Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Joe points out that Michael Beard of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is trying to convince supporters to hang in there. It’s a very difficult time for them. This would have traditionally been a window for passing more sweeping gun control, but the Democrats are too busy screwing up health care and running this country into debt beyond its wildest dreams to care too much about the issue. This window will only be open for a short time, because the Democrats are running farther left than our center-right electorate. That will likely provoke a backlash that will make gun control even more difficult than it is now. If the window closes without the gun control movement being able to claim any significant accomplishments, they should hold their breath now, because when they hit the bottom of history’s dustbin, it’s going to be a rough for them.

I’m not sure this accusation hurled at MikeB is all that indicative of hypocrisy, any more than it would be hypocritical for someone who is anti-gun to suddenly take up shooting and become pro-gun. People can change their minds about things over time. That he once had a gun illegally also does not raise great alarm, since Mike used to live in NJ, having an illegal gun could be as trivial as owning a Marlin Model 60, which is an assault weapon in New Jersey. About half my collection is currently unlawful in the State of New Jersey, and completely unlawful in New York City.

There’s a lot of legitimate criticism that can be leveled at MikeB, but the fact that he once owned guns, even illegal guns, I don’t think is really damning, any more than if a shooter admitted that he was once afraid of guns and favored gun control.

A Washington gun control group sets up a Facebook promoting banning assault weapons in Washington State, and it’s quickly found by pro-Second Amendment Facebook users who are quick to correct all the lies and distortions. So what happens?

I can sympathize with a family who just wants to grieve in peace, but when your process of grieving involves taking away or limiting my constitutional rights, we’re not just going to sit back and let it happen, especially when the arguments involved are based on lies and distortions. The pro-2A has been fighting the assault weapons issue for two decades now, and we have it down to practically an immune response. I think that’s partly why groups like MAIG haven’t, so far, touched that issue.

Jacob points out that Paul Helmke is a bad liar, and outlines why. They really don’t have any choice, though, other than to downplay the significance of McDonald. There’s a very high probability they are going to lose no matter what they do, and after playing up Heller as much as they did, then losing, they aren’t going to want to repeat that performance, so they’ve decided on a tactical retreat. Not good ground to fight on for them. There will be other fights, but they will be on the defensive from here on out, and they know that.

From the Sarasota Herald Tribune, we find at least some of the secret recommendations. Yes, that’s right, MAIG isn’t nailing his 40 Theses up to any door, though we are trying to locate them. Let’s look at a few of them:

Greater funding for ATF. The bureau “lacks resources to effectively police gun trafficking across state and national borders,” according to The Washington Post’s report on the coalition recommendations. ATF also has too few inspectors.

Help pass ATF reform and we’ll talk. I’m not opposed to more money for ATF’s inspection arm, but they need to be nailing dealers for truly bad stuff, and not for crap like forgetting to put county in the right box, or failing to put a “Yes” instead of a “Y”.

More aggressive federal prosecution of violations, including those by people who fail the gun background check.

Of violent felons to fail the background check, fine. Of a guy who had a fight with pop when he was twenty, and didn’t realize that was a disabling conviction until he failed the background check? No. Not everyone who is prohibited from owning a gun is a hardened criminal, and not everyone who fails the background check will serve any public safety interest by taking up space in a federal prison that could be taken up by actual criminals.

Tightening oversight of gun shows, especially those whose weapons later turn up in crimes.

As long as that oversight doesn’t look like this. Competence on the part of ATF brass is a problem. It’s not just a matter of funding or attention.

More thorough tracing of seized weapons, and better sharing of that information with state and local law agencies.

Except that ATF and the FOP are opposed to this.

A new policy of stamping guns with a second, hidden serial number. This could help thwart the common practice of removing serial numbers on stolen guns.

Because criminals won’t learn where the hidden serial numbers are? How are you going to get them on there? There’s only so many ways to hide a serial number on the serial numbered part. Surely you don’t mean putting serial numbers on parts that can be replaced, right?  I can still fix my gun without being guilty of obliterating a serial number, right? This was written by someone who doesn’t know much about guns, or how serial numbers are regulated.

This is just five recommendations though. What do the other 35 look like? We’ll try to find out, so stay tuned.

This kind of ties back in to my post about MAIG being a serious threat. But you can look at the PDF of Bloomberg’s gun show sting here, which shows considerable more detail than you’ll see in the video. It also evinces a knowledge of federal guns laws, and less of an attempt to hype gun shows as out of control arms bazaars for white supremacists and neo-nazis you often read from other gun control groups. Take this passage here:

For many Americans, gun shows are a family outing. For the gun enthusiast, there are a huge variety of guns – new and used long guns and handguns, historical curios or related accessories – and for the general shopper there are often other vendors selling clothing, books, or local crafts. The vast majority of vendors and customers at gun shows are law abiding citizens out to enjoy a day with others who share a common interest.

They then go on to make their case that unfortunately they are a significant source of guns for criminals, and it’s a compelling case, if you don’t take time to really understand what you’re looking at, the deceptions and distortions are very carefully hidden. In short, in reading the report with an open mind, I’m forced to admit this is the most compelling case against gun shows ever prepared by a group advocating for more gun control. But that’s not to say there aren’t deceptions and distortions, but those deceptions and distortions are very carefully hidden, and not obvious to a casual observer, even one fairly familiar with the gun culture and with some familiarity with federal gun laws.

