Entries in gun control (194)

Friday
Apr262013

Progressives Planning to Come Back for Your Guns

Progressives will NEVER give up on banning civilian ownership of firearms.  See UK, Canada and Australia for details. 

A week after the Senate failed to come up with 60 votes to pass more gun control measures Crazy Joe Biden regrouped with gun control advocates yesterday and reassured them the White House isnt giving up the fight.

Biden made a real commitment to keep pushing for more gun control laws, said Pia Carusone, executive director of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun control PAC run by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband Mark Kelly.

Bidens message to the groups was, Its the beginning. Its not the end, said Carusone. The tone of the meeting was very positive. There is a collective sense that we are on the right side of history.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that talks to revive gun control legislation are under way on Capitol Hill.  Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and ’90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail.

According to the NY Times, gun control groups and Obama allies are already turning an eye to 2014, plotting payback for senators who voted against expanded background checks. Giffords group is even prepared to run ads against Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is a close friend of Giffords but who also voted against background checks.

Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire,  only one out of 22 senators on the East Coast north of Virginia who voted against the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer gun control amendment has been the target lately of some of the most furious lobbying by gun control proponents.  The NY Times says local newspapers have been inundated with letters to the editor denouncing her vote, and the gun grabbers have run radio ads saying she “ignored the will of the people”.

The gun grabbers will never give up and gun owners (in at least 40 states) are willing to waive their Second Amendment rights and give up their guns.  This fight will play out in the 2014 mid-term elections.  Supporters of Second Amendment civil rights, including Democrats who voted against Manchin-Toomey-Schumer need to be supported with our time and treasure, to defeat the gun banners.

Senators who supported the Schumer/Bloomberg backed amendment, including Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) MUST be opposed and defeated.

According to the Progressive Propaganda publication, the Huffington Post, several senators have confided to Crazy Joe Biden that they are feeling the backlash from constituents.

Those senators told him that they needed to be assured there was adequate support for expanded gun control to pass because they did not want to take such a great political risk on something that was doomed to fail. Those Senators are vulnerable and MUST be defeated to protect our Second Amendment civil rights.

We can not afford to let our guard down for a minute.  The Progressives are coming for our guns.

I think were going to bring back that bill and address it, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who has been leading the charge for action in the wake of the Newtown shootings. It may be months, it may be half a year. But the Majority Leader seems committed to bringing it back.

Wednesday
Apr242013

Anti-Semitic Attack on Alan Gottlieb Unconscionable

Alan Gottlieb is the Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, a Board Member of the American Conservative Union, President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, President of the American Political Action Committee, President of NoInternetTax.org, and President of KeepAndBearArms.com.

The Second Amendment Foundation is responsible for numerous winning Second Amendment court cases. Alan Gura of SAF won both the Heller and McDonald gun rights cases.

As the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Gottlieb emailed nearly four dozen gun activists with an explanation of the proposed Manchin-Toomey legislation.

“If you read the bill you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection if you sell a gun plus more.

Gottlieb advocated supporting the legislation in his email but later withdrew his support when Chuck Schumer struck gun rights restoration funding from the bill.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb advised The Examiner by that, “Our support for this measure was contingent on several key provisions, the cornerstone of which was a rights restoration provision that is not on the schedule for consideration

“But it appears the Democratic leadership in the Senate was opposed to letting this important consideration come up for a vote,” he said. “We told everyone including a number of senators, that while there are many pro-gun rights provisions added to the main body of the bill, our support was contingent on this additional amendment coming to the floor. When we say something, we mean it.”

“Senators Manchin and Toomey are not to blame for this,” Gottlieb stated, “as they have been negotiating in good faith throughout this process. But Schumer and other anti-gun Democrats are continuing their campaign of demagoguery in order to permanently disqualify as many Americans as possible from being able to exercise their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment.

Gottlieb said this “is not a reflection against Senators Joe Manchin or Pat Toomey, who are staunch Second Amendment advocates, and I want to thank them for all of their efforts to include as many protections for our gun rights as possible.”

He predicted that if the Manchin-Toomey alternate now was defeated, “Democrats in the Senate, led by Harry Reid, have only themselves to blame.

