Random Thoughts About Post-Newtown Gun Laws

For some people, a “bad law” is one they don’t like. One that (also) doesn’t accomplish its purported goal – such as reducing violent crime. For others, a bad law is one that violates the United States Constitution – such as any law infringing on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. You could also argue that a bad law is any law that’s “unworkable.” What, then, are we to make of the gun control laws passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook slaughter, laws that tick the box marked “all of the above”? The word that springs to mind is . . .

dangerous.

When a law – any law – is unpopular, ineffective, unconstitutional and unenforceable people tend to ignore it. Are we surprised that Colorado gun owners are finding ways to circumvent the post-Newtown magazine capacity ban, prohibiting the purchase or sale of ammunition mags that hold over 15 rounds? We are not. Nor will anyone in the firearms fraternity raise an eyebrow when they learn that thousands of New Yorkers have ignored the SAFE Act requirement to ditch or register their “assault weapons.”

Why wouldn’t gun owners ignore these new gun control laws? Who’s going to enforce them?

Cops in Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Maryland may or may not be in favor of the laws; support tends to run along urban/rural lines. But whether or not any given police force or police officer would disobey an order to enforce a gun control law on a firearms-owning taxpayer, every badge-wearing public servant knows that confiscating ammunition magazines and guns from armed citizens is an extremely dangerous business. Going home at night is not a given.

What we have here: a Mexican standoff between tens of thousands of gun owners and state governments. No one’s talking about it and it hasn’t erupted into violence. But that doesn’t change the fact that one spark, one stupid bust gone wrong, and the entire “gun debate” could go up in flames. Make no mistake: if and when a cop tries to take someone’s “assault rifle” and that someone kills a cop (or cops), all hell will break loose – in a way that will make Waco seem like a warm-up.

The standoff at Bundy Ranch tells us that there are hundreds of armed Americans ready to rush to the aid of a “innocent” gun owner swept up in a government gun grab. The recent capture of Pennsylvania cop killer Eric Frein by U.S. Marshals tells us there’d be a huge federal response to a lethal gun defense by a rural resident. Something significantly larger than the $1m-per-week PA manhunt, which involved both FBI and ATF SWAT teams. Imagine a Bundy Ranch standoff where “militia members” get into a firefight with hundreds of heavily-armed feds. Imagine the aftermath.

That’s not a pleasant intellectual exercise. The feds could use the bloodletting (on either or both sides) as an excuse to take proactive action against “domestic terrorists”:  anyone giving aid and comfort to the law-breaking gun owner(s). Some states — many states — would not play ball, should the feds decide to broaden those efforts geographically. They’d oppose the federales in every way possible – exacerbating tensions between pro-gun (small government) and anti-gun (big government) states. Civil war much?

Now that’s a big leap. But keep in mind that any such move against “gun nuts” and “terrorist militias”would have its supporters, and events have a way of spiraling out of control. That’s especially true if the woman occupying the White House gets (keeps?) an anti-ballistic bee in her proverbial bonnet. And don’t forget how the mood of the country changed after Newtown, swinging towards anti-gun fervor by a whopping 10 percent. A large-scale terrorist attack before this state-gun-grab-gone-wrong wouldn’t help matters. At all.

The best way to prevent any of this occurring: deep-six the unpopular, ineffective, unconstitutional and unenforceable gun laws bedeviling Americans in gun control-heavy states. That could happen politically. It could happen in the U.S. Supreme Court. If it doesn’t happen in either venue, bad things will happen. It’s only a question of what, when and where.

comments

  1. avatar RLC2 says:

    I’m with SAF’s Gottlieb on background checks. They are coming, and I’d agree to closing the gun-show loop hole, in exchange for getting rid of gun registry all together, to include removing stupid and arbitrary feature bans, for AWB, approved rosters for hand guns, smart guns, etc.

    Hold people responsible for their behavior, not how their guns look.
    The BC covers mentally ill and prohibited persons.

    1. avatar Stompy says:

      Except there is no gunshow loophole. There are private party transfers with no bc if that’s legal in your neck of the woods. Just because a legal private party transfer occurs at large public event and not in a Walmart parking lot dose not make it a loophole.

      1. avatar Mediocrates says:

        exactly, and that doesn’t give the Federal government the right to assume undelegated powers.

      2. avatar RLC2 says:

        Ok, sorry- I guess thats what the un-initiated thinks about background checks- gunshow loopholes has become the code word that covers ALL private party transfers.

        I dont think its the governments business, either- but the fact is, the gun-grabbers are winning on
        ” reasonable requirement to do a background check on every gun transfer” issue. And, to be honest, here in CA, where we have had it for awhile, I dont see it as a major problem-

        as opposed to other things that are MAJOR problems – no CCW, stupid approved/smart gun roster that is a creeping ban on handguns, idiotic shoulder thingy feature definitions, ammo bans, etc. Those are the things we ARE winning on, in votes and vetoes, or in court after, slowly but surely and the reason is they dont make sense and are not nationwide, as is BGC.

        And since creeping regulation of gun features inevitably lead to national registration itself, thats where the fight should be, at the basic level.