The first distortion is in enhancing the scale of the problem.  If you move to page 16 of the report, you’ll note that they report that 22 out of 33 transactions or 67% with private sellers failed their criteria, and on page 20 you will notice that 16 out of 17, or 94% of dealer transactions failed their criteria.  But in their methods, note that they did not select a random sample of dealers of private sellers. They first looked for evidence of illegal activity before conducting their test buys:

Investigators chose private sellers to approach by looking for visual signs of engaging in the business without a license, including those selling large numbers of guns, those who appeared at multiple shows, and those selling guns with price tags and new in-the-box guns. Investigators also took note of conversations that private sellers had with customers and other sellers. They focused in particular on statements that the seller buys guns for resale, is reselling guns shortly after purchase, buys and sells a lot of guns, makes a lot of money on gun transactions, goes to gun shows frequently, or that additional kinds of guns other than those displayed are available.

Emphasis mine. In short, they observed for strong evidence of activity which was already against the law, and then approached the sellers to see if they’d be willing to engage in further activity that was a violation of the law. Not a surprise that many of them did. Their method for licensed dealers was no better:

Investigators chose FFLs to approach by watching for transactions exhibiting tell-tale signs of straw purchases. They also looked for licensed dealers engaging in business practices that rendered them vulnerable targets for gun traffickers, such as intermingling their private collections with their regular merchandise and employing a division of labor in which one clerk focuses on selling to customers while a completely different clerk oversees the paperwork.

Emphasis mine again. Intermingling their private collections with regular merchandise? Already illegal, and I don’t know any dealer who practices that. But in short, they spent their time looking for dealers who were already engaging in illegal activity, or for dealers who were suckers and engaging in poor business practices. But there was one dealer who denied the sale, and Bloomberg did include that in the report:

MALE DEALER #2 (MD2): Who’s buying what?
MALE INVESTIGATOR: [Inaudible]
MD2: OK. Can you own a gun buddy?
MI: Absolutely
MD2: OK. Do you have a problem filling out a form? […]
MI: Alright, Yeah, no. I can’t. I’m, I’m…It’s not going to be my gun so I won’t fill out the form.
MD2: Well we won’t put anything in your name. We just want to make sure you’re a good guy.
MI: What form am I going to fill out then?
MD2: Same one she did.
MI: No, Well, I, I’m not going to do that, ‘cause the gun’s not for me.
MD2: Void it, baby.

Emphasis mine. The dealer deserves credit for smelling something fishy and stopping the sale, but the investigator is taking effort to convince the dealer than the sale is, in fact, legal and not a straw purchase. If the gun is not for him, and is in fact for her, it’s not a straw purchase. How many other dealers went through with the sale after assurances from “investigators” that he was not, in fact, the actual buyer of the gun, and that she was, in fact, the actual buyer of the gun?

I also question the small number of gun shows in this sample, many of them by the same promoter, Bill Goodman’s Gun & Knife Shows, who now has a statement on his web site speaking to the sting by Mayor Bloomberg, and promising to review his practices, which pretty clearly he needs to do if he has the same unlicensed dealers showing up multiple times at his shows.

I don’t question that Bloomberg’s investigators have found evidence of troubling illegal activity at some gun shows, and I agree that ATF needs to do a better job of cracking down this kind of thing. But I disagree with this reports assertion in regards to the scale of the problem, and with the reports contention that we need new laws to deal with this problem. Everything showing here is a violation of existing federal laws, and the individuals depicted could be prosecuted under those laws. Bloomberg’s goal here was to give gun shows a black eye, in hopes of promoting more gun control laws, and the methodology used is the most effective I’ve seen. I would say we can expect more of it. It is effective because, unfortunately,  his investigators was actually able to uncover some blatantly illegal activity at some shows. That’s not something we should be proud of, and we ought to, as a community, demand better. Bloomberg may be inflating the scale of the problem, but it is a problem, and we ought not look kindly on members of our community who give the other side such powerful ammunition to use against us all.

Officials in Sharonville, Ohio, the town that hosts the gun show Bloomberg conducted his possibly illegal stings at, have said no one has ever reported a violation at one of the shows. You’d think since Bloomberg filmed unlawful activity, he’d want to do something about it other than just promoting more gun control laws.

To Josh Sugarmann, Bryan Miller, and all the other gun control advocates out there who are using the murder of Meleanie Hain at the hands of her husband to make a point about guns and self-defense, let me offer you an analogy and turn the tables. If Paul Helmke were gunned down in a robbery in the District, would pro-gun people be assholes for pointing out that’s what happens when you don’t carry a firearm?  I would argue they absolutely would be, and would be just as indignant toward anyone on my side who suggested as much. I think most other prominent people in the RKBA movement would too. It would be no more illustrative of the notion that everyone needs a gun to protect themselves than the suggestion that Meleanie Hain’s case is illustrative of the fact that guns are just bad news.

But why is that? I think because we really don’t believe a gun is for everyone. It’s a matter of individual choice and circumstance as to how one chooses, or does not choose, to protect themselves. To the other side, guns are always the wrong solution, for everyone, everywhere, and in every situation, and that’s why you shouldn’t have one. But they don’t advocate the choice, they advocate compulsion.