, they should not regulate it!

Senators debate whether you can give your guns to your kids

Report: Sens. Manchin, Toomey in talks over background checks - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and his GOP colleague Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.) are working on language which would expand checks on firearm sales at gun shows and over the Internet.  

Their preliminary proposal, still in talks, would exclude gun sales between family members and temporary transfers for those with a hunting license, according to Senate aides close to negotiations, assuaging GOP concerns, the Post first reported Sunday night.

We're all waiting, wondering and worrying about whether and how the proposed "Gun-Control" laws would affect your ability to give your heritage firearms to your descendents.

The bottom line is ... control.

Think about it: The Federal Government is  deciding whether they will "let you" disperse your firearms.  They are now deciding whether they will "let you" give your firearms to your children, or other family members.

How are they going to do this?

Well, first, they need to identify the people who have firearms.
Then they need to identify the firearms.
Next, they need to identify your family.

See  a trend here?

Tracking.

In the "Best Case" scenario, "They" will "let you" transfer your firearms to "your family" without restriction.

In order to effect this oh-so-lenient permission, they need at least three data-points.  Maybe four.

1. They need to identify you;
2. They need to identify your family (and confirm the congruency);
3. They need t o identify the firearm
4. They need to confirm that you, and your family member, are legally allowed to possess the firearm.

Isn't that special?  They will LET YOU do what you have always been 'allowed' to do for 200 years, and the justification for this new record-keeping is that it will prevent ... what?

I don't know why they need to do this.  Well, from their point of view, it provides the government with a handy means to regulate firearms.  Not just the TRANSFER, but the POSSESSION.

Who here is going to go through all the (you imagine the scenario) hoops required for you to give your guns ... or leave them, in your will .. to your wife, your children, or your cousin?  What happens if you die intestate?  You didn't make specific provisions in your will for the disposition of your firearms?  Gee, what are these "Representatives" going to do to service your last wish?

Best case:   they will track your family for the rest of their lives, and your children's children as well.  Can you say "Big Brother"?

Anytime you find the Government "permitting" you to do something, you should immediately redefine that as "reserving the right to FORBIDDING you to do ... whatever.

The Feds, the State, your local municipality .. they have no business deciding/regulating/recording what you do with your personal firearms.  They have no "need to know".

Reject (refuse to complete) any governmental form which includes the serial number, description, origin or disposition of your personal arms.  

I would usually avoid the use of foul language (except under certain circumstances, usually involving "mass murder"), but today I will define at least two:

Vile Verb:  Registration
Vile Noun: Politician

These processes, and these people, do not mean to do you any service .. which is THEIR JOB!  You pay their salary, they are (supposedly) your servants.  They work for you, they have no mandate to tell you what to do.  Oppose them at your every opportunity.  Resist their oppression, ignore their illegal laws, and vote against any of them who support  illegal Gun Control.

Oh ...  all Gun Control Laws are not legal; especially the "hidden laws".

"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!)

Great!

On a personal note ...
I just heard that my Sister's Daughter's Son's Wife gave birth yesterday to SON: Carter Arron ......

... which (if you have lost track of the generational implications) makes me a Great Grand-Uncle!

Mother and Son are doing well.  Father ... perhaps just a bit Sky-Hawked?  Can't blame him for feeling out-of-this-world.  I remember when my own first child was born.  I didn't know how to handle it.

Now I know how to handle the birth of a new GEEKSTER:

Gloat!

Life is GOOD!

Obama Gun-Control Backlash Continues

Beretta Leaves Maryland Because of Stricter Gun Laws:

New legislation is forcing gun manufacturing company Beretta to uproot and take their business elsewhere.
 Established in 1526, Beretta holds the distinction of being the oldest active firearms manufacturer in the world. The U.S. factory is located in Accokeek, Maryland, and has been a staple of the local economy for years.
 Beretta warned that stricter gun control laws would push the company outside of state lines, but that didn’t stop Maryland legislators. Jeffrey Reh, a spokesman for Beretta who also serves as the President of Stoeger Industries under Beretta, announced that the company would begrudgingly uproot and take its business elsewhere. He said, “We don’t want to do this, we’re not willing to do this, but obviously this legislation has caused us a serious level of concern within our company.”

Following the lead of other firearms-related business (see: HiViz Shooting Systems Leaving Colorado, Credits State Gun Laws, a link in my last blog article), Beretta has decided that they too are no longer are willing to add .. well, "$31 million in annual taxes" to the coffers of a state which denies firearms freedoms to its citizens.