        Its a strategic/political calculation- fight for a win on the important stuff and give up the stuff thats already lost, or being lost. I594/I591 will be a referendum on this IMHO.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “And, to be honest, here in CA, where we have had it for awhile, I dont see it as a major problem- “

          No offense, man, but his precisely why CA should not try to do the thinking for the rest of the country.

          Just because you accept some aspect of Statist oversight in your life does not make it either “good” or something the rest of us should accept.

          BC’s are a red herring. They don’t do diddly squat for stopping violent crime and there are buttloads of false positives (ie, law abiding people getting their rights infringed upon the name of security theater). That, and they are a huge, gigantic, enormous waste of money, like virtually everything else .gov does in the name of ‘keeping us safe.’

        2. avatar John Galt says:

          What’s so special about firearms that private party transfers should require a background check?

          How are they different from automobiles, knives, bows, machetes, spear guns, axes, hammers, etc?

          Violent felons and mentally ill people can buy those (even from a dealer!) without a background check.

          If we’re going to be consistent, let’s get background checks on anything that’s ever been used as a weapon.

        3. avatar ropingdown says:

          It is to me a peculiar notion that most of the nation should strike a political deal that gives us nothing, takes from us liberty, and does so just because California, MD, NJ, and one or two other states already voted away their rights. I think the opposite makes sense, that bad-law state electorates should live with their ill-conceived bargains. Eventually they will understand their right to self-defense has been trammeled, but voluntarily.

          The proof of CA’s and NJ’s foolish surrenders comes with every news story reporting victimizations which simply did not have to be. The day will come when Mexican Californians realize why so much of Mexico is so easily oppressed, under the heel of gangs, government, or both. They will realize that civil peace requires civil arms in the hands of honest men and upright women. New-era pleasure-first liberal Californians clearly lost the thread of history’s fabric. They have, for the time, the government they deserve. And soon they’ll be second-class citizens in a golden land that was once theirs to defend.

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          BC’s are a red herring.

          I agree with this. If there was a universal or whatever background check and all private parties had to perform a background check during a transfer, then more firearm thefts would occur, more house breakins, more recovery of firearms with serial numbers ground off, and more back of the vehicle trunk purchases. The only activity the US gov can prevent is a reform bill on government spending. Nothing more.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          I agree with John Galt.

          There should be no background checks. No ex-con/felon/criminal intent on ill-will is going to procure a firearm from a gun dealer (except maybe by stealing). Only the law abiding are really undergoing background checks – the criminals are not. All those “felons” rejected from background checks are likely prohibited persons who have no intention on hurting anyone. Why would a criminal undergo a background check and registration of a firearm when he can get an un-registered one out of the back of a trunk without raising any red flags.

        6. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “Only the law abiding are really undergoing background checks – the criminals are not.”

          This is proven out quite easily by the NICS statistics. Of the millions of background checks performed each year, only a few dozen result in criminal charges against the purchaser (usually for lying about one of the answers on the 4473 form). If criminals were trying to buy guns through these “legal” channels, wouldn’t we be catching a lot more than 60 or 70 a year with the NICS system?

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Of the millions of background checks performed each year, only a few dozen result in criminal charges against the purchaser (usually for lying about one of the answers on the 4473 form).

          And to add insult to injury: few if any of those dozens are even prosecuted – making the entire process completely pointless.

        8. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “And to add insult to injury: few if any of those dozens are even prosecuted – making the entire process completely pointless.”

          Yep.

          To put some numbers on it, John Lott discussed this in an interview last year:

          “In 2010, there was 76,000 initial denials. The government brought prosecution against 44 and won convictions in 13 of the 76,000 cases. That’s not 13,000; that’s not 1300. That’s 13 out of 76,000 initial denials.”

          –John Lott
          Ballistic Radio, 06/16/2013

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        I agree that the “gun-show loophole” is a misnomer. There are sales at: gun-shows; by advertisement (diverse forms); and by acquaintances (of diverse depths of familiarity). Then, there are also loans; i.e., “transfers” between a lender who knows the borrower well enough to expect the return of his property.
        The key distinction is NOT the venue of the sale; it’s between permanent and temporary transfers. Think about this very carefully and a “U-BC” could be worked out. FAIL to think about it carefully and we are screwed by the loans. We will all become criminals.
        Making distinctions among gun-shows/advertisement/acquaintances is a TRAP! If we make such a distinction we will fall into that trap in two ways. The government will go after peaceable traders who didn’t do the BC when they were not-far-enough-away from the regulated gun-show or advertisement boundary. No acquaintance sale will be safe-enough unless you can prove that the transferee was your wife or biological child. We will be in fear of our liberty if we ever make a sale without doing the BC. Second, there will remain a “loophole”; I’ll call it an “out behind the bar[n]” loophole. The antis will be back in 2 years trying to close the “out behind the bar[n]” loophole which will be the vehicle to force lots of other changes on us. My recommendation is that if we negotiate a deal for some form of U-BC that we cover all permanent transfers without leaving traps to fall into or another pretext for bringing a new close-the-loophole bill up for debate.
        The real problem is between permanent transfers and loans. We will see this in Washington State if their referendum goes through. We loan guns to one another regularly. Unless we craft a U-BC that exempts loans in some practical way, the loans will make us all felons.
        If we carefully craft a bill calling for U-BCs on permanent transfers and exempting loans then we could have a law that would occasionally be a small nuisance on sales but not be otherwise problematic. Keys are to make a showing of a CCP a satisfactory BC; make the BC system accessible to private parties via means other than FFLs; NO paperwork (or a very short retention period for paperwork on private transfers); and no BC for loans. If this is done by making it a misdemeinor-only to UN-knowingly transfer to a prohibited person and no-crime-at-all to transfer to a 2A-able person then we will be just fine (no-harm/no-foul). The ATF will be able to make their case when a “girlfriend” in the inner city buys guns for all her admirers. Law-abiding citizens trading guns will hardly ever be in violation.
        We just aren’t thinking of how we could make a U-BC that would work for us. We are too busy complaining that what Bloomberg has in mind will be unacceptable. If we don’t think about how to draft the bill we will be facing Bloomberg’s bill.

