Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Clayton Cramer is talking about the “poisoned well” that the gun control movement has created that’s causing a lot of gun owners to see HR2640 as a gun control bill, when it’s really no such thing. He’s absolutely right that the gun control movement has created an environment where there’s substantial mistrust even on bills that ought not to be controversial. Trying to screw us every chance they get tends to do that. My main concern for the bill isn’t that it’s gun control, but that it can be spun as such by those who push for it, and build their political capital for future battles. On the flip side, they also couldn’t get anything done without having to offer significant concessions to NRA concerns.

I have to agree with SayUncle that this is not the way to go about things. Any political movement will have its whack jobs. I would point out some examples of anti-gun people coming to my site to leave bozotic comments, but there aren’t any. In order to have bozos, you have to actually have some grass roots. When you don’t have grass roots, you have to resort to paying people to be bozos.

Joe has the scoop. Good! You can be an asshole all you want, but don’t trespass on people’s property.

UPDATE: Looks like Snuffy was with him, and got himself arreated too! Double plus good!

UPDATE: Looks like the AP has picked it up now.

Via SayUncle, we learn of some disturbing interpretations of the NFA on the part of the ATF. I do believe that the ATF has long held that “one a machine gun, always a machine gun” in regards to firearms that have been converted to only fire semi-automatically. Thus an M14 receiver is always a machine gun, no matter what you do to it subsequently. The argument being that it is readily converted to fire full auto.

I’m more disturbed about the short barreled rifle (SBR) charge. I’ve long considered registering my AR-15 carbine as an SBR, then using an M4 style upper. But I also have another AR-15 that I did not intend to convert. Does this leave me vulnerable to ATF prosecution? Remember, I hold a type 03 FFL, so the ATF can ask to inspect my records and inventory, so this is an important deal for me. It’s one of those things you’d be tempted to get a letter from the ATF saying it was OK, but we know what those are worth.

You want to talk reasonable gun control? Does the Brady Campaign want another opportunity to “work with the NRA” to “strengthen our nations laws on machine guns?” How about undertaking a major restructuring of federal law so that the ATF can’t, at whim, turn someone from a law abiding collector into a felon looking at ten years hard time in Club Fed? It’s long time to codify what “readily converted” means, in hard, clear language, that’s not easily open to interpretation by federal agencies. It’s long time to reexamine whether there’s any reasonable connection to the SBR and SBS law and public safety. Is that rifle more dangerous because it has a barrel an inch and a half longer than another one? Is that pistol more deadly because someone clipped a stock onto it? Come on Brady’s, if you guys can spin this last thing as gun control, surely you can spin this as the same. So how about it? Let’s pass some more “reasonable” laws together.

Ahab is pissed that the Brady Campaign got so much airtime last night on CBS.  Their job is no doubt made much easier by a fawning media.  They will definitely play down the NRA’s involvement in the bill, because if they have to go back to their donors and say “We can only pass things that the NRA signs off on.” it’ll be a serious problem for them.

But it does make some sense for them to play the NRA angle in regards to future controls, because it damages the NRA with its membership to even be seen to be working with the Brady’s.   The prospect of the NRA “selling out” lives large among much of the NRA’s membership, and by the Brady’s offering up the possibility of more deals, it actually weakens the NRA.

The Brady organizations are many things, but they certainly aren’t stupid.

The Brady’s seem to be playing up the working together angle on HR2640.

The Virginia Tech shootings tragically demonstrated the unnecessary gaps in the system that allowed a dangerous person to be armed. By supporting this legislation, the National Rifle Association, which fought the Brady Bill for so many years, now joins the Brady Campaign and the vast majority of Americans in affirming that effective background checks can help save lives.

I think effective background checks make people feel better.  The truth is, they just created the straw purchasing problem that the Brady’s say they need more gun control legislation to stop.  If they get those laws, then criminals will resort to more theft and smuggling, which will, of course, be used as evidence for the need for further restrictions.

We hope that Congress and the gun lobby will continue to support meaningful reforms that extend Brady background checks to all gun sales, not just those by the licensed dealers who are covered by current law. That would be a significant additional step to prevent guns from getting into the hands of dangerous people.

We already did that here in Pennsylvania, and it didn’t work.  Now the various gun control organizations, including the Brady Campaign, are pushing for one-gun-per-month restrictions here in Pennsylvania to deal with the straw purchasing problem.   Where does it stop?

I am not opposing HR2640 because it doesn’t change much, and give us a few things that I think are beneficial.  I don’t believe the instant check system is serious infringement on the right-to-bear arms.  But do I think it works?  No, I don’t.  I think gun laws are about as effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as our drug laws are at keeping marijuana out of the hands of potheads.

Looks like our buddy Gonzo got the correct marching orders now.  He still doesn’t think it’s a good deal, but the language has been toned down quite a bit, and he’s added a few extra talking points about how we keep insisting  that mere suspicion isn’t reasonable grounds for stripping someone of their constitutional rights.

Now that this fun is over, I will go back to ignoring him.

You can tell U.C. Davis what you think about the Wintemute gun show study right here.

OK, it’s not often I will link The Gun Guys, because it’s really hard to take the site seriously, but if the Freedom States alliance folks aren’t happy with the deal struck between the Democrats and the NRA, then it certainly helps me feel a little better about it.

UPDATE: The link is now broken. I guess they want me to be worried.

UPDATE: Thirdpower provides us with a cached version.

Bitter has two really good posts up about how the anti-gun groups are going to have to spin the Democrat/NRA deal as a victory even if it isn’t really.

I actually disagree. They are in a do or die situation here. If they can’t be seen as getting a win after the PR tragedy that was handed to them on a silver platter, they will start to lose funds and support.

She goes on to document the demise of Americans for Gun Safety, and goes on to mention:

Now with all of that said about AGS, I realize that the Brady Campaign has a much more entrenched status as the leader for anti-gun activism. They solidified that by taking over the Million Mom March. However, most sources of funding for non-profits don’t keep the tap open forever without at least a few results. If the Brady’s allow this to come out as the only gun legislation that can pass and only then because of the NRA getting on board, they are screwed. They will have to spin this as success, only without mentioning all the stuff we got out of the deal.

So expect the Brady’s to ignore that part, and just focus on “We strengthened the background checks to ensure blah blah blah blah”.   Her next post points out that things at the Brady Campaign already aren’t too good:

So we can see that the two major divisions of the Brady Bunch did see a combined loss of $2,310,000 in revenue from 2004 to 2005.  With losses like the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that took several of their big legal challenges off the table, it’s not a shock that they would see a drop in 2005.  It will be interesting to see their 2006 numbers, the year that Michael Barnes left and Paul Helmke took over.  Of course, he didn’t take over until the first quarter was over, so the 2007 numbers would really be more reflective.  If with the Parker case and Virginia Tech, the Brady Bunch doesn’t regain all of the lost revenue and more, I would say they have to start making cuts.  They don’t have the assets to support themselves for even a few months if donations take a drastic drop.

And when you’re operating in DC, cutting your staff signals to the people you’re trying to influence that your support is eroding, and that’s the kiss of death.

Also keep in mind folks, that gun owners tend to let their memberships and donations to pro-gun organizations lapse when we start to get too complacent as well.  Having gun control off the table as a political issue is great for us, but if we want to keep things that way, we have to keep our pro-gun organizations strong.