Beretta is voting with its wallet.

Al Gore famously lost his bid to the Presidency of the United States of America in 2000 .. not even winning in his own home state of Tennessee ... because of his paranoid views of the right of individual Americans to responsibly possess firearms.   Since then, Politicians have carefully danced around the question of "Gun control" because they know that such a political stance would lose them elections.

It took a Lame Duck Socialist President to bring the subject up again, and individual Liberal states have been encouraged by his example to attempt imposition of draconian and nonsensical gun control laws at a state level.

This has backfired on them; publicly and dramatically.

The President has spent this nation into a debt-crisis which is akin to mini-states such as Greece, and Cyprus, and cannot reasonably afford to enact or even encourage such unpopular laws.  True to form, though, this President has decided that he can freely look only to the liberal mindset and ignore the wishes and preferences of Americans who are just as politically savvy, and much more likely to protest arbitrary lawmaking in a way which will hurt professional politicians worst; in the voting booth, and in the pocket.

The states which follow his example are now incurring the wrath of not only local voters, but also their tax base.

It's still far to early to determine whether the Liberals in this country are willing to listen to the protests of outraged conservative citizens.  (Probably not: agendas are the dreams stuff is made of!)  But one thing is sure:  the price for voting your prejudices has gone up, and will doubtless be felt in Colorado and Maryland.


Personally, I've never bought anything from either Hi-Viz or Beretta ... but I will, before I ever vote for another Liberal Democrat.

It's an easy choice to make, even without the tax protests.

Obama will NOW "...take away (our) guns!"

iGoogle

Obama Goes To Colorado To Advance Gun Control Movement

April 3, 2013

View and comment on NPR.org

President Obama is trying to regain some traction for federal gun control measures by visiting states that are moving forward on their own.On Wednesday, the president speaks in Colorado, where lawmakers recently passed a series of bills requiring background checks for all gun purchases and limiting the size of ammunition clips. Obama would like to see similar measures adopted nationwide. But if Colorado serves as an inspiration for the president, it also provides a cautionary tale. The Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colo., has re-opened with a new name and a new supply of action flicks. But residents here haven't forgotten last summer's massacre, in which a gunman opened fire during a late-night screening of a Batman movie, killing 12 and wounding nearly 60 others. ... "This is our best chance in more than a decade to take common-sense steps that will save lives," he said at the White House last week.  Obama warned that even though polls show strong support for universal background checks and other gun control measures, they face powerful opposition from the gun lobby. [emphasis addedl some non-essential comments deleted] __________________________________ This, from the man who campaigned under the "We Will Not Take Away Your Guns" platform? When he ran in 2008, he specifically said "We're not going to take away your guns" .. almost dismissively, as if the issue were so obvious that anyone who as much as suggested that was his "hidden agenda" was a paranoid idiot. And some people didn't believe him.  Idiocy! Then when he ran again in 2012, he repeated his mantra:  "We're not going to take away your guns". And some people didn't believe him.  Madness! Now here it is, 2013, and President Obama is making definite "taking away our guns" noises ... and what?  Nobody cares?    We can't all be mad, although we might all be idiots.  After all, a majority of American Citizens DID elect this .. liar .. to the presidency.   Twice. Who's the idiot?  Remember the old adage?   "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." My friends called me a racist when I voted for the "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA" tickets, but of course I wasn't.  I was just a man who didn't believe the convicted liar (well, he's a politician .. they're all liars)  when he said:   We're not going to take away your guns! Guess what?  It's April of 2013, and Obama is going to take away our guns.  He has a lot of backup ... look at the Liars (sorry ... "Politicians") in Colorado.  See what they're doing?  I haven't had the  nerve to look at the Oregon Bill 3200 lately; I'm afraid that my elected liars are just as  egregious as that guy we elected to sit in the White House (Even though I never voted for him, and I never believed in Obama's "Dream" ... that doesn't mean he isn't My President.  It just means that I didn't campaign hard enough against him.  Well .. Romney ... was never a serious candidate:  I could have voted or campaigned for Ralph Nader, and the outcome would have been the same.) Still, it's a special disappointment when events confirm that the man who is the President of the greatest nation in The Free World openly reveals himself to be an unapologetic liar goes back on his campaign promises. Am I an idiot to believe in campaign promises? Are you? Oh, BTW ... firearms-related businesses are pulling out of Colorado as if there's no tomorrow, following the news that the  state is enacting draconian gun-control laws.  What are they going to do now .. pull out of the United States of America? No. They're probably going out of business.  Way to encourage the American Economy, Barry!   It's not as if you haven't undermined the American economy already .. but do you have to squelch the ONE business which has expanded since your   re-election? I speak, of course, of the drive by the Average American to acquire and horde firearms, ammunition, and ammunition reloading products (primers, powder and bullets are all but unavailable in the past several months) since the average American believes that YOU, personally, will make firearms purchases (and supporting products) illegal in the near future.  WHY is Middle-America going crazy for guns? We do so because you are going to make them illegal ... and in doing so, will make felons of millions of Americans who will NOT give up their guns. They think they're going to need them, in The Bad Times ahead. And they're right.  There ARE "Bad Times" ahead.