    2. avatar Dale Smith says:

      And compromisers like this ^^^^^ are how we got into the situation we are now in. No compromise. Shall not be infringed. Molon Labe. Etc., etc., etc. I will not comply, and that is the truth. Keep up the good work appeasing them. smh

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        No, I am not appeasing. I am suggesting think strategically, look for leverage, apply that as needed. Give up a lost cause for a bigger win, then work backwards to refine the BGC, for example, to correct abuses of its use. The privacy issue is growing, and you can bet the FedGov has already abused it- so uncover it and make it as protected and non-threatening to law abiding, and used effectively against the criminals and mentally ill.

        I dont pretend to know all the angles, but just throwing labels at one another here in circular firing squads isnt working either.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          How is working backwards from say NFA, GCA or Hughes working out for us?

          It won’t be the last time I ever say it, so…NOT ONE DAMN INCH, sir.

        2. avatar Tim says:

          Uh, give them background checks in HOPE of getting something in return? And how is that not appeasement? Work backward to redefine background checks? What makes you think the other side will be willing to give back that which you’re so willing to give? They’ve proven time and again that, to them, compromise is the pro-gun side giving in. Forget that noise! Contest every inch!

        3. avatar RLC2 says:

          let me give you an example- turn it back on the anti’s.

          What is so magical about the BCG that the data should be controlled by FedGov. You can do a background check on new employees by credit, employment, driving license, etc etc.

          This is as simple as a well tended database, that is accessible by a mobile app.
          Felons and mentally ill cant buy guns, everyone else can. What is so threatening about that, especially,
          IF YOU BUILD IN STRONGEST protection and updates to the info, so its actually ACCURATE, and useable.

          The problem now is its NOT accurate, and useable, and in the example of CA, their own private secondary copy of it was 40% out of date. That is an error rate that would get any private corporation run out of business, bankrupt, fired, and under investigation by regulatory bodies in financial arenas.

          So, lets MAKE THE FEDGOV WORK FOR US, build it right, and make it open to ALL CITIZENS.
          Knowledge is power, so devolve it to the everyday citizen, and protect it so the State can not tyrranize us with it.

          See what I mean? Lets think out of the box, OODA loop, five steps ahead of the antis. Are you telling me we cant outfox and out manuever Shannon Watts, fer chrissakes?

          Read “The Rise of the AntiMedia”, which among other things is a history of the NRA, and the success of the national concealed carry movement- which 20 years ago seemed completely impossible- but look at the map now…

          http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Anti-Media–Forming-Americas-Concealed-ebook/dp/B00FX758S4/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415048059&sr=1-1&keywords=kindle+rise+of+the+antimedia

          “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
          ― Samuel Adams

        4. avatar John Galt says:

          @RLC2 said:

          No, I am not appeasing. I am suggesting think strategically, look for leverage, apply that as needed.

          Clearly he isn’t familiar with who generally comes out on top, the appeaser or the appeased.

          1938: ‘Peace for our time’ – Chamberlain
          http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/30/newsid_3115000/3115476.stm

          RLC2 is under the illusion that the Civilian Disarmament Complex will cease asking for more territory once we throw them a bone, just as Chamberlain thought regarding Hitler.

          These people will NOT quit.

          Any sign of weakness on our part is a victory for them.

        5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “What is so threatening about that, especially,”

          You have not been paying attention for, oh, the last 180 years or so.

          Just in recent memory, I bring to your attention all those innocently maintained non-Federal databases of CCW permit holders that were defined by statute to not be public info where permit holder info was released…or even merely threatened to be released.

          You are living in a dream world if you think ANY form of database related to gun ownership will not be abused. It’s already happened/is happening.

          Finally…we run into all kinds of issues with defining “prohibited persons.” You say “no problem” to felons…when ‘felon’ is a moving target and now included things like NOT REGISTERING A SEMI-AUTO RIFLE or MAGAZINE in CT.

          Think about that. Then, after you ponder it for a while, ask yourself if you think all this database horse snot is really that good an idea.

        6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Circular firing squad? Labelling? Wow. This is TTAG. It’s full contact debate. No whining allowed. Wear a cup….if needed.

