NICS Flow Chart courtesy fbi.gov

Despite RF’s misgivings about the NICS background check system (or maybe because of it?), at least some Senate Republicans have apparently decided that “fixing” or expanding the Rube Goldberg-esque NICS system is one area where yes, we really can all get along. From talkingpointsmemo.com: “Last week brought stories of Republican Senators crossing the aisle to at least rhetorically endorse some of the president’s top goals on gun control. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is reportedly working with Democratic Senators on legislation to ban the trafficking of illegal guns. He’s also working “to find an amenable background-check proposal,” according to staff.” An Illinois Senator who’s amenable to more restrictions on Americans’ RKBA? Shirley, you jest . . .

But joining the junior squish from the Land of Lincoln is Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn.

“I think there’s lots of good things that can happen in terms of mental health screening and checks,” he said Friday while between meetings at the Summit Club in downtown Tulsa. “Everybody…if you transfer your car, you have to have a license to transfer, it has to go through that, that’s a responsibility of freedom. I have no problems with us making sure that we don’t allow guns to get in the hands of either felons, or people who are a danger to themselves or other people.

“I’m willing to work with Manchin and Schumer on that, and going to.”

In other news of slippery slopes . . .

No one wants to stop hunting, right?: The NSSF has jumped into the fray, filing a motion to intervene in a suit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club trying to stop hunting on federally managed lands. The claim: firing traditional lead ammo constitutes the illegal disposal of a hazardous waste. nssfblog.com

courtesy slate.com

OMG! Daniel Politi discovers that the New York Times has uncovered the awful truth:  “the gun industry” is teaching children to be safe with and use guns. slate.com

It all depends: Remember, it’s OK to carry an illegal concealed weapon in D.C. as long as you’re doing it to protect a paranoid, once-institutionalized liberal idealogue from mythical right wing assassins. dailycaller.com

Don’t take your guns to To(ronto), son: Canadian border agents want Americans to leave their heaters at home (Bill). freep.com

Recommended For You

21 Responses to Daily Digest: Getting Things Done

  1. Mark Kirk is a Democrat who sat down on the wrong side of the House on his first day and lied about his party to cover it up. He’s in the same category as Schumer and Feinstein as far as I’m concerned.

  2. ”the gun industry” is teaching children to be safe with and use guns.

    Like the kid in the photo practicing capping his old man?

  3. Is it not interesting that Illi-noise, the home turf of the founding office of the CPUSA plays such a prevant role in destroying American civil rights and even in Zeke’s very conception?

  4. “Everybody…if you transfer your car, you have to have a license to transfer, it has to go through that, that’s a responsibility of freedom.

    National Instant Car Sales check? Really? I missed when that happened. I can’t sell a car to a convicted felon? Which misdemeanor convictions?

  5. Everybody…if you transfer your car, you have to have a license to transfer, it has to go through that, that’s a responsibility of freedom.

    *sigh* Even politicians are too stupid to know the law. You only have to get government permission to sell or transfer a car (as well as register it and have a license) if you want to drive it on PUBLIC ROADS. It’s 100% legal to drive it on private property without any of those things.

    • Totenglocke, Are you being facetious? I was going for the part about having to get permission to buy or sell a gun – which he claims you need for a car.

      I’ve been through well over a hundred cars in the last 30 years, and the only permission note I’ve ever needed to sell to anyone I pleased, said ‘Federal Reserve’ on them. The cash is all here, here’s your bill-of-sale, your title, and have a nice day.

      • However, their is not a whole lot of dealers that will let you buy one without a valid license and proof of insurance. That said, if its a purely off road vehicle, then no license required.

        • To be fair, what little I have bought from dealers is because they had something they didn’t know what to do with and called me. I’ve never personally bought anything through the ‘sales floor’ in the last 25 years.

          But I’ve handheld a few folks through the new car jungle in a few states, and have never heard of a dealer giving two good flyin’s about anything but the money. YMMV.

    • I think you guys are missing my primary point – I don’t have to fill out a form and wait for a background check to purchase a car.

      To sell one, you show up with a stack of Benjamins and I give you to a bill-of-sale and a title. What you do after that is up to you.

  6. Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.

    Make the requirements to own a gun the same as to vote.

    • I might be able to get behind that – register with your precinct to get your name on the list, then show up, flash your ID, and sign your name – then you’re good to go.

  7. All I know is it’s taking at least a week in the state of NJ for a background check to clear, longer if mine doesn’t go through by tomorrow…. used to take 5 minutes.

  8. I usually like Coburn but he’s apparently slipped a gear on the car stuff. Here in Misery, you don’t need squat to transfer a car except the title and a bill of sale. Now, of course, you take that stuff to the local license bureau and pay them taxes and all that so you can get license plates and a title in your name but let me say again, you need NOTHING to buy or sell a car, except the money (if buying) and the title and bill of sale for both parties. Oklahoma I don’t know about (except they have a bad reputation when it comes to salvage titles).

    Tom

  9. I don’t have a problem with banning lead bullets for hunting on gov’t land. That stuff can’t be good for the environment.

    • I don’t think that there is any major prohibiting factor using non-toxic (i.e. copper) bullets to hunt on federal land. I suppose you could equate it to the way some range owners don’t allow FMJ bullets on their rifle ranges.

      The Sierra Club and CBD are proposing an blanket ban on hunting in federally managed land. In either case, I would think that it would be best practice to review available data to determine how much of an impact, if any is caused by lead bullets.

      There are other higher impact ways to protect wildlife, the first that comes to mind is habitat preservation. Lest we forget that hunter and sportman’s organizations do more for wildlife and natural area conservation than any “Sierra Club” organization. On a legislative level, let us not forget the Pittman-Robertson Act that directly funds wildlife conservation through purchases of arms and ammunition.

    • I hear you and agree sort of. Lead is nasty stuff that should be kept out of the food chain. Which is why lead shot for waterfowl was banned. No reason not to, took a hundred shells to adjust to steel. Small price to pay for less lead in the food chain.

      Lead shot goes wide, not all of it (or often any of it) hit the intended target and entered the food chain via a variety methods. Small, plentiful, demonstrated eco-issue. No prob, I can score fowl with steel all day long.

      But, lead bullets? Rather large, no data I’m aware of on animals injesting, and how many of them are really ever floating around as it were? Nobody’s duck hunting with a 30-30. Guy shooting in the woods generally has a target, which is going to contain the lead and keep animals from injesting it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *