NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre appeared on Face the Nation to explain his org’s position on “closing the terrorist loophole”: they’re in favor of a 72-hour delay on firearms purchases for Americans on the government’s super-secret, unaccountable Terrorist Watch List trying to buy a firearm. In other words, the NRA wants a “suspected terrorist time out” during which the Fibbers would got to a judge for approval of a firearms purchase ban of indeterminate length. “Law enforcement goes to a judge . . . it provides due process for the good people.” Not if your definition of “due process” involves a Sixth Amendment right to confront your accuser — ’cause I’m thinking that’s not part of the package.

Mr. LaPierre also repeated NRA-ILA jefe Chris Cox’s televised statement dissing the idea of armed Americans in bars. Mr. LaPierre flat-out stated that “we should not have firearms where people are drinking.” While he goes on to assert that “every American needs to have a security plan,” the NRA’s “no guns in bars” stance is outrageous. And its in direct contradiction to the [correct] view of the matter, mooted by NRA-endorsed presidential candidate Donald Trump, in his own special way [via politico.com]:

At a Friday night rally in Houston, Trump suggested that the terrorist attack at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub might have been avoided or least made less deadly if more people inside the club had been armed. It would have been a “beautiful sight,” Trump said to the raucous Texas crowd, to see armed patrons shoot “the son of a bitch.”

Oh wait. The Donald didn’t mean people people. In a Tweet this morning, he claimed he was “obviously talking about additional guards or employees.”

Folks, if you want real backbone on gun rights, go GOA. That said, both Mr. LaPierre — and yes Mr. Trump — are active, powerful forces for the pro-gun position. I just wish they’d take a hard line against any infringement on our right to keep and bear arms, and stick to it. Especially today, when the Senate is “debating” four gun control bills.

Recommended For You

32 Responses to NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre on Guns in Bars and “Closing the Terrorist Loophole”

  1. close the squishy-lobbyist loophole.

    The recent gun control measures, coupled with the lax illegal immigrant handling is nothing short of an

    ACT OF WAR

    on the U.S., and the American population.

    SCOTUS’ failure to hear the NY/CT assault weapons ban is a FAILURE TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

    • While there are only 8 justices we do not want any cases going to the SCOTUS. If there is a tie then any stupid bluestate bullshit becomes LAW OF THE LAND for everywhere in the US.

  2. They say truth is the first casualty in war. And that’s exactly what we have here. A war. A war of words, or more accurately, a war of anti-gun propaganda. Compounding the intractable infusion of deliberate misinformation, is the somnambulist media that is asleep at the microphone and knowingly allow propaganda to be disseminated as accurate and honest discourse. The Soviet journo’s of Pravda and Tass had to be threatened to write the prevailing party doctrine, but our American media is populated with obsequious, willing accomplices in the propaganda war. This in-kind anti-gun advocacy has been polluting the news for 50 years now. Those who actively fail to defend the truth are the truest enemies of the republic, not conscientious objectors to tyrannical agendas. They are the 5th column. As long as they remain, Wayne LaPierre and anyone supporting the 2nd amendment will be fighting a media insurgency of propaganda terrorism.

    • NRA, just another gun control group.

      Gun Owners of America- One of the only real Second Amendment groups that believes Shall Not Be Infringed means what it says.

    • You can carry legally in bars and while drinking even in CT, I simply don’t understand that prohibition. I don’t know why La Pierre didn’t make the case that yes, the armed security couldn’t stop him outright but guess what he did? He slowed him down and bought time for everyone else by diverting the shooters attention from massacring. We’ll never know how many people escaped or avoided death because of that.

      • Man, that is an excellent point.

        We’ll never know, but even the possibility that he bought some time for some to survive is worth the argument.

  3. The NRA needs to get off their strategy of permanent defense. When the rhetoric goes quiet so does the NRA. They only throw their hat in the ring when shit blows up. When you give your opponent weeks to spin their narrative you’ve already lost.

    They need to stop the bleeding now any way they can then double down when the current shit storm passes.

    Anyone got a bridge for sale?

  4. I am all in favor of guns in bars. At least on my person. I don’t drink, God willing I won’t ever again, but if I am out with friends there is no reason for the rights of a sober person to be restricted.

    And clearly armed security doesn’t bode well against attacks.

    • There is no reason for the rights of a drunk person to be restricted.

      Shall not be infringed.*

      *Unless you’ve been drinking

      • +1

        It might not be wise to go around in public drunk (armed or not), but you don’t lose your right to self defense because you’re intoxicated.

      • Didn’t the founding fathers wake up with a glass of ale? Why would they think that this would ever be an issue?

  5. The NRA and Trump should have kept it simple: people should be allowed to protect themselves wherever they go. Even in a bar?? Yes. Because we trust that anyone who carries in bar will be responsible and not get drunk. Because they are responsible adults.