          Here’s a label to avoid: let’s quit calling “submission” a “strategy.” While we’re at it, how about we cease dolling up “complicity” by painting it as “compromise?”

          Your approach to engaging the gun grabbers reminds me of competition shooters who sacrifice accuracy for speed. You know what they say about them, don’t you? “You can’t miss fast enough to win.” Well.

          In your case and that of firearms owners of your ilk, you’d do well to realize that you can’t surrender rights fast enough to keep your freedom.

        7. avatar BDub says:

          I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the kinds of info found in background check data bases to be publicly available. I already have a problem with the existing ready availability of information. Why would I want even more information made even more widely available? Sorry, I’m not convinced by your argument. Not even remotely. Maybe thats a poor reflection on me, but more likely its a deficiency in your view of how antis work.

        8. avatar MarkPA says:

          Think strategically. So, suppose you get flagged in the BC database for spitting on the sidewalk or having taken some prescribed pharmaceutical. And, then, that data is public for gun BCs – and for the children! It’s not just you getting nicked; it is tens of millions of other people who are not gun buyers; and, whose flags in the BC database is now readily available. That’s tens of millions of other people who will object to having their spitting-on-the-sidewalk or prescribed pharmaceutical records being incorporated in the BC database – precisely because of the privacy issue you are concerned with.
          The more accessible the BC database is the more allies we have for minimizing the information in that database. If someone is convicted of a crime that conviction is a public record anyway. Making it nationally accessible is not – in principle – a big issue for me. If someone is committed to a mental institution that should be a private issue in most (but not all) cases. It sucks; but, lots of things in life suck. Making the BC database public will tend to build allies outside the gun community to put constraints on what kinds of records can trigger a red-flag in the database.
          Privacy is – as a practical matter – largely lost due to the development of commercial databases. What we have to worry about is the use – and mis-use – of 2A disqualifying criteria such as the vets disqualified because the VA diagnosed them with PTSD. While it’s merely a gun-rights issue, no one cares. When it becomes publicly available it threatens half the population of non-gun people. We need allies.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …and I’d agree to closing the gun-show loop hole…

      What “gun show loophole”? There is no such thing. There are only FFL sales (that require NICS and form 4473) and private sales (that require neither), regardless of the location of those sales. If an FFL sells at a gun show, that FFL is still required to complete both the NICS check and the form 4473.

      Hold people responsible for their behavior, not how their guns look.
      The BC covers mentally ill and prohibited persons.

      And mandating background checks will not stop either the mentally ill nor prohibited persons from getting firearms, any more than gun-free zone signs stop criminals from taking guns into those “gun-free” zones.

      Requiring background checks for private transfers will accomplish nothing more than making law-abiding citizens felons for non-crimes.

      1. avatar BDub says:

        I’m with you all the way CB, but I don’t think he is arguing for UBCs because he thinks they work. He is arguing for them as a concession/appeasement to the Antis, in the hopes of gaining ground elsewhere – erroneously so, I believe. So its seems pointless to argue with him about their (UBCs) efficacy.

    4. avatar Dave357 says:

      “I’m with … Gottlieb on background checks. They are coming, and I’d agree to closing the gun-show loop hole, in exchange for …”

      Gottlieb will (likely) be able to say the day after tomorrow that, had WA state gun owners compromised with the legislature, they would have avoided the nastiness of I-594, which seems a good deal worse than just your “background checks”. Given that there’s talk of I-594 being exported to OR, NM, AZ, and either Montana or Utah in the near future, this might appear to be the case not just in WA.

      And yet, how do you know they will give you anything of substance “in exchange”? Because if not, it is not clear that rolling over on background checks is the best strategy.

    5. avatar Bill in Texas says:

      I understand that this is a great idea for you. You are from California and have nothing to lose and only to gain. Please remember that some of us have plenty to lose by your “compromise”. I have no registry where I live, so if you give into this I have gained nothing and lost. It is not a national compromise only a local one. Hold your state responsible for it’s shortcomings. I will not be screwed over by someone who has allowed it to happen in their own state, and is now willing to sell me out to save themselves. Not another inch. We have “compromised” for long enough. Remember I’m from Texas the orgional “Come and take it” state.

    6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Ha ha ha, yes, we should compromise so we can keep retreating and compromise even more through the years. Say, look at the gun control laws through the 20th century and tell me how that compromise is working out for ya.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Hundreds of people did flock to the bundy ranch. Out of 330+ million Americans. Not exactly an overwhelming response to .gov tyranny. And the guy in PA was an ambush murderer. I can’t imagine law abiding gun owners getting their knickers in a twist over him.

    Any gun owner that backs himself into a corner over 30 round mags and evil features is going to find himself in an unwinnable position and will, for the most part be abandoned by fellow gun owners.

    The way to win this fight is in court and the ballot box. Nov. 3 is upon us. Don’t waste this chance.

    1. avatar danthemann5 says:

      “Any gun owner that backs himself into a corner over 30 round mags and evil features is going to find himself in an unwinnable position and will, for the most part be abandoned by fellow gun owners.”

      Sadly, I think you are correct. Most people probably do not have the stomach for a fight, especially over something so “trivial”. And that’s how the statists win, when our side concedes one little piece at a time. They identify the weakness and chip away.