second amendment

( I wrote an email to a friend on the East Coast recently, stipulating why I thought that Maryland Gun Control Laws ... which my friend found so onerous ... was anethema to my mind.  After I finished,  I realized that this was a good "First Draft" of a explanation of my own support of the Second Amendment.  This is that draft, with the personal information removed.  Yes, it's still a rough-cut, and I probably won't provide a finished draft.  Perhaps it's something that you can kick around and "make it better".  Please ignore the crude transitions as I tried to make clear, it's all just a stream-of-consciousness letter to a friend; it's not intended to be an UberPost. )

REGISTRATION
Registration is the first step, the second step is confiscation.  California proved that decades ago.  Citations are available, but we don't care to go into the details.

Also, Registration means that the state knows "who has what".  None of their business.  The Federal NCIC (National Criminal Identification Center) ensures that "bad guys" can't buy guns; if you buy one, and pass the NCIC test ... that proves you're not a bad guy.  The Feds are prohibited from keeping the details of any firearms transaction, or using that data for ANY purpose other than identifying criminals who try to buy a gun, and prosecuting them.  "Good Guys" data is deleted in a matter of days.

So, NCIC is designed to support current federal law, which says that felons can't own guns.  That's the sole purpose.

It is NOT intended to be the first step toward registration. 

States Rights notwithstanding, states can NOT violate constitutional law.  See the Second Amendment.  (For that matter, see the First Amendment, and everything else .. including the little-known Third Amendment, which prevents both states and feds from quartering soldiers in your home;  one of the primary issues which lead to the American Revolution.)

"THE RIGHT ... TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".  That means that the feds (and therefore, the states) can't xxxx (mess) with it.  At all.  States and municipalities have recently been slapped down for attempting to INFRINGE this right; see "Heller", for a start.

Recently, there have been challenges to the degree in which that amendment is applicable to the states.  Supreme Court decisions have supported the constitutional right of all non-felonious citizens to own firearms .. at least in their homes.  The current Left-Wing mantra is "what do you need a (military styled firearm) for, anyway?"  The answer to that is embedded in the Miller Decision (193???), in which a judge decided (in an uncontested case .. the  chargee was a bootlegger who had a shotgun) that the right of a citizen to own as short-barreled shotgun was not protected because it was not a "military arm".  Actually, if the guy charged would have shown up for his trial .. he would have easily proven that the U.S. Army used short-barreled shotguns (then called "Trench Guns") during WWI.  The odd thing is, that according to MILLER .. only military type firearms are DEFINITIVELY protected by the Constitution.  So ... at least  one state court has defended the right to keep Military arms, which sets a precedent.

(All of this stuff is being written "off the cuff", so I'm not providing links to the specific court cases.  You can look them up, for your own edification.  Since this is only a once-over-lightly "overview", I hope you will be comfortable with accepting that what I say is based on research; perhaps it may even be more effective if you do the research yourself, so you don't think I'm just smoking you here.)

SECOND AMENDMENT:
Look at the test of the "badly worded" amendment:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

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.

That curious comma has been the subject of a lot of discussion.  Bear in mind that the Colonists in 18th-century America had experienced a lot of problems with the "standing army"imposed upon them by the British.  (Remember the reference to the 3rd Amendment, earlier?  Those folks did NOT like British Troops!)  So, the point of a "well regulated militia" is not a casual, throw-away line as some people interpret it to be today. Instead, the founders and the authors of the Constitution were saying:

"We don't like an army telling us what we should and shouldn't do, so we're going to have our OWN guns .. and if those Limey Bastards get in our face again, we'll blow them all to HELL!"
(But they said it as nicely as they could ... and made damn sure it got into their constitution!)