Im a member of CCRKBA and donate regularly to the Second Amendment Foundation, which works tirelessly to protect, defend and restore lost Second Amendment civil rights.  I did not support the alternate legislation for many reasons.  David Codrea wrote about my primary reason for opposing the substitute amendment:

Finally, here is the most serious warning.  I work with the federal government on at least a semi-regular basis, and when not, I am doing things that follow federal regulation, even though highly technical (the specific nature of what I do is not the subject and won’t be discussed).

For most people who never work with federal agencies and departments, ignorance is bliss.  But for those who do, they know that the nasty little secret about the federal government has to do with lawmaking by regulation.

Laws are passed by the Senate and Congress.  But after laws pass, thousands of lawyers inside the beltway go to work writing regulations based on those laws, or not, using the law as a pretext for further regulation that Congress didn’t specifically intend.  At times, Congress has even had to pass laws undoing regulations because the regulations don’t meet the intent of the law, and yet the executive branch won’t stop enforcing that regulation (or class of regulations).

Regulation is passed merely by entering them into the federal register, allowing a waiting time for public comments (which are nothing but a chance afforded to the authors of the regulations to ignore them or write sarcastic rebuttals), and then after the waiting period, it takes on the force of law including prosecution, fines and imprisonment for failure to follow them.

This happens every day, all over the nation, and in the DOT, NRC, EPA, DOJ, ATF, DHS, and other departments and agencies that the reader cannot even name and didn’t know existed.  Any law giving the executive branch the authority to further regulate firearms will be an opportunity for abuse, overreach and exploitation.

In short, I oppose any new gun control laws and will continue to oppose passing more gun control laws as long as current laws are neither enforced  nor prosecuted by the federal government.  Ted Cruz proposed legislation, which provided funding to ATF to enforce the current laws, but the legislation was defeated by the Democrat majority.

But I find it unconscionable that some Second Amendment rights activists personally attacked Gottlieb, some going so far as to write anti-Semitic comments about him in a number of gun rights blogs. 

These bloggers did more to hurt the advocacy of Second Amendment civil rights than Gottlieb did by supporting the legislation.  Please, STOP IT.  You are doing more harm than good.

For the record, I support Constitutional carry and oppose mother may I laws that usurp inalienable Second Amendment rights.  But there is never a place in the debate for personal and bigoted attacks on anyone, especially Alan Gottlieb, who has done so much to advance Second Amendment rights. 

Monday
Apr222013

Crazy Joe Biden is Obama's Point Man on Gun Control

Colion Noir addresses Vice President Joe Biden’s inability to give advice on gun safety and home protection.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
Thursday
Apr182013

Obama Turns Up the Heat, Declares War on Second Amendment Rights

Childishness and demagoguery are a dangerous mix especially when exhibited by the President of the United States.  Yesterday angry Barack Hussein Obama branded the defeat of his gun control agenda as shameful and accused Senators of going against the wishes of 90% of the American people. Seriously?

Obama said, “All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer.”

Since when do dangerous criminals buy their guns from licensed dealers?

Even Dianne Feinstein admitted on the floor of the Senate that a universal background check would not have prevented Newtown.

Ringed by relatives of the Newtown victims, Obama lashed out at the Senators, including Democrats, who voted against the gun control legislation, vowing to continue the fight for gun control.

Ironically, while accusing opponents of lying, Obama cited false claims and statistics about current laws, including the repeatedly debunked argument that 40% of gun sales are private, and that guns can be bought over the Internet without background checks.  In fact it was the dishonesty of the Bloomberg/Obama coalition  that led potential supporters of the legislation to doubt the administrations motives in supporting the bill.

Here are the highlights of the vote:

(1) The most important vote was the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer national gun registry proposal. With 60 votes needed for passage, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment was shot down by a vote of 54-46.

(2) The Cornyn-Vitter-Thune amendment - pushed hard by Gun Owners of America - received a 57-43 vote This provision would have allowed concealed carry holders and persons in constitutional carry states to carry nationwide. The overwhelming vote on this amendment sets the stage for bringing it up again. We need to pick up just three Senators in the 2014 midterm elections. 