    2. Most people – the vast majority – will not come to the aid of anybody for any reason. The key word being reason.

      The pro-gun side uses rational arguments to bolster its position. The anti-gun side relies on emotion. But what happens when the pro-gun side becomes emotionally engaged?

      Slavery was pretty much a non-issue up North – until Uncle Tom’s cabin was published and performed. Suddenly, slavery wasn’t an intellectual exercise. People were willing to die for abolition, in astounding numbers.

      Something similar could happen with a gun rights showdown. Bundy was not a suitable poster child. Ruby Ridge was not a seminal event. Waco, well, the Internet was in its infancy and the schism between Big and Small government was not as well defined as it is today.

      But anyone who thinks a highly emotional event could not galvanize both sides into something a lot bigger is kidding themselves. IMHO.

      1. avatar RLC2 says:

        I think you are on to something there. Its a scary thought, that it could get to that point, in terms of the FedGov or some other entity enraging enough of the citizenry to rise to that level. I really hope we are not close to that, and responsible leaders are just as concerned as the law-abiding about the poor judgement of some in politics, and appointees to agencies, who apparently feel civil service allows political abuse now.

        This is where responsible gun owners, as mature adults and best examples of the law abiding, have to use the vote, and grassroots activism to counter the big money and unethical non-accountable ouside interest groups that are anti-thetical to our constitutional rights. 2A rights are the canary in the coal mine…but we cant relax, or think the fight is won, just because we got a one vote majority in the Senate.

        Its much bigger than that, a culture war, as Ralph calls it- and the sea change is only beginning- it took 30 years for progressives to infiltrate colleges, non-profits, and federal service. It will take much more than a couple of elections going our way to reverse that.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          “I really hope…responsible leaders are just as concerned as the law-abiding about the poor judgement of some in politics, and appointees to agencies, who apparently feel civil service allows political abuse now.”

          And I hope you are prepared to be very disappointed. There is very little evidence on display that any of our “leaders” – elected, appointed, self-appointed, anointed by their God, whatever – are responsible, and even less evidence that more than one or two are concerned for anything beyond their own narrow self-interest.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Ruby Ridge was not a seminal event.

        I beg to differ. Ruby Ridge (1992) accelerated the militia movement, turned more people against the crazy b@stards leading their government and was an important, perhaps critical factor in the 1994 Republican wave that steamrolled the Democrats.

        The Ruby Ridge murders changed everything in the fight for 2A. From 1992 to 1995, the gun rights movement also accelerated, with more than a dozen states switching from may issue to shall issue. And none of us who lived through that tawdry episode in American history will ever forget it, and will never trust their government again.

        1. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Well said. Much of the progress that’s been made in the fight for RKBA over the past two decades has been fueled, at its core, by anger that was birthed at Ruby Ridge and Waco. These were the first “in your face” examples of government brutality and abuse for an entire generation of Americans.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Any gun owner that backs himself into a corner over 30 round mags and evil features is going to find himself in an unwinnable position and will, for the most part be abandoned by fellow gun owners.

      Make it an everyday occurrence and tides will change, especially if juries are involved. During prohibition, 60% of all alcohol prohibition cases resulted in a jury nullification and acquittal. Every one of those jury members knew it was “illegal.” The biggest influence is expanding the gun/freedom culture to as many as possible.

      The way to win this fight is in court and the ballot box. Nov. 3 is upon us. Don’t waste this chance.

      I’m not feeling too confident in this. Between Bush#1’s import ban, and Bush#2’s patriot act, it’s like voting between a carrot and a potato. Can I get something other than a tuber please? I guess it’s like they say – government is like a soup. The scum floats to the top. By the time the candidates are in line for a vote, the options are 90% the same. Compromisers, back scratching traitors, majority pleasers. There isn’t an ounce of principle in them.

      1. avatar Nagurski says:

        I honestly think that voting in the primaries has a bigger effect than the actual vote.

    4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Fighting at the ballot box and in the courts is the preferred and more efffective two prong approach, I agree.

      However, most of the rest of your post was off base. Americans were put off by the government’s response to Bundy, what with their aggressive show of force, but fundamentally, most would view Bundy as being in the wrong. That’s essentially one famiky’s contract dispute and not quite a relevant analog for national confiscation of firearms.

      U.S. population is more like 320 million in 2014, not 330 million. That oops aside, that pop. figure includes children, the elderly, the infirm, the incarcerated, the government itself, and foreigners here at any given tine for school, business, etc. who have no interest in our politics anyway. So the relevant base is way off by millions.

      Beyond that, there are always others in an effort who support it without being on the front lines. The U.S. military’s tooth-to-tail ratio, for example is something like 1 to 3; that us, 3 support personnel fir each fighter. So what you see isn’t necessarily all there is. Then there are sympathizers in addition to that.

      Really the bottom line is that if the government tried to round up tge guns, it wouldn’t be just one guy affected and the government would face a hostile population. Current military practice/experience occupying a foreign hostile population requires 13+ troops on the ground per 1,000 population, of which about 4 must be in a police function. In a hostile U.S., that might mean around 4 million troops overall running around keeping things under control. They’re not going to confiscate in one fell swoop because they wouldn’t be able to keep it all together.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I don’t believe the .gov is going to try to confiscate guns en mass. A domestic dispute here, an otherwise legit traffic stop for a mundane reason there and before you know it a lot of people have lost their rights to a gun or been caught with one of the banned items.

