TTAG Daily Digest: Stealth Gun Registration, The Futility of Gun Control and a Gun-Lover’s Pipe Dream

New York Democrat Nydia Velazquez's NICS tax would also create a gun registry. Oh joy.

Wait, you mean a gun control bill proposed by a New York Democrat isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? . . . Proposed NICS Fee Bill Would Also Create Gun Registry

A measure introduced in Congress that would require gun purchasers to pay a fee for their NICS background check would also create a gun registry of firearms sold to law-abiding Americans.

The bill, House Resolution 3987 by U.S. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., calls for gun purchasers to pay a $1 fee for each NICS check, with the first $10 million in fees collected going to the anti-gun Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In other words, law-abiding gun owners who obey the law would pay their money so an anti-gun entity could further blame us for criminal violence.

One more time…you can’t stop the signal . . . Gun Control in a Maker World

Producing a gun is something that a decent machinist could likely do with a lathe and milling machine, tools that have been around for ages. This is made even easier by the fact that gun parts such as the barrel and stock can be purchased without any checks. Only the part of the gun — called the receiver — that essentially connects all the other parts is considered “the gun” and receives an ID number that can be traced to the owner.

It is currently legal to make your own gun, provided it is not intended for sale or distribution. However, you are not allowed to make guns that would be illegal to purchase otherwise, such as a fully automatic machine gun.

It is also legal to purchase a receiver that has been 80 percent machined and therefore is almost complete. Even though there is 20 percent of machining required to finish it, it is not considered a gun, so it is legal to sell without any checks or serial numbers.

Maybe Daniel Defense could have gotten the NFL to run their ad during the Super Bowl if they had included little Lab and Golden Retriever puppies playing in a field of clover. Nah. Who are we kidding?

Gun control advocates never want to talk about this graph.

Short answer: no . . . Do Gun Laws Reduce The Gun Homicide Rates In States?

So finally we found a study with data from the CDC, the NRA-ILA, and The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. It seems like as unbiased a data source as any. It compared the averages of states where background checks are required for all gun sales, including private ones. And the average gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 people among gun control states (3.31) was lower than those with no regulation of private gun sales (4.28).

But there’s a problem. Two gun control states, and nine gun rights states had too few gun homicides to calculate a rate, and were left out of the study. Rather than ignore this important result, my students and I created a 2×2 table, with high (1) and low (0) gun homicide rate states, and those that regulate private sales (1), and those that do not (0). And here are our results.

In comparing our observations to a random model, we found that there was little to no difference in the results. We cannot conclude that states that regulate private gun sales have a higher, or lower, gun homicide rate.

Is national reciprocity still a possibility?

Apparently not hard enough . . . Mere weeks after Las Vegas, the GOP is quietly pushing a gun-lover’s pipe dream

So what gun policy measure are lawmakers discussing in Congress these days? An absurd yet dangerous proposal that would drastically undercut states’ abilities to set reasonable rules about who gets to carry a weapon.

The proposed federal law, the so-called Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, would require any state that issues permits for carrying concealed weapons to recognize concealed-carry permits issued by other states — even if those states have different eligibility and training requirements and less stringent restrictions on gun ownership. In the House, the measure has picked up 212 co-sponsors (including three Democrats); a companion Senate bill has 38 co-sponsors, signaling significant support.

Senator Chris Murphy continues to tilt against the gun control windmills.

And speaking of pipe dreams . . . Senator launches push for broad expansion of federal background checks for gun sales

Sen. Chris Murphy is introducing legislation Wednesday to expand background checks for firearm purchases, calling it “a best case scenario for the anti-gun violence movement.”

The bill is broader than a measure the Senate defeated in 2013 and has no hope of passing now, but the Connecticut Democrat said it can be used as a platform for negotiations with Republicans. It would expand the federal background check requirement to include the sale or transfer of all firearms by private sellers, with exceptions for loans of firearms for hunting or gifts to relatives.

“This would bring hundreds of thousands of gun sales that happen today in gun shows and on Internet sites into the background check system,” he told USA TODAY.

comments

  1. avatar Stereodude says:

    Loved the lemon spoof.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Almost as good as this one.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      2. avatar Stereodude says:

        Okay, that one’s good too.

