Category: Gun Rights

The fact that they are even having to work to get to 60 on this means this deal was thoroughly unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are Republicans in the House who will help buy us more time, and hopefully improve the situation. Everyone would do well to remember that on any bill, today’s exceptions are tomorrows loopholes.

The late Toomey-Manchin compromise has meant that tab clearing has taken a back seat. Some of this stuff may be a bit dated, but I’ll try to weed that out as I go. But here’s all the news that’s fit (or maybe not fit) to link.

Happy tax day. Remember that today might be tax day, but you’re still working for Uncle Sam until Wednesday.

Bill Maher thinks the Second Amendment is bullshit. Because issues that revolve around the ability to defend your life and freedom are not serious issues, worthy of any serious debate.

Chicago v. Houston, the crime numbers.

New Yorkers better not have ten rounds in a magazine today. From now on it’s seven.

Us vs. Them, and Part II. And to think some of them wonder why politicians pay more attention to us than them.

“Remember, Pennsylvania … Pat Toomey didn’t actually load the soldiers into the trojan horse. He just built it.”

Real men don’t need eyebrows.

Two of the big four TV networks are considering quitting broadcasting. Good riddance. I actually think TV has been terrible for politics in this country, and those frequencies can be put to more productive use anyway. Interesting that newspapers also seem to be headed down the crapper.

Looks like the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show has been saved, and those weasels at Reed Exhibitions are no longer involved.

The Truth About Gun Buybacks. Good thing the Toomey-Manchin Amendment would make buybacks illegal then, I guess. Why? Because it’s illegal to transfer a gun to a law enforcement officer without going through an FFL.

Joe Biden says that if you’re not a hunter, you’re not a real gun owner.

Obama’s approval on guns is underwater. 52% disapprove of his handling on guns. Maybe this will indeed cost the Democrats the Senate.

Why hunters are boycotting Colorado.

North Korean Army gun safety. I particularly love the dogs chewing the face of the South Korean defense minister they taped onto a dummy. Speaking of hilarious moments in bad gun handling, this takes the cake.

On training and rights. For all the hewing and hawing about training, I’ve never noticed that states that don’t require training have higher incidences of accidents attributable to poor training at any higher rate than states which require it.

Don’t kill a bear in self-defense in Massachusetts.

We have yet another false flag group, much like American Hunting and Shooting Association from a few years back.

The mass stabber in Houston would seem to have had some mental problems.

We continue to make advances on other fronts while the antis aren’t looking.

We suspected from media rumors that there was going to be an, “In the event of gun control, break glass,” strategy from the stronger Republicans. Unfortunately, the Toomey-Manchin deal has given real legs to this issue once again, and given murmurs from the House, including my own Congressman (not surprised), I don’t feel particularly good about the House. Getting a “true conservative” like Toomey on board with the deal, unfortunately, makes a lot of critters think “Well, if Toomey is on board, it must be OK!”

And so Senator Tom Coburn floats an alternative that I think would be far preferable, if I’m going to be required to pick my poison:

Dr. Coburn’s amendment would require a NICS check or validation permit to be presented for non-FFL transfers, exempting family transfers, estate/will transfers, and all temporary transfers.

The requirement can be satisfied in one of four ways:

1) An FFL takes custody ofthe firearm in order to perform a background check on the transferee as mandated in Schumer original and Manchin-Toomey

2) Presentation oftemporary 30 day permit created by running a self-NICS check through a new consumer portal(details below)

3) Usage of a concealed carry permit or any other state issued permit that requires a NICS check to be conducted to obtain

4) Any other alternative that a state comes up with to satisfy the validation requirements for secondary and private market transfers. The amendment also includes a provision that places penalties on ATF agents that abuse records during audits, an IG report on the FBI’s 24 hour destruction rule compliance, a prohibition on records, a prohibition on centralizing records pertaining to gun ownership and a provision that allows states to assume primacy of enforcement of the background check law.