Remember the shot heard 'round the world?  Remember Concord?  Those Limey Bastards had confiscated our rifles, and locked them up in their armory.  We took 'em back!  And when they came to get our rifles from us again .. we blew them all to HELL!

__________________________


So, what's the point of all this?  Not that we're wanting to get into another Revolutionary War, for damned sure!

We just want to avoid the entire unpleasant experience. 

Say, rather:  "You run the government, and we'll keep our guns.  We'll accept a few silly little laws, but don't touch our guns because ... well, remember Concord?"

And THAT is why the Second Amendment is so important.  It's not about hunting.  It's not about personal defense.  Even though those are part of it .........
... it's about Government Gone Wild.


So, I don't like registration; makes it easier to confiscate, and then we have to fight to get our guns back.

Ignorance of the law ..

"Alfred Anaya was a genius at installing secret compartments in cars. If they were used to smuggle drugs without his knowledge, he figured that wasn’t his problem. He was wrong."

 Alfred Anaya Put Secret Compartments in Cars. So the DEA Put Him in Prison | Threat Level | Wired.com:

Alfred Anaya took pride in his generous service guarantee. Though his stereo installation business, Valley Custom Audio Fanatics, was just a one-man operation based out of his San Fernando, California, home, he offered all of his clients a lifetime warranty: If there was ever any problem with his handiwork, he would fix it for the cost of parts alone—no questions asked


. Anaya’s customers typically took advantage of this deal when their fiendishly loud subwoofers blew out or their fiberglass speaker boxes developed hairline cracks. But in late January 2009, a man whom Anaya knew only as Esteban called for help with a more exotic product: a hidden compartment that Anaya had installed in his Ford F-150 pickup truck. Over the years, these secret stash spots—or traps, as they’re known in automotive slang—have become a popular luxury item among the wealthy and shady alike. This particular compartment was located behind the truck’s backseat, which Anaya had rigged with a set of hydraulic cylinders linked to the vehicle’s electrical system. The only way to make the seat slide forward and reveal its secret was by pressing and holding four switches simultaneously: two for the power door locks and two for the windows.

I know what you're thinking.  I thought it, too.  When can you know when to know what you know ... and when to not know what you know that you know.

If you understood that last sentence then you may be a geek.   This obsession to 'hide things' is the secret obsession of The Geek (not this one, but in the "generic sense").  Whether it's trap doors, or back-doors to computer programs ....Geeks Do This.

And if you think that you can your moral sense isn't a good guide in how you run your business ... and your life ... then you may be a felon, too.

IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE

A common hacker refrain is that technology is always morally neutral. The culture’s libertarian ethos holds that creators shouldn’t be faulted if someone uses their gadget or hunk of code to cause harm; the people who build things are under no obligation to meddle in the affairs of the adults who consume their wares.
But Alfred Anaya’s case makes clear that the government rejects that permissive worldview. The technically savvy are on notice that they must be very careful about whom they deal with, since calculated ignorance of illegal activity is not an acceptable excuse. But at what point does a failure to be nosy edge into criminal conduct? In light of what happened to Anaya, that question is nearly impossible to answer.

Read the whole thing.  It's worth a couple of minutes.  And the visuals are worth the effort.

Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13 - YouTube

Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13 - YouTube: Newt Gingrich vs. Piers Morgan on Gun Control Debate - 1-24-13

Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey ... WHO CARES?

Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey from Jim Carrey, NickCorirossi, Charles Ingram, Funny Or Die, BoTown Sound, millsfx, and Melissa Gould McNeely

Conservative Bloggers and Pundits are getting pretty darned worked up by the latest Jim Carrey video, which  satarizes  Charlton Heston.   I'm not sure why.

I know why Carrey said all this stuff, and why he "attacked" Charlton Heston (my personal hero) .. it's his job.  He's not always very good at it (witness: "Ace Ventura" and "The Cable Guy"), but that's the job he has chosen.

If Charlton Heston can can ignore the egregious Michael Moore, he can ignore Jim Carrey .. who (wisely, I think) waited until Heston was dead before he satirized him.

Still, even if Carrey pokes fun at our Second Amendment rights, we should allow him his First Amendment rights.  Oh, we can make fun of him in turn, but ... what's the problem?