        BTW, after a little more thought I think the Lemon one should have ended with “A bitter crying Lemon.” 😀

        1. avatar Stereodude says:

          @BLAMMO I presume they were indirectly referring to Don Lemon in the video. Hence my suggestion on the addition of crying after his on air antics on Monday night. http://www.dailywire.com/news/22676/don-lemon-weeps-air-after-reading-letter-he-wrote-james-barrett

          Though maybe it should be weeping, not crying.

      3. avatar henry bowman says:

        How do you post vids to the comment section?

  2. avatar Hank says:

    I thought there was already a fee for doing a background check? Or have gun stores been swindling me all these years? Silly me for never questioning this in the first place.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      The shop can charge a fee for performing the mandated check, to pay for their labor to do it.

      Most shops I deal with don’t charge for it if you buy a gun from them (or rather it’s rolled up into their profit margin), but do charge for things, like handling an incoming transfer and associated NICS check, that would otherwise net them nothing but still takes up their time.

      This is different. This fee would be paid to the federal government, not the shop.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        I see. Thanks.

        1. avatar st381183 says:

          Plus the FFL has to maintain the records for 20+ years, so a fee seems fair.

      2. avatar PeterZ in West Tennessee says:

        In TN the BGC goes through the TN DPS (State Police), who charge $10 for each check. Every FFL I have used passes that along to the buyer as a up-front precheck charge.

    2. avatar Mark Horning says:

      There is no fee for the Federal NICS system. Some states run the check through their own system instead of directly through the feds, and those states may charge a fee. In the vast majority of states there is no fee.

    3. avatar BLoving says:

      There is legal precedent for a fee, of course.
      Many democrat-controlled states and municipalities used to collect a small fee from each voter who showed up at the polls to vote on election day. They called them Poll Taxes.
      Small as the fee was, some lower income demographics felt that they would rather use their meagre coins on food rather than voting and a bunch of spoil sport Republican judges decided this meant those poorer groups were not being adequately represented by their elected Masters and decreed states or towns could not charge a tax or fee for the exercise of individual civil rights.

      Seems like the Democrat party still hasn’t learned their lesson…

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      NICS checks are not wanted by or beneficial to the buyer or the seller. Government/snowflakes want them, government/snowflakes should pay for them. Every penny. These pukes just LOVE loading up all manner of people and businesses with unfunded mandates, sometimes (as with guns) then attempting to increase costs as much as possible in the attempt to actually control people’s actions through fees and regulations.

      1. avatar Cam says:

        The government doesn’t produce anything, therefore anything they pay for. We paid for it though higher costs and taxes.

        Most snowflakes don’t pay taxes because a they are basement living mouth breathing moorons that are mooching off their parents.

  3. avatar Defens says:

    Hey Senator Murphy, this is me, negotiating – https://media.giphy.com/media/64r76cNejjsmA/giphy.gif

  4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…Sen. Chris Murphy is introducing legislation Wednesday to expand background checks for firearm purchases, calling it “a best case scenario for the anti-gun violence movement.”

    Phrasing….. The Violence Movement lead by Anti-gunners.

  5. avatar JC says:

    Murphy is simply a media whore…

    1. avatar Soylent Green says:

      I would argue he’s just a whore…greedily swallowing down any random sausage placed before him as long as it’s wrapped in the appropriate currency denomination.

  6. avatar James B says:

    The CDC is an anti-gun entity now? You people just sound dumb repeating that. Please stop. You’re making gun owners look like paranoid freaks.

    1. That’s a writer at the Huffington Post ( a political science prof) noting that CDC and other data show that there’s no correlation between universal background check laws and homicide rates. Neither HuffPo or the author can be considered pro-gun. So no one in that post is trying to paint the CDC as an anti-gun entity.

    2. avatar Defens says:

      Anti-gun or not, what legitimate mandate does CDC have to even study gun control?