Consumer Portal

• FBI shall provide a consumer portal through its website, mobile application, or other applicable medium to allow a potential transferee to run a NICS check on his/herself
• A successful background check will provide potential transferee with a temporary 30 day permit that validates he/she is not prohibited from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm
• The temporary permit can be used by the transferee for any private transfers in compliance with state or federal law during the 30 day time window
• The permit will be made available to the transferee as an electronic printable document, via a mobile application or other appropriate means
• The 30 day permit will provide the name, date of expiration of permit, and a unique pin number that can be used to verify activation by transferor
• The consumer portal will be designed with privacy protections so that only a prospective transferee can run his/her own NICS check
• The documentation provided by consumer portal will utilize necessary fraud protections
• A valid 30 day permit provided by the consumer portal that is verified with a valid governmentissued photo identification would suit the law’s requirements
• Information provided by prospective transferee to conduct background check through the consumer portal must be destroyed within 24-hours as occurs for FFL conducted background checks

The new law will not go into effect until the consumer portal is up and running, and the law will be nullified if the consumer portal is permanently shut down or defunded.

Screw going through an FFL being an alternative though. The alternative should be that FFLs can issue a validation to a prospective buyer, to facilitate a private sale for someone who doesn’t want to use the portal. Also, this all has to be with the FBI. ATF can’t have anything to do with this portal. In fact, I’d be happier with an independent agency, separate from the DOJ, running NICS.

The concern here is that the requirement that records not be kept by the FBI from the check are worth about as much as Cypriot deposit insurance. There needs to be independent, and regular auditing. While in this scheme, the seller presumably would keep the buyer’s certificate, there can’t be any requirement to do so. The enforcement mechanism for this is that if you sell to someone prohibited, obviously you didn’t run the check, and also the fact that most gun owners, to the utter shock of anti-gun folks everywhere, really don’t want to sell guns to criminals. Also, do we still get some things in return for the Coburn proposal? That would be a necessary component.

Again folks, what our options are depends on how people are communicating with lawmakers. If everyone who was lining up at gun shows at the start of all this were calling lawmakers, we would not be here. We worked a gun show to get people to contact, and the number of people who wouldn’t, because they just didn’t think it mattered, was very discouraging. Don’t be those people. Also, just be emphatic that you expect them to vote against all gun control measures, and that yes, background checks are gun control, no matter what Senator Toomey says. You wouldn’t accept background checks for Internet access (to make sure you’re not, say, a child porn convict). Firearms rights should not be any different.

See here, via Instapundit. Looks like how I’d expect this to go down. By the time they actually hold a vote, everything you see is pretty much pre-arranged kabuki theater. Call your Senators.

I just got an e-mail from these folks. They claim for three dollars they’ll send a letter to the White House for you. My charitable opinion is these folks are dishonestly trying to cash in on people’s concerns about gun control. My less charitable opinion is that this is a total scam. It would not surprise me if they are not even based in the US, given that the e-mail came from a gmail account. I would not have anything to do with them, and if you see people promoting this, please help spread the word. I normally would ignore stuff like this, but with people on edge, it’s opens the community up to being taken advantage of.

So the analysis of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment here turned into a good bit of crowd sourcing, and readers have uncovered a number of issues. I want to address them here. I’m kind of torn between trying to make sure people have correct information, and just letting the panic play out, because panic, politically speaking, is good, and I don’t honestly like this deal. But I think a case can still be made that the deal is bad, so I will lay out some clarifications.

One of the big surprises is that it does not cover advertisements solely on the Internet, but also to publications. I asked someone for a Black’s Law Dictionary definition of publication:

“Generally, the act of declaring or announcing to the public.”

But the person (who has a law degree) who I asked believed the Court would be more likely to use the ordinary definition, which combined with the mention of “listing,” would mean a periodical, gun club newsletter, etc. So just holding up a sign would not likely be construed as publication. Nonetheless, by failing to define the term in the amendment, it’s open to interpretation by the courts. If they mean a newspaper, magazine or other periodical, they can plainly say so.