  6. What loophole? The investigations were active on Omar should not have be discontinued once it was suspected he was a terrorist sympathizer.

    Where are people and leadership being held accountable for that screwup? You know, the ACTUAL problem. Every time there is a govt screwup they open up gun control and blame gun owners to distract the public.

    Fix and reassess the due process and criteria of suspected terrorist surveillance / ongoing investigation parameters and leave guns out of it.

  7. Political Correctness has already eroded our first amendment rights, our 2nd Amendment rights are continuously under assault, and just last week Democrat Senator Joe Manchin lamented on the obstacles that are presented by due process. So how far do they want to go with tearing down the constitution… no freedom of speech, or religion, no right to bare arms, no due process….then what reinstituted slavery, bring back prohibition, repeal women’s right to vote…… take away all our constitutional rights and we look an awful lot like a Muslim country……I know the pressure is going to be brought to bear to give up something, but there should be NO compromise on the now or ever on our 2nd amendment rights….once gone it makes all the others easier to take away.

  8. Virginia- Open carry and drinking legal since forever. Very, very few problems. You may not be intoxicated.
    Concealed, you can be there, but can’t drink. Added in the last few years. Again, very, very few problems. Actually I have not seen any hit any news source that I follow. Virtually all shootings around here in a club turn out to be repeat offenders (i.e. prohibited persons).

    • One hypocrisy of VA’s CC law is that if you are a LEO, whether on duty or not, in your jurisdiction or not, you are exempted from the carry and drinking on premises rule. I can see special exceptions for undercover officers, but not a blanket “loophole.” Why are servants of the state more able to cope with guns and booze than the rest of us? History shows they are not.

      Alcohol and guns generally don’t mix, but like so many common sense things, it should not be legislated. It should be personal responsibility. 2A says nothing about alcohol and I have no doubt the Minutemen enjoyed a tankard of ale at the local public house before going out fully armed. I think the VA statute should at least coincide with the blood alcohol standards for driving. A person should be able to have one glass of wine at dinner and still carry.

      Also, the NRA is selling out on the Orlando situation. If only a few patrons had guns, less people would have been killed.

  9. Stick to non-alcoholic drinks and carry anyway. No one will know unless you have to shoot.

    A guy in TX stopped a bar shooting about a year or so ago, and the MSM said nothing. He fled the scene so he wouldn’t get identified and arrested for bar carry.

  10. In California you can conceal in a bar that serves food but not in an alcohol only establishment. Nor can you drink or have consumed anymore. My last permit stated ‘while consuming’ meaning in hand. The new one say’s ‘Invalid if Licensee has been consuming alcohol or drugs’ If you want to have a drink you have to lock it up in a box or the saddlebag of your bike. A motorcycle bag is considered a trunk, same as a lock box inside a vehicle like a jeep, truck, or Suburban with open cargo area. FYI.

  11. That’s not the NRA’s stance on guns in bars. They clarified what Wayne meant. Stop bashing the only Second Amendment organization that does anything to promote our firearm freedoms.

  12. That’s not NRA’s position. LaPierre misspoke. They clarified that in a tweet yesterday. Their position is that you shouldn’t be drinking and carrying which is what LaPierre was trying to say but did so inartfully.

    NRA has lobbied for people’s right to carry in restaurants and bars for years.

  13. NRA is just controlled opposition. Eventually the NRA will sign away the farm, they are just going to do it one tractor at a time over 40 years.

  14. In Indiana, you can drink all you want and carry. If you harm someone, then you go to jail. How it should be everywhere.

  15. I could go with the 72-hour period if, after getting cleared to buy, the people who put you on the watch list had to pony up $20 of the cost to give you a discount for having had to wait.

    The weak spot in La Pierre’s position is that while the proposal would provide due process for people on the watch list, there’s no due process granted for them being put there in the first place. I know two people who have been screwed by the watch list, one because her name looked similar to one on the list and the other because someone with his name was on the list — except that the name of the actual “person of interest” had been misspelled when it was added to the list.

    So maybe we should all agree to La Pierre’s idea of a waiting period if it came with both the discount and a guarantee of due process to get a name on the list — due process including, of course, a chance to show up and defend yourself at the government’s expense.

  16. As for guns in bars, a secure check-in (lockers, keys) would be nice for those who decide their friends have had a few too many to be carrying.

    And I can see an extra penalty for a crime committed using a firearm if the perpetrator is drunk; being drunk and shooting isn’t really consistent with a well-regulated militia unless you’re in a safe place for doing so.

    Something that has been amazing me online is how many gays are screaming that people in a nightclub can’t be trusted with guns; seems insulting to gays, to me. So thanks to those who’ve posted the truth about guns in bars — I’ll pass that info on.

Leave a Reply

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