        Waco, Ruby Ridge, Cliven Bundy were not enough to stir the fair weather patriots. Constant nibbling at individuals for violating bans based on mag limits or scary features will do nothing but remove these items from circulation and brand their otherwise law abiding owners as criminals.

        Our best hope, and it’s been working well for us for the last 30 years, is the ballot and the jury box.

        Break the dems so bad this election and 16 that they back off gun control.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          That seems to work for about 18-20 years. They got burned by backlash from gun control in ’94, but they eventually went right back to it like a dog to its own vomit.

          If they get spanked this year, and the pattern holds, there will be another major push in 2032 or so for more gun laws.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Between now and 2032 we can get rid of the junk laws they put in place. They’d be starting from scratch, not us.

        3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Those cases wouldn’t stir anyone. I’ve already discussed Bundy. Ruby Ridge? They killed a deputy, for crying out loud. They holed up for a week and a half. The wife wasn’t killed until the second day, as I recall. Had they surrendered, that wouldn’t have happened. Hell, had Weaver himself answered the charges he faced in court (a failure which resulted in his conviction and spending over a year in prison), none of that would have happened. Toss in his white supremacist views, and you have a very unsympathetic figure; dead wife and kid notwithstanding.

          Plus, the Weavers and Harrris were awarded some $3.5 million in the lawsuits. The chief of the FBI’s violent crime unit served 18 months in prison. The public views it as mistakes on all sides and a tragedy, not tyranny, with justice served(ish). You don’t launch a revolution over “ish.” Nevertheless, McVeigh & Co. committed the OKC bombing in retaliation for Ruby Ridge and Waco. I condemn it, but you can’t ignore that some people were indeed stirred to action.

          As for Waco, more kooks and criminals who brought it on themselves. Four dead agents! Convictions included five for voluntary manslaughter. There was disciplinary action afterward against some dozen+ govt. officials. Again, mistakes all around. Justice served…..ish….is how the public sees it.

          Look, I agree with your premise about chipping away at rights and the need to turn them back at the polls. I catch static in here whenever I say lazy conservatives in MD and CT who don’t vote off-year elections are to blame for their condition. What I’m saying is that a powder keg is out there, but those past examples don’t reach its flashpoint. A future one may just, God help us all. Only a tiny fraction of Colonists supported the American Revolution, by the way. Coups are staged with handfuls if key people. Our society is more fragile than the thin veneer of stability suggests.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          I’ve heard that tiny % of colonists deal before. 3%ers I think is the term used nowadays. I don’t know if it’s really accurate to make that claim. maybe only a small % of people actually took up arms but that small number had to be fed, paid and supplied. Which would indicate a larger base of support.

          And, let’s not forget that the French landed troops to support us and had a fleet off the coast to confront the brits.

        5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “I don’t know if it’s really accurate to make that claim. “

          It’s pretty well established that only about 30% or so supported the war…not fought, but ideologically supported. About 30% was opposed, and about 30% were pretty neutral.

          I think that’s consistent with just about any society’s opinion on any given war.

          The bottom line is that rebellion from the King was not a ‘majority’ thing.

  3. avatar James Miller says:

    Any law that’s drafted with a goal of crime prevention is a bad law as laws don’t prevent anything. Any law that punishes “victim-less crimes” is also a bad law.

  4. avatar John M. says:

    “Now that’s a big leap.”

    Now that’s an understatement.

    If anyone decides to take a stand on this, the Left will roast him like a kabab, bulldoze his home and salt the earth where once it stood.

  5. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    No compromises where we end up taking a step back.

  6. avatar ADC USN/Ret says:

    Possible but not likely.

    If anything the Muslims have taught us it is the terrorist approach to warfare. Imagine pro-gunners everywhere directing shots/knives/poison/etc at those responsible for these stupid laws and you probably have a better picture of what will happen.

    No targets for the cops and anti-gunners dieing all over. What a mess that would be. The pro-gun/anti gun crowds would line up very quickly. Darwin awards would be conspicuous in their numbers.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      No, Chief, with the greatest respect for your proven leadership and service,

      I am not going to imagine gun owners everywhere aiming at law enforcement or anything like it.
      Of course it could come to that, hypothetically, but lets face it- making those kinds of comments just reinforces the hysterical thinking of the gun grabbers. There are plenty of good sites elsewhere that have been making that argument, and doing it well- sipseystreet comes to mind. But TTAG is like the place where everyone can come at first, and be welcomed, and thats just too scary for most, IMHO. Even though I know you are just voicing an opinion- we still have to maintain a certain decorum, IMHO. And remember what works, boring as it is to repeat.

      Vote, give money to lobby groups, organize and enlist new gun owners to the fun at the range, give your time and money to Appleseed, NRA courses, etc. Those have all worked for decades, and will continue to work for a long time, especially if our fellow citizens are becoming concerned about domestic and national stability. They dont want to get advice from someone who looks unstable, but someone who is steadfast, in the ups and downs, like you have been in your Navy service.