A reader pointed out that it would make it illegal to rescue guns from a buyback. I thought that might be plausible if a sign or verbal announcement would be considered publication. I think it’s still plausible, but it would be a stretch. I think it would also be a stretch to suggest that a buyback is a gun show. The guns are not being displayed for sale, you’re soliciting a sale from people walking buy. UPDATE: A reader surmises it would actually make buybacks illegal. Buybacks are generally advertised in publications, on the Internet, and in newspapers. Actually, yes, it would make buybacks illegal, I believe.

Another reader asked about C&Rs. This doesn’t change anything about C&Rs, except that for purposes of guns that are curios and relics, you are a licensee, rather than a non licensee, so you can acquire the gun from a private seller the same way any other FFL would be able to, provided you log it in your A&D record. Someone also asked about antiques. The language does not change how antique firearms are treated.

Chris from Alaska brought up a point about the FOPA protections. The bill creates a new exception where the protection no longer apply if the firearms are being transported to commit any crime punishable by a period over one year. He pointed out that transporting a 30 round magazine through Colorado would be such an offense. I’d note that the language covers firearms and ammunition. Presumably that would also cover a magazine, since you need a magazine to operate the firearm. But what about 10 magazines, say, if you were on your way to a competition? We’ve seen enough abuse of FOPA provision that I think this language needs to be air tight. There can’t be any wiggle room. The language needs to include “and firearm accessories” as well.

As many have pointed out, the Concealed Carry exception doesn’t really do anything for us. One reader commented Oklahoma issues 10 year carry permits. So Oklahoma is not likely on the list of states whose carry permits are NICS equivalents. The language in the Toomey-Manchin amendment was a bit different, but not radically so, and as I pointed out, they left the existing language in place currently in 922(t), which would become 922(s), so it’s unclear which controls.

You are still permitted to liquidate large collections from your home, and not be covered under the gun show language. Your home can never be a gun show. But someone else’s home could be. I missed the language there, and have removed that conclusion from the previous post.

I have concern about the section on penalties. If I had a friend who was a cop, and I privately sold him a gun after he saw me advertising it in a club newsletter, and I didn’t go through a check, the penalty applies. For someone not prohibited, it would not. Better to suggest law enforcement, or a law enforcement informant, if and only if they are posing as someone prohibited under 922(g) and 922(n).

I am of the opinion that the Toomey-Manchin Amendment doesn’t honestly give us enough to justify the vague language, and what we’re being asked to give up. I think it would be difficult for an ordinary gun owner to know what’s legal and what’s not legal, so the smart advice would be to run all sales to someone you do not know, or who is a cop, through an FFL. I think there are probably also quite a lot in here we’re missing. I don’t trust what the courts and the DOJ are going to do with it. Also, today’s exceptions will be tomorrow’s loopholes. I think this Toomey-Manchin deal needs to be opposed, and people need to call their Senators.

From PennLive, on the Toomey-Manchin deal. Casey is naturally happy. Barletta is still dancing, and that’s a good sign. Dent looks like he might be favorable. Tom Marino came out solid against the Toomey-Manchin deal. I would suspect that if Dent is leaning toward the bill, then all the suburban GOP reps will as well.

2:58PM: Right now it’s Chris Murphy (D-CT), engaging in some good old fashioned emotional blackmail, reminding all of his colleagues that it’s For the Children. He throws out the now thoroughly debunked 40% number on number of private transfers as a percentage of gun sales.

3:00PM: Deb Fischer (R-NE) is unhappy with the 2014 budget. I thought this was supposed to be about gun control? But I’m not complaining. Americans care more about the budget than they do about gun control.