I know, I know ... "your rights end when your fist meets my nose".   To mix a metaphor, my nose is only a bit "out of joint".  I don't LIKE what he has to say, and I may condemn it .. but that's what the First Amendment is all about: the right to "unpopular speech".  After all, the Second Amendment was included to support the First Amendment .. and all the other Constitutional Amendments which may from time to time give us pause.

"I  may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!"

 (Voltaire)


We can still learn, even from the Odious French.

So .. Conservative Bloggers and Pundits ... give it a rest, eh?.

"I'm Denny Crane"

Catch 22

or

You will NOT be assimilated until we figure out what we're talking about!

Cuomo’s 7-Bullet Limit Suspended Indefinitely in NY Gun Law Debacle:

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s seven-round limit on magazines sold in New York will be suspended “indefinitely” by a measure in his $136.5 billion budget set to be passed this week, Dean Skelos, a Senate majority leader said. The ban on magazines holding more than seven bullets was set to start April 15. Cuomo has said the law needs to be rolled back because manufacturers don’t make seven-round holders. The measure was a center piece to a gun law the 55-year-old Democratic governor pushed through the legislature in January, making New York the first state to respond with tougher gun regulations to the Newtown, Connecticut school massacre.

(We might ALSO have titled this is:  "It depends on what the meaning of 'IS', is!")

We couldn't make this up.  It took a while, but Mayor Bloomber's sock-monky A. Cuomo has finally realized that he has reached his (Star Treck reference, forgive me) "Norman, Please Coordinate" moment!

Andy Capped the 'permissible' firearms magazine capacity at seven (7) rounds, but later learned ... who knew? ... that nobody makes 7-round magazines any more.

This would effectively make ALL(most) magazine-fed weapons (and all magazines) illegal in the state of New York.

Not that  Cuomo and Bloomberg wouldn't be delighted by that providential outcome, but even these Useful Idiots were advised that this was tantamount to a violation of the Second Amendment.  You know ... the troublesome one?

(Note: I was unable to find a current link to the"Troublesome Second Amendment", which is regretable .. so I here offer an decidedly different link to the "PESKY" Second Amendment.  Not the same thing at all.  I will continue my search to the liberal profesor who changed his mind when he actually READ the constitution.  end note.)

It's hard to tell where the limit of acceptable outrageousness lies, when we're talking about career politicians (is there any other kind?), but apparently there are occasional competent staffers even in the Governator's Office who take seriously their job to keep their boss from looking as ignorant as they really are.  Unfortunately, sometimes they aren't consulted until said idiocy evinces itself in public statements.  Well, if Cuomo hadn't sacrificed his testicular masculinity to the god of party politics, perhaps he wouldn't have found himself in this embarassing juncture (which politicians say instead of "I'm An Idiot"!).

Not that we're reluctant to point out his lapses in logic.  As publically as possible, please.

Thank you.

THE POINT?

Actually, this sounds like the dream you have from time to time, where you find yourself in a public place and discover that you have no pants on.   ( I think that "Boston Legal" started their first season with exactly that scenario .. and the Corporate Partner in question didn't consider it embarassing at all.  So perhaps Cuomo might be considerd to be more self-aware than Larry Miller's"Edwin Poole" Character.)

Or .. Denny Crane.



Cuomo must have had an agenda in mind, but one doubts whether it was to look like an idiot in the press.  He must have a firm muzzle on the MSM, though, if this is the worst that can be said about him.

So  (ho-hum) Andy got it wrong, he didn't make an effort to determine the economic ... nay, the physical impossibility of what he was asking from his constituents, and it bit him in the ass.

This illustrates the contretemps which often arise when Idiots, or Democrats (but then, I repeat myself) attempt to enter legislation which restrict civil rights about which they know absolutely NOTHING.  One is naturally inclined to blame this on substandard staffing .. but actually, the problem is not with the staffing (after all, they let him know that he was being an IDIOT).

The problem is with the political election process.  We tend to elect people who tell us what we want to hear, not people who know what they are talking about.

Have, the people who comprise the electorate of New York State have been revealed to be insufficiently astute to keep an idiot out of office?  Well, we as a nation elected Obama, so I guess we can only point the finger at our two political parties ... neither one of which can field a rational (let alone responsible) candidate.

eg: Obama vs Romney.  The country voted for the devil they knew, if only because Romney was an incompetent politician and a poor candidate.