(3) The Feinstein gun ban lost by a vote of 40-60 - falling far short of a majority - and the magazine ban lost by a vote of 46-54. Neither garnered even the simple majority of 51 votes.  Ironically, Obama expressed dismay that the Senate rules required the super majority of 60 votes to pass the legislation.  If that had been the case, National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, which the left vehemently opposes, would have passed.

Obama made clear his intention to use Wednesdays defeat to rally supporters against Republicans, whom he blamed directly and angrily, suggesting that they had defied the will of the American people and attempted to silence the families of Newtown victims who had a right to be heard in the debate.

Forced to cover a rare political defeat for the left, the mainstream media largely echoed his emotions. Virtually all of CNNs correspondents agreed that the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer bill had been defeated because of the power of the National Rifle Association and the fear of politicians afraid to take on Second Amendment activists. None considered that support for gun control has been declining, or that the legislation itself was deeply flawed.

Again and again, Obama noted that 90% of Americans, and a majority of National Rifle Association members, supported expanded background checks. The former constitutional law lecturer seemed to expect that that majoritys will should be self-executing, ignoring the fact that constitutional rights like the Second Amendment exist precisely to protect minorities against majoritarian passions and presidential demagoguery.

His opponents, the president insisted, refused to make it more difficult for dangerous criminals to buy weaponsignoring one of the core arguments of the other side, namely that dangerous criminals ignore the laws to obtain weapons, while law-abiding citizens bear the burden of new rules and restrictions. He reduced his opponents motives to pure politics, accusing them of being afraid of being punished by an organized, determined minority.

Rarely have Americans ever seen a president attack his opponents so viciously, expressing and evoking such visceral emotionsespecially at a time of mourning. President Obamas tirade contrasted with his reserved, measured response to the Boston Marathon bombings, in which he urged Americans to speak and act with restraint. If this has been, as he claimed, a pretty shameful day in Washington, the presidents tantrum was the most shameful moment of all. 

Tuesday
Apr162013

Top Ten Problems with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin Gun Control Bill

Alan Gottlieb, the chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who I admire and respect, emailed dozens of gun rights activists on Sunday to announce his support of S.549, the Public Safety And Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

“If you read the bill you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection, civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection if you sell a gun plus more,” he wrote in the email.

Alan appeared on Gun Talk Radio on Sunday, and said the CCRKBA helped write the substitute legislation.  He seemed to indicate that the Congress was committed to passing more gun control legislation and that the substitute bill was the best we could hope for as it restored some lost Second Amendment rights, including statutory immunity for selling a gun that is later used in a crime, ability to purchase a handgun across state lines from a FFL and other provisions that would strengthen Second Amendment civil rights .

Alan believes that politically S.649 is a win for Second Amendment supporters.  However, there is disagreement among reasonable Second Amendment civil rights supporters on this Bill.

After careful consideration and listening to the Senate floor debate, I have decided to urge my Senators not to support S.649 as it is currently written.  While it is a significant improvement over the original Bill, Chuck Schumer had final approval the bipartisian substitution.  When Senator Schumer struck National Concealed Carry Reciprocity from the legislation, he killed the compromise Bill. 

I cannot support a Bill that Chuck Schumer, Gun Grabber Bloombergs man in the Senate, changed at the last minute and removed National Reciprocity for law abiding citizens with state issued concealed carry permits.

Listed below are the top ten problems, in addition to the absence of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, with the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin legislation.

I contacted my Senators on Monday and voiced my opposition to S.649 based on the absense of National Concealed Carry provision already part of the LEOSA and the following reasons:

(1)  First of all, it’s pretty clear by now that the goal of Obama and Schumer is, in the words of the Brady Campaign, to put “points on the board” so they can maintain their momentum for more gun control demands.  Mark Glaze of Mayors Against Illegal Guns said on MSNBC that they would be back with new demands “the day after” background checks are signed into law. So, now that we are on the verge of winning, why, in heaven’s name, would Pat Toomey try to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, hand a “win” to Barack Obama so he can credibly say he “broke the back of the gun lobby,” invigorate fundraising for anti-gun groups in 2014, let red state Democrats who are up in 2014 off the hook, and create a platform for unending gun control demands that will resume the day his bill is signed into law?

(2)  SECTION 102, Finding 3:  Congress believes the Department of Justice should prosecute violations of background check requirements to the maximum extent of the law.