3:09PM: Now Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) is up for some emotional blackmail of his own. He says, “it is only a first step,” “a solid foundation,” and the basis of “more compromises,” to come. “Minds are changing, and voices are changing that conventional wisdom” that gun control is a losing issue. Toomey just got the kiss of death, thanks and praise from a solid gun hater. He notes he supporters further measures to expand background checks after this, even though Lanza, as Uncle noted, used the “shoot your mom in the face and steal her guns” loophole. Now Blumenthal is recounting another mass shooting in CT, in a workplace. Millions of gun owners didn’t shoot anyone yesterday, so clearly we must be punished. Onto another mass shooting. CT seems to have a lot of these for a small state with much stricter gun laws than most others.

3:23PM: Blumenthal is done. He suggested the Senate did not have a quorum, and they are taking a roll call. I guess they are real eager here. Actually, more likely, their caucus is running over, which is good. Kind of like a jury that takes a while to come back.

3:41PM: *crickets*

4:24PM: Still crickets.

5:07: Looks like we’re back, but I missed whoever was speaking. OK, apparently not on a topic related to gun control.

6:20: *crickets*

6:49: The Senate is proceeding. I’m not entirely sure what’s happening right now. OK, the Senate is adjourned until Monday.

Between Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards on NRA News, about whether or not Toomey is just doing what he has to do. I’ll refer to Geraghty’s Morning Jolt:

The deal reflects some basic political realities: Toomey was elected in 2010, and so he’ll next appear before the voters in 2016, a presidential election year with high turnout. You’ve heard Pennsylvania described as Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle, but the real battleground that determines statewide elections is the Philadelphia suburb counties… These are classic “soccer mom” suburban counties, and the Philadelphia Inquirer is a big media influence here. It is a tough corner of the state to sell an uncompromising stance on gun issues.

I figure since I actually live here, I ought to throw in my two cents, trying to take a step back, take off my activism hat, and put on my politics junkie hat. I think of all the things that Geraghty mentions here, the Philadelphia Inquirer is the largest factor, which is entirely in favor of gun control and has no interest whatsoever in treating the issue fairly, or treating gun owners fairly. The Inquirer has the power to destroy Toomey’s brand on the gun issue with a lot of voters, and they are backed up by several other popular and thoroughly slanted media outlets. A bigger factor is Bloomberg’s power to weaken Toomey with expensive ad buys in the Philly media market.

However, a lot of people who aren’t from around here essentially make the assumption that there is no gun culture in the suburbs worth worrying about, and that it’s soccer moms all the way down. This is not necessarily the case. Bucks County is home to several large and popular gun shops. There are dozens of smaller shops sprinkled around the county. There are about half a dozen private clubs with memberships into the thousands, and several public ranges. A great many blue collar Democrats here are also gun voters. Hell, even a lot of Jewish voters here are heavily armed. Bucks County issues about 30,000 carry permits currently. That comes out to about 1 in 17 adults in this county, and assuming gun owners vote at a higher rate than the public, arguably about 4% of the registered voters in the county. Do you know too many politicians that are willing to piss away 4% of their vote? Or even half that amount? Montgomery County issues 34,000 LTCs. Even Philadelphia issues about 32,000 LTCs. The whole state is more than 600,000. These are people with carry licenses we’re talking about, who are engaged enough in the issue to obtain an LTC.

Suzy Soccer Mom, who cares enough about the gun issue to vote on it, is never going to vote for Pat Toomey even if he voted to personally go around and confiscate every AR-15 in Pennsylvania. I would argue that Toomey has more votes to lose than gain here on the gun control issue, even in the Philadelphia suburbs, because gun owners were among his most enthusiastic supporters. It’s one thing for Toomey to vote on some things that make us unhappy because the vote came up. It’s another thing entirely to work with Manchin and Schumer to cut a deal to help get something passed. It also won’t win you any friends to lie to your constituents who call, and tell them you aren’t working on a deal when you really are.

Trying to look at this issue objectively, I get that the media has a great ability to influence low-information voters, but I also believe those tend to break for Democrats. Time will tell how badly Toomey hurt himself, if at all.