      If we 2A rights believers just continue to mobilize as a group, and capitalize on the growing interest in self-defense, guns in general, and democractic rights in general- post Progressive v2.0 meltdown underway, there are a LOT of millenials looking for another way….

      And doing so with with passion infused by moral arguments, according to our legal rights as enshrined in the constitution, by legal and lawful means, expanding our freedoms bit by bit. Thats what we already have proven what works, slow and messy as it is, in a nation of free men who disagree.

      Stay the course, full speed ahead Chief.

  7. avatar JasonM says:

    Don’t forget all of us Washingtonians handing guns to our friends without filling out a 4473 and undergoing a background check, if 594 passes and 591 fails. On the second hand-off, we become felons.

    1. avatar RLC2 says:

      And that is clearly where 594 will need to be immediately challenged at the State House, and the courts, to fix it. So if thats the price for the lesson learned, so be it. Its happening in CA, thanks to Calguns. Who would have thought Peruta would be cited at Palmer, ten years ago, or even one year ago?

      The way the media is spinning it- 594 is pro background checks, 591 is anti- is the bottomline. The education fight was lost early on, and the key is to simplify and fix it, and be ahead on the education next time. That means strategic thinking, discipline and a money to the right politicians elected delivery platform, with long-time commitment.

      This is not a new fight- it was done in CCW rights, and the sea change under way right now favors it.

      I dont know the final answer, but I do know if we fight among ourselves in these forums, without doing something different, then we get beat, state by state-

      thats how the CCW movement beat the anti-gunners slowly but surely- shall we have it be turned upon us?

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        but I do know if we fight among ourselves in these forums,

        So lets see. You don’t just disagree with us, you are condemning us for arguing with you. Things would go so much better if we’d just shut up and do what you say.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        And that is clearly where 594 will need to be immediately challenged at the State House, and the courts, to fix it. So if thats the price for the lesson learned, so be it.

        For those of us not living in WA state, that’s pretty easy for us to say. After all, we’re not the ones risking being rendered a felon, losing our freedom, livelihood, and gun rights permanently – all in the hopes of getting the legislature or courts to overturn an unconstitutional law.

    2. avatar Howdy says:

      In Colorado, this is technically true with handing firearms and mags over 15 rounds to others.

      The sheriffs and law enforcement have received instructions by the legislature to not arrest someone for merely handing a greater than 15 round mag to someone else. However, the “instruction” is not the law. This got through on a party line vote. We were screwed on this as the legislature and gov’s office are democrats by majority.

      Don’t let this be you. We are hoping to take back the state tomorrow night.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        In WA, we don’t even have the instructions. We have an initiative that uses the undefined word transfer (yet has half a page defining firearm), that implies handing a firearm to another person to defend against an imminent threat counts as a transfer (and that transferring the firearm before the threat is imminent, or not transferring it back as soon as the threat is neutralized, is a crime), that might become law soon.
        But the “republican” county prosecutor for King county (Seattle, Bellevue, etc.), who is one of the biggest backers of the initiative, has promised that he won’t abuse the power. And I’m sure we can trust a politician at his word.

  8. avatar J in OR says:

    Did anyone else notice, in the video the guy labeled as a “gun control activist” is named Tom Mauser? Seriously?!?! Your last name is Mauser and you’re and anti! #facepalm

    1. avatar Avid Reader says:

      Yeah, we’ve been dealing with him for a long time. Unfortunately for him his son was killed at Columbine. He’s been the go to guy for the gun control crowd for local media ever since. Any time there’s a gun control story or a school shooting, he’s on speed dial and is always happy to emote for the camera.

      Not to diminish the tragedy of his son’s death, but it’s time to grieve privately.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        My sympathy ends where rights infringement begins. Losing a child in Columbine does not give him moral authority to infringe upon the rights of the law-abiding. And using his dead child as both a sword and a shield is despicable, and cowing to that use only enables the tactic.

        You know what would have saved his child? Teachers, armed with guns, who could have responded to the two nutcases – or, more likely, the presence of which would have prevented their scheme from ever happening.

        So, screw him.

  9. avatar JR says:

    Today’s fun nugget of irony:

    Gun-control advocates last name is Mauser.

  10. avatar BDub says:

    I am sick to death of the “compromise” bullshit. For those of you that still don’t fucking get it, I am going to make you a damn chart!

    Below is an abstracted chart showing a progression of gun control measures. Look it over and then read my explanation below it.

    (A) 2nd Amendment, no limits, no oversight.

    NFA

    GCA

    Hughes Ammendment

    Brady

    (B) were are now!

    AWB

    UBCs

    ?

    (C) Complete civilian disarmament!

    Here is the problem;
    Right now the Antis get to frame the definition of “compromise”. In that definition we are at position (B) and they are want condition (C), that means ANY compromise (that which falls between B & C) moves the ball towards (C).
    If pro-gun got to define “compromise” we start at position (A) and the Antis find them selves at position (B), or what we currently have. In this scenario any compromise moves the ball towards (A). In other words, compromising on our terms would mean the REPEAL OF and NOT the addition of more gun-control legislation.