COMMENT:  You understand that 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3) and (g)(3) make a person a prohibited person if they are an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance, right?  And you understand this would subject every gun owner who smokes marijuana (medical or otherwise) to a ten-year prison sentence (under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(2)), right?  And you understand that records of medical marijuana use, drug diversion programs, etc., are in the possession of many state governments and are, technically, required to be turned over to the FBI under the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, right?  So are you still so enthusiastic about throwing 20,000,000 gun owners in prison for ten years for smoking pot not to mention the thousands upon thousands of military veterans who have also been thrown into the NICS system without any due process whatsoever?

(3) “SEC. 112.  IMPROVEMENT OF METRICS AND INCENTIVES.”

COMMENT:  This section pretty well gives Eric Holder unfettered discretion to demand any information from the states which he, in his unilateral discretion, chooses to demand.  And he would do this, not by threatening to take away funds under this act, but by threatening to withhold already-existing 505 funds.  For anyone who thinks this is innocuous, consider this:  Under section 922(g)(3)’s prohibition of guns for any “user of any controlled substance,” the AG could demand medical marijuana records, diversion records, and arrest records.  Under 922(g)(4), he could demand Medicaid, Medicare, and IDEA records of persons with PTSD, ADHD, and post partem depression.

(4)  “SEC. 114.  RELIEF FROM DISABILITIES PROGRAM.”

COMMENT:  There are already a lot of “relief from disabilities” programs in the NICS Improvement Act of 2007, which the GOA supported.  The problem is that most veterans cannot afford the $30,000 in attorneys’ fees it takes to pursue these remedies in some places.  Every week, we hear from veterans who have lost rights WITHOUT DUE PROCESS under the NICS Act of 2007, and don’t have the $30,000 necessary to get those rights back.  Perhaps someone should ask Chuck Schumer to remove his amendment which continuously defunds the more expansive program under McClure-Volkmer whereby a prohibited person can petition ATF for relief from disabilities.  But, again, the problem is not that veterans can’t get their rights back if they have $30,000 to spend; the problem is that their rights were taken away in the first place without any court order or other due process.

(5) SECTION 117:  “Information collected under section 102(c)(3) of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) to assist the Attorney General in enforcing [prohibited persons provisions of Chapter 44] shall not be subject to the regulations promulgated under [HIPAA]”

COMMENT:  Section 102(c)(3) of the NICS 2007 statute provides that the “State SHALL make available to [NICS] the name and other relevant identifying information of persons adjudicated as a mental defective or those committed to a mental institution.”  [Emphasis added]  But, under the 2007 statute, “adjudicated as a mental defective” was redefined to include an individual who was found, in connection with a government program, to represent “a danger [however miniscule] to himself or others” or a person who is “unable to manage his own affairs”  (The “however miniscule” embellishment was added by an ATF interpretive letter issued under Bill Clinton.)  Furthermore, under the 2007 statute, these determinations do not have to be made by a court, magistrate, or even an executive branch administrative court, but, rather, may be made by a government-affiliated psychiatrist who, in the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs, almost always accomplishes this by appointing a fiduciary over the veteran’s financial affairs.  Note also that the psychiatrist is almost never a government employee, but rather a doctor who provides the diagnosis in connection with a government-financed program.  In addition to Medicare, Medicaid, IDEA (in relation to which 15% of high school boys have now been diagnosed with ADHD, and recent articles have suggested that that diagnosis never evaporates, even as they get older), the DVA, the armed services, social security disability, a very substantial amount of private health care will be funded, in whole or in part, or regulated by the federal government under ObamaCare.  Thus, since the HIPAA privacy regulations are being waived by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin, it’s probably not much of an overstatement to say that, under Toomey-Schumer-Manchin, “see a shrink; lose your guns.”

(6)  SECTION 122, REVISED 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1):  “it shall be unlawful for a [non-licensee] to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person if the transfer occurs pursuant to [a] posting on the Internet”

COMMENT:  No one should assume this requirement applies only to Amazon-type sales on Armslist.  If you ever talked about the gun on the Internet, you have arguably lost your right to make a private firearm transfer.  You have certainly done so if you put an ad in the church bulletin and it were distributed to shut-in parishioners over the Internet.  The bottom line:  Unless the buyer approaches the seller face to face and conducts the sale in cash on the spot, you can assume it’s covered.