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Given the socialist commies running the show? Yes. The CDC has no business studying anything that is not a disease. Bullet to the head is not a disease.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        Sometimes it’s the only cure for the disease.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          A 62gr a day keeps the communism away.

      2. avatar Chadwick says:

        Well until the party redefines the word disease and sends the old definition down the orwellian memory hole.

    4. avatar Hank says:

      Why should gun owners be taxed as second class citizens? Should black people be taxed for the privledge to vote?

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        I like that you mention the word privilege. Most people don’t understand there is a difference between a right and a privilege. We are a constitutional republic so yeah voting isn’t a right.

    5. avatar CWT says:

      Last I checked violence wasn’t a disease. Maybe the CDC should stick to studying things within their purview.

  7. avatar 'Liljoe says:

    The CDC has researchers, they have opinions, otherwise known as biases, their biases influence their research, for example, if your stats don’t show enough people being affected by something, change the definitions and say 22 year olds are “children”… ring a bell?

  8. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Damn wrong article:

    edited

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    If, like me, you’ve scrolled to here after reading about too many people in desparate need to fuck themselves above (whole states in fact, yeah we see you over there you capital C cunts Connecticut, your piss ant wet shit asses need another glacier to scrape you into the Sound) that it’s nearly exhausting (of your patience). (D)bag needs something to negotiate w/Republicans, all you fuckers need to go the fuck home.

    1. avatar MikeJH121 says:

      Now, Tell us how you really feel. 🙂

      Libtards! Whether or not you like Trump, ya gotta admit he has made these dirt-bags go all out Tard. Still like the fact that the the Beast isn’t POTUS. CNN and the rest used to try to hide a little bit but not anymore. They want us to swirl down the Venezuela they just can’t seem to convince us all to jump into their little cesspool.

      “Come on in the water is fine, don’t mind those brown things floating around they are water treatment logs.”

  10. avatar joetast says:

    CDC ,,. The bullet Flu thru his skull,. sick and tired of people.

  11. avatar Sprocket says:

    Gotta love the attempt to associate national reciprocity with the Las Vegas shooting.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      Especially since it was discussed BEFORE the LV mass murder. And pulled after.

  12. avatar binder says:

    “less stringent restrictions on gun ownership” Do any states have further restrictions on gun ownership? I’m not talking about hurdles you have to go threw or types of firearms, but actual limitations outside of federal law on who can actually own them.

    1. Yes, New Jersey has their own limitations on who can own guns, their own background check forms required to get your “NJ Firearms Purchaser ID Card” (including references and fingerprints), their own form to fill out (in addition to the Federal form 4473) before each gun purchase, a SECOND additional form for handgun purchases certifying that you haven’t purchased one in the last 30 days, and a THIRD form to sigh certifying that you’ll keep your guns locked up. Some of the NJ requirements (questions asked by the state form before EVERY gun purchase) are stricter than the Federal requirements, but I’m not sure which ones, I think it’s additional domestic violence and mental health disqualifications if I remember correctly. New Jersey also charges a NICS fee of $16 (or $15 plus a few cents, but most LGSs round it up to $16).

      So, why is it states can’t impose additional requirements on your right to vote (e.g. a higher voting age or poll tax), but states can impose additional requirements on your right to purchase arms?
      SCOTUS struck down poll taxes, but they haven’t struck down additional gun taxes (including NICS fees) and bullet taxes by the states!

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Because guns.

  13. avatar Parnell says:

    I don’t see the differing standards argument. Don’t states have differing standards regarding the driver’s test? In NY, you drive and park on city streets, in NJ, you drive and park on a closed course. Isn’t that a differing standard of driver competence?

    1. The difference is that there’s no Constitutional RIGHT to drive a car, but there’s a Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms and to vote.

      Also, you drive your car on the public roads. You don’t need a license or insurance to store your car in your own garage (e.g. if it’s up on blocks with the wheels off), but if you want to drive it on public streets you need a license, insurance, and registration.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        No need to take the wheels off. On your own property (or on other private land with owners permission) you can drive any car at any speed, without licence, insurance or registration and you don’t have to worry about emission limits. It’s great to be rich!

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