    NOW DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH PLAYING THE ANTIS COMPROMISE GAME?

  11. avatar Bunsen says:

    scofflaw
    ˈskôfˌlô,
    noun NORTH AMERICAN informal
    A person who flouts the law, especially by failing to comply with a law that is difficult to enforce effectively.

    maverick
    ˈmav(ə)rik
    noun
    1. an unorthodox or independent-minded person.
    synonyms: individualist, nonconformist, free spirit, unorthodox person, original, eccentric

    Scofflaw is an old term from the Prohibition era, but still quite applicable today. Combine the two then add in open strong 2A support and .Gov will likely label you as a domestic terrorist in the not too distant future. Tomorrows election results should be a good indicator of which way the proverbial wind will be blowing for the foreseeable future.

  12. avatar Anonymous says:

    Laws such as these are broken by a great many people because they simply merit no respect. The best methods of producing law abiding citizens is to make respectable laws. Make a law that does nothing but hinder and annoy people who have no interest, no history, and no motivation to hurt or bother anyone else and you create a large group of people who don’t respect that law. Laws like don’t murder, don’t rape, don’t steal. These are laws with merit that everyone can get behind. A law that places a limit on the dimensions of a piece of plastic or a spring has no merit. Criminals should be deterred by the severe consequence of killing someone, etc, not a law about a magazine length that has no victim. Magazine capacity laws do nothing but further gun control (not criminal control) and makes criminals out of the gun owners of today. Real criminals don’t care about this law – it is not going to prevent a crime. The only thing it prevents is the union between a nation of many different peoples. The more laws they pass like this, the further the gap, the intolerance, and the prejudice grows between people of differing cultures. If they want to destroy this nation and smash it into pieces, they are doing a good job in that endeavor.

  13. avatar Angry & Irish says:

    That report is nothing but a sweeps garbage piece that will have all the gun-grabbers clamoring for stronger laws that only hurt law abiding gun owners in Colorado and actually do nothing to prevent gun crimes.

    Luckily for us intelligent Coloradans, election day is tomorrow and hopefully the results will show that we’ll get Hickenlooper and eventually the rest of the post-Newtown gun-law groupies out of office in the Centennial State and we can repeal all the ridiculous laws that do nothing to prevent ANY crimes.

    Passing high-capacity gun laws to stop mass shootings is like passing high-capacity gas tank bans to stop high speed chases and banning high-capacity alcohol containers to stem drunk driving deaths. All are idiotic and don’t actually prevent anything.

  14. avatar B Bradley says:

    Chip chip chip away until their all gone. Yes California has all these extra laws but to me it hasn’t done anything they were supposed to do in the first place . So anyone wanting to concede to that BC nonsense are foolish at best.

  15. avatar TxGal says:

    Proposed background checks for private party transactions? I sold one pistol, gave another pistol and have out on loan a revolver, to my sister-in-law. She has her CHL, I have mine. We both have been background checked ad nauseam. And this is why I’ve become a single issue voter. Also why I will vote for a conservative even if I have to hold my nose while doing so, but vote I will in mid term, national and local elections.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      As do I. I hold my nose, try not to look at what I’m standing in and vote.

    2. avatar ropingdown says:

      Good! I always make sure to show up and vote for the lesser of two evils. Why? Who wants the Greater of Two Evils to win?

      And the theory proferred by some, that letting the Greater Evil win will eventually cause a backlash…is rubbish. All it does is give the Greater Evil the power to appoint another pile of federal judges.

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        You already lost if all you did was vote for the lesser of two evils at election time every two or four years. Your civic duty and responsibility needs to occur 356 days a year. Get involved or don’t complain.

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    Where is the news story on the mentally ill going untreated and ignored by professionals?

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    What, then, are we to make of the gun control laws passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook slaughter, laws that tick the box marked “all of the above”? The thought that springs to mind is . . .that they just plain suck and are just stupid.

  18. avatar Pete says:

    Damn, Farago: It seems like Mike Vanderboegh is ghost- (or guest-) writing for you today!

  19. avatar Keith D says:

    What people seem to forget is that for any UBC scheme to work requires total registration. How else can you tell if every transfer is going through the UBC system. Once you have a total registry, the the confiscations are sure to follow.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      If you want Bloomberg to write the U-BC bill then, yes – of course – you are right. Why would you invite Bloomberg to – alone – write his own bill?
      Why not have the PotG write a U-BC bill that is “universal” in the way we define and implement “universal” and it has no record keeping at all for private transfers?
      We PotG are really good at setting up the straw man: Well, if Bloomberg writes a bill he will write it as X and then we will have to stop it. We won’t write a bill that we COULD live with because we are absoluteists! We want Bloomberg to write the bill and then we expect to succeed at stopping it so we can preserve the status quo.
      We are not politically astute. The progressives are better at playing the game. How did the progressives get the Federal AWB adopted? Because they played the game better than we did.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        “Nice gun you’ve got there.”

        “Thanks, Mr. Government.”

        “Did you pass a BGC to get it?”

        “Of course, Mr. Government.”

        “Prove it.”

        UBCs = de facto registration

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email