Maybe next time one of the two dominant political parties will find someone who is not so easily confused.  I don't expect it .. but I do have high hopes.

I leave you with these few words:  William Shatner For President!
(At least we would have someone who we knew something about before we voted for him .. however reluctantly!)

NJ to probe state response in boy-with-gun photo

NJ to probe state response in boy-with-gun photo | General Headlines | Comcast:

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Gov. Chris Christie has asked his attorney general to investigate the state's visit to the home of a man who had posted online a photo of his son holding a military-style rifle, saying news reports raised "troubling questions" about how the case was handled. The state's child welfare agency and local police went to the Carneys Point home of Shawn Moore on March 14, following what police say were anonymous calls expressing concern about the safety of a child. Moore has said he believes he was investigated solely because of the photo he shared online of his son, Josh, holding the gun he got for his 11th birthday. The weapon was a .22-caliber rifle made to look like an assault weapon. He says caseworkers were aggressive and the visit unwarranted. No charges were filed.

This is actually a follow-up on a report from Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority.  Baker titled his March 20, 2013 piece "When Dealing With Guns, The Citizen Acts At His Peril", because it is in direct contrast to a 2003 New Jersey situation where a NJ citizen was imprisoned for simple posession of a .22 caliber rifle, which was apparently discovered in similar circumstances. (Details on the 1996 Joseph Pelleteri case are linked in the above article.)

Quick summary:  Moore posted his kids picture on a social website.  "Anonymous calls" (how many?) to the welfare department caused welfare busybodys to grab a cop or two when they called on the Moore home.  The cops wanted to see his guns.  Moore said no.  Cops wanted to see how his guns were stored.  Moore said no.  The cops asked if they could come in.  When he learned that they didn't have a search warrant, Moore said no.  Thank you sir, have a nice day ... and the cops never came back.

You can see from the photo which started the whole magillicutty that the cherubic-faced boy isn't doing anything wrong.  Well, but he's wearing a camo-patterened coat, and the gun is black, and it's got this EVIL big magazine.  No wonder all of those Nervous Nellys called the guvmint to report what must have seemed a terrorist in training!

LOOKISM?

Look, it's a kid.  And the gun is a .22.  And it's legal.  And it doesn't "Spray 'N Prey" (sic).

It's just a kid with a plinker.   I've been shooting plinkers like that (only in brown, not black; and with a 10-round tube magazine instead of a how-many-I-don't-know inserted magazine) since I was a lot younger than this youngster.

Oh, wait!  Back up to the Pelleieri case ... his .22 rifle was brown, not black; and it had a tubular magazine, too.   I guess when people think that "All Guns Are Evil" and "Guns Are Only Good For Killing People", then the details, merely add more fuel to the book-burning fires.

Yeah; Baker has a link to THAT quandry, too, in his Pelleteri piece.  The gun looks nothing like the one that Moore bought his son, but consider this:

When you are The Guvmint, the term "Assault Rifle" means whatever you say it means, regardless of the commonly held military definition, which includes:

• Military weapon (whatever that means)
• Intermediate or rifle-caliber
• stocked
• External (removable) magazine
• Selective fire (both semi-automatic and fully automatic)
• capable of having a bayonette attached

New Jersey, though, has a much simpler definition:

• semi-automatic
• capable of holding 10 rounds

(Well, that's "Assault Weapon", not "Assault Rifle";  they don't care if it's a stocked rifle, because the term "ASSAULT" doesn't mean what they taught me in the Army.)

________________________________________________________

BUY IT YESTERDAY, BAN IT TODAY,  GET 10 YEARS TOMORROW

This discussion wouldn't be complete without at least one reference from the Main Stream Media.