(7) SECTION 122(a):  “(4)(A)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.”

COMMENT:  The “chapter” referred to is Chapter 44.  So this means that any limitations on federal action built into federal gun law by McClure-Volkmer or any other pro-gun legislation automatically disappear as impediments to Eric Holder in implementing the massively expanded background checks. Incidentally, the provisions in “this chapter” he can ignore could include the prohibitions on demanding information from dealers and creating a national gun registry.

(8)  SECTION 122(c):  “The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination”

COMMENT:  First of all, if your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be), you will have a 4473, and, if you have a 4473, you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry.  Schumer’s staff, in drafting this section, might have benefited from talking with pro-gun advocates in connection with the real nature of the problem.  First of all, although taking a storeful of 4473’s to an ATF agent’s home is not unheard-of, the real problem is when ATF agents go into an FFL with a laptop and copy all of the information on the 4473’s.  This language would not stop that.  Second, whatever ATF thinks it’s compiling with the 4473’s it does not regard it as a “national gun registry,” even though we regard it as such.  I drafted the language in McClure-Volkmer prohibiting national gun registries.  I also drafted the first draft of the Smith/Tiarht amendment doing the same.  ATF does not regard itself as violating these.  Third, with respect to making unauthorized copying a crime, the person who will determine whether the Department of Justice is prosecuted is Attorney General Eric Holder (who, by the way, is the head of the Department of Justice).

(9) “SUBTITLE C – NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE.”

(a) There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence

COMMENT:  Half of the members (including the chairman) are appointed by Harry Reid, in consultation with Nancy Pelosi.  It is hard to imagine that this is anything other than a platform for continuing agitation for more gun control.

(b)  The members [of the commission] shall include individuals who have expertise, by both experience and training, in (I) firearms

COMMENT:  Tacked onto a bill which ignores any remedy for violence except gun control, we now have a commission which has, as priority number one, guns.  Weve seen this movie before.  Media efforts to exploit Newtown in order to achieve gun control will inexorably lead to more copycat shootings.  And, when they do, this commission will be there to serve as an engine for advocacy for anti-gun legislation.

(c)  [The issues which the Commission shall study include] whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others

COMMENT:  Its not a huge thing, compared with the other problems in the bill.  But its probably an indication of something that the draft looks not into whether turning in your patients to police or, possibly, the NICS system is ethical or ultimately efficacious, but, rather, whether its legal.

(d)  [The issues which the Commission shall study include] the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring such firearms, and all positive and negative impacts of such availability and nature on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence

COMMENT:  Self-explanatory.

(e)  [The issues which the Commission shall study include] the role of current prosecution rates in contributing to the availability of weapons that are used in mass violence

COMMENT:  Many of us dont share the notion that harassing veterans and other potential gun owners for violating the inexplicable myriad of gun laws is a good thing.  I can say from having negotiated with the highest officials in ATF in 1984 that even ATF doesnt understand our gun laws, and sending otherwise law-abiding citizens to prison for petty violations is not a good thing.

(f) [The issues which the Commission shall study include] the availability of information regarding the construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any impact of such information on such incidents of mass violence

COMMENT:  Huh?  This purpose probably wins the prize for threatening the most constitutional rights in a single agenda item.

(g)  COMMENT:  For all of the Orwellian purposes of the commission, there is one which is noticeably absent:  The role of the broadcast media in generating copycat shootings through saturation coverage intended to serve as an engine for gun control.

(h)  COMMENT:  Also missing from the politically correct platitudes which will serve as the purpose for this commission is one factor which appears to have been present in many school shootings:  The removal of school discipline and replacement with a mental health system which turns perhaps 15% of high school boys into Ritalin junkies.

(10) COMMENT:  For the record, Adam Lanza stole the guns he used in Newtown.  James Holmes and Jared Loughner passed background checks. Given that the background check legislation the centerpiece of Barack Obamas efforts to declare victory over the gun lobby would not address, in any way, the incidents which supposedly gave rise to it, exactly what is its purpose, other than to destroy the Republicans ground game and decimate the most significant remaining pillar of their coalition