Perhaps Scott Bach, columnist (blogger) for the New Jersey Times (NJ.com) would not be considered "MSM" by everybody, but for the purposes of this discussion ....  hey, he's published

In his March 09, 2008 (!) article, Bach includes the following:

If you buy a lawful product that is later banned, should you go to jail for 10 years, even though you didn't know it was banned, and the government that banned it now criminalizes any method to dispose of it?
In the world of gun ban extremist Bryan Miller of CeaseFire NJ, [link added for convenience ... geek] the answer to this question is yes.
Miller sees no distinction between violent criminals with guns (who should go to jail) and otherwise law-abiding citizens who were turned into "criminals" by the State with the stroke of a pen, when New Jersey banned an entire class of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms in the 1990s with no grandfather provision, no attempt to notify licensed gun owners, and a short time window within which to legally dispose of, disable, or register the banned guns.
At a March 6 legislative hearing on S1304, which would increase the penalty for possession of such firearms to a potential 10-year prison term, I argued that the higher penalty should apply to violent criminals with guns, but that otherwise law abiding citizens who had purchased the guns when it was legal to do so, who may not know they are banned due to the law's judicially acknowledged vagueness, who are not involved in criminal activity, and who presently have no legal means to comply with the law, should not be facing 10 years in prison.
In my testimony, I quoted a Court's judicial opinion finding that the gun ban's vague and confusing language made it impossible to know with certainty whether some firearms are covered by the ban. I cited another case in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to a prison term under the current penalty merely for possessing a common .22 caliber target gun he had legally purchased prior to the ban.

Sound familiar?

[NOTE: Both the "my testimony" and "another case" links are unavailable: the first is 'broken', the second is 'protected' (requires login).]  My guess is he is referring to the Peleteri case.

Miller's link, however, is still active as of this date.  I encourage you to read it, if only to understand the mindset behind it.  Miller believes the law .. which makes felons of people who owned statuatorily 'banned' guns for simple possession ... to be fully justified in all its ramifications.

What that means is, this comes down to a conflict between the U.S. Constitution (2nd Amendment) and "States Rights".

Constitution:  "... Shall not be infringed ..."
Heller Decision: "... the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.
New Jersey: ""[a] semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [fifteen] rounds."

Ultimately, CONGRESS did not make this law.  New Jersey did.  And while Heller applied to whether or not an individual could legally keep a handgun in the home, it did NOT address the question of what specific types of firearms could be restricted from ANY ownership.

My advise, if you live in New Jersey ... move.  Now!   That law is constitutional until the Supreme Court decides it is not.

ON THE OTHER HAND ....
... now that Obama has finally and definitively identified himself as a Hoplophobe, and is STRONGLY  threatening to impose draconian "Gun Control" laws on a national level, my best advise at this time is:

"Don't sell your Confederate Money, Boys!"

I'm an Idiot!!

It probably comes as no surprise to most of us, to hear that I'm an Idiot.  but perhaps the fact that I acknowledge my idiocy is a new twist.

The fact is, I managed to not only break my gun, but in the same month I broke my computer.


Now I am faced with a new, and very special computer.  One in which not only is the keyboard "different" (I can see the letters on the keys .. I have been touch-typing for years now and the letters confuse me!), but also a computer whose entire operating system sucksl

Windows 8!
Explorer 10!

Somewhere out there is a person who wishes me only the WORST in life.  If so .. rest easy, my not-so-friend;  


I am in Hell!

AS a recent emigrate' from XP, not only do I not know how to explore EXPLORER, but I don't even know how to fire up FIREFOX!

The only way I know how to even start either browser is from a shoot-and-spray technique I learned from observing new shooters in my INTRO class: ...

"just .. point it down range and pull the trigger.  You're sure to hit something, even if it's only the berm!".

Well, it works for me, even though it's not very efficient so far.

Email will be curtailed for a while.  Comments to The Blog?  Who kjows?  I can't even read them tonight.

When my computer died, I knew it was going to get ugly.  I just had no idea how 'ugly" that "UGLY' might be!

"Gun Control" by Governmental Fiat?

A few days ago, while I was researching an essay on Gun Control (what else?), I ran across an article from some Progressive guy who claimed to be an ex-NYC policeman.   I was surprised by the content, because I always figured that the police were fairly well-grounded in the real definition of "common sense measures".  But since the article was almost four years old, I didn't give it more than a casual reference.

But it popped up on my screen today because I had saved the link, and I actually read it in detail even though I had found it on SLATE dot com:

I thought  would present a few of the opinions ... presented as either facts, or assumptions that "everybody knows" ... if only to demonstrated how ignorant some of these rabid Moon Bats can be:

How Obama can use government procurement regulations to control guns. - Slate Magazine (2009):

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides. This prompts a simple question: Why do we buy guns from companies that permit their products to be sold to bad guys?

 [NB:  All quotes included emphasis not included in the original article.]
I didn't think I had read that right, or perhaps the guy was toking while he was writing and had merely mis-spoken.  But when I reread the article, I saw that he said it again:

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system.

And then, to confirm his inability to get a clue, he presented his own modest proposal to influence free trade without directly challenging the Second Amendment:

 Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals

One might get the impression from this article that (a) firearms manufacturers sell directly to criminals on a retail basis, and/or (b) the firearms manufacturers, unlike "nongun manufacturers across the nation", are completely unregulated and can sell directly to private citizens.  And also, that "authorized dealers" are not accountable for checking that their customers are not criminals.  Perhaps they think that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives don't audit licensed dealers?



Apparently, this experienced ex-cop has never, during his years on the Mean Streets, heard of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) .  According to the FBI, which has been running these background checks since 1998:

Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms or explosives. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isn’t otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.

Here's the thing:   Suppose you were a Progressive, and suppose you were an Idiot.  (But then, I repeat myself.) This contributor to Slate has presented his credentials ... more or less ... as a knowledgeable authority on the subject.  If anybody knows anything about guns, it should be a cop in a major city.  Especially where they're about the only people authorized to carry a gun.

So any of those "Useful Idiots" (or "utter simpletons") who are so gullible as to take his comments at face value may be instantly convinced of the validity of his assertations.  After all, they read it in "Slate", so it must be true!

This is a perfect example of the way the Ignoramousity of America have been duped by their "trusted sou
ed on an unwarranted assumption  Or a misunderstanding of the FEDERAL laws regarding firearms purchases.

One can't help but wonder if this was a deliberate piece of "misdirection: on the part of the author.  Surely he should have  been aware that Congress passed the Shield Law in October of 2005 ... 3-1/2 years before this article was poison-penned.  The announcement was published in the New York Times, the most trusted publication in all Christendom!


Well,  perhaps the N.Y. Times is not as trusted as Slate.

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.]

Buyer Remorse: Getting Caught!

Mark Kelly Buys Assault Rifle:
[link opens in new window]

PHOENIX (AP) — The husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords went to a Tucson gun store a week ago to buy a .45-caliber handgun and a military-style rifle the day before he appeared with his wife at the supermarket where she was wounded in a rampage two years ago. It didn't take long for the purchase to draw criticism from gun-rights supporters.
Mark Kelly said he bought the AR-15-style weapon to draw attention to the relative ease with which people can get the type of gun that the shooter used in the Newtown school and Colorado movie theater killings. Gun-rights advocates attacked him for being a hypocrite for buying the same gun that he has been lobbying Congress to ban.

Apparently, after he started getting flack from the public he went on facebook to explain that he was doing it for the children, or a similarly lame (and too-late) excuse. Admit it Mark.   You're a closet gun nut and you have been outed.    You'll end up in a shoot-out like "Day of the Evil Gun",  or "Blue Steel".
   (Not the lead ... the gun-maddened characters played by Arthur Kennedy and Ron Silver!)


Don't bother trying to talk your way out of it.  Your credibility is gone.  You're a gun owner, and as you've been preaching, people who have guns are irresponsible can't be trusted to use them responsibly,  and want to shoot people who don't, and lie all the time, and are evil, and ....  and ... and stuff ......

You're one of 'us', now, and nobody will trust you or believe in you, ever again.

[insert evil laugh here]
_____________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE:   March 27, 2013:

Arizona gun store cancels assault rifle sale to Giffords' husband  

(Dated March 26, 2013)

PHOENIX — An Arizona gun store owner has canceled the sale of an assault rifle to the husband of former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, after discovering that he made the purchase to highlight the need for gun control.
Doug MacKinlay, owner of Diamondback Police Supply, said he sent Mark Kelly a refund last week on the AR-15 type weapon after learning the purchase was not for personal use but meant to highlight the need for gun control.
Kelly, who along with his wife is a top campaigner for curbs to military-style weapon ownership, had not yet taken possession of the semi-automatic rifle.
In a posting on Facebook on Monday, MacKinlay said: "While I support and respect Mark Kelly's 2nd Amendment rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms in a safe and responsible manner, his recent statements to the media made it clear that his intent in purchasing the ... rifle from us was for reasons other than for his personal use."
"In light of this fact, I determined that it was in my company's best interest to terminate this transaction prior to his returning to my store," he added.

See?  I'm not the only one with an evil laugh; I just don't have as good an excuse as the FFL Dealer who got the last laugh on this politically motivated hoplophobe.