Previous Post
Next Post


“They can tell when something isn’t right. There’s a lot of fearmongering really in regards to what happens at gun shows. I wish people would go and try to purchase a firearm at a gun show just to see what happens. It’s much more complicated than what people think. It’s just a huge waste of time and it seems our taxpaying dollars could be better spent going out and finding real criminals who are out there killing and murdering, rather than scanning license plates at a gun show.” – Second Amendment Alliance President Greg Pruett in Local Gun Enthusiasts React to FBI Surveillance at Gun Shows [via]


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Do something real about crime and mental illness? When was the last time a pol did anything but make a situation worse?

      • No. There’s a large enough supply of things the government could actually address and make better that if Congress tackled one a month, they’d have a generation of work ahead to just deal with the current mess.

    • The ‘gun show loophole’ has been elevated to the status of exhaled urban legend by politicians and caviar eating leftists who’ve never gotten within a mile of a gun show. No matter, they keep throwing their crap against the wall because they know that only a small bit of it needs to stick to create a big stink. As an aside, anyone who needs or wants a firearm would be wise to visit a gun show before the start of the year…for obvious and ugly reasons.

      • What, logical, goal-directed policing from our heavily politicized Justice Dept? Of course they still do quite a bit of that, but they have other agendas, too.

  2. Pray tell: how many “prohibited persons” (i.e. convicted felons, etc.) can be detected by scanning license plates at a gun show parking lot? And given that as much as 40% of exhibitor space is devoted to non-firearm items, what would it prove, anyway?

    Also, given that SCOTUS has deemed it a violation of the fifth amendment-protected right not to be forced to incriminate oneself for LEO to ask or search a “prohibited person” for possession of a firearm, even if license plate scanning detected a “prohibited person”, LEO would be prohibited from investigating or searching that person upon exit from the gun show.

    • Occasionally the GrandAm/GrandPrix/Firebird/Camaro driven by a convicted felon has plates that aren’t from his sister’s cousin’s best friend’s car. In any state that I’m aware of, run the plate, the person and their history pop up on the in-car.

      As per the SCOTUS ruling, are you seriously positing that cops actually follow the law? Or even know it? Cops do whatever is expedient at the time, courts have allowed grossly illegal violations by cops in the name of the ‘state’s compelling interest’ time and again. As long as the person on the other end has no pull, the worst that happens is a mark in the jacket.

      • My understanding is that they are not “running” plates, they are just recording plates…which is waaay more ominous.

        • Breitbart had a story on this recently. Their claim was that the list was being compiled and given to Border Patrol to cross reference at border checkpoints in an attempt to stop gun running to Mexico.

          I doubt that list gets destroyed though, I’m sure the record is permanent either by design or through negligence.

        • Most of the current ALPRS automatically run the plate against NCIC and other databases by location. They automatically send alerts to cops, even if the system is unmanned.

          Double-edged sword, several depts have so many people with anything for a bench for a traffic tickets, to wants for questioning, they can’t even deal with a fraction of them and answer the normal call flow.

    • Yeah, but they will just ignore that. They don’t care about the scotus. They know enough liberals exist in the scotus to not take the case. And – they already get around it currently with alcohol checkpoints.

      They don’t really care about murderers and killers. That is high hanging fruit. They want the easy low hanging fruit, like a prohibited person at the show.

      • This is very true. One of the most scary dangerous ideas ever implemented is “Performance Based Policing” (or whatever your local phraseology is).

        Your next raise/promotion/bonus is based on how many busts you make, and what flavor they are. Conviction rates don’t factor, so all that matters is the easy felony arrest. It’s as perverse and wrong as civil asset forfeitures, but, much akin, it sounded like a good idea at the time if you weren’t very bright and didn’t understand human nature.

      • If that’s true (they really want to bust illegal purchasers), why don’t they prosecute the disqualified people who try to purchase firearms? Granted, it’s not a high percentage of the background checks run, but there are still plenty of them in terms of absolute numbers to keep the ATF busy.

        • Yeah, we keep hearing the system stops several hundred million illegal purchases each week, or whatever, they have plenty of people to prosecute, if that is true. Why prowl around looking up license plates, instead of simply arresting a few thousand a week, instead of 20-50 each *YEAR*?

        • You want to throw out the Fifth Amendment? It’s the reason they CAN’T prosecute. The government can’t be allowed to prosecute any time they require you to answer a question.

          This is why we have a right to remain silent. The moment our speaking to them is not voluntary but coerced, the material they gain cannot be used against us.

    • I think you overstate the Supreme Court holding. A person may not be required to testify against himself, but that is hardly a reason to prohibit a search based upon probable cause.

  3. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have a lot of incentives to maintain a fairly high level of crime:

    Progressives want to keep criminals on the streets because criminals vote for Progressives.
    Conservatives want to keep criminals on the streets so they can justify big police budgets.
    Both sides want criminals on the streets because that is a problem that they can claim only they can solve.
    And both sides want criminals on the streets so that we can justify billions of dollars for all of the jobs associated with “controlling crime” … jobs like prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, bailiffs, court recorders, clerks, guards, etc.

    Oh, and lots of crime justifies paying money to government agents to scan license plates in parking lots.

    Guess who all those government employees are going to vote for — or against — if any politician dares speak of eliminating government jobs?

    • The conservative position has changed over the years. In Reagan’s America being ‘tough on crime’ meant hiring more cops, giving them more military equipment and sending them out to kick some doors in. Now the conservative view of being ‘tough on crime’ is to carry a gun and to shoot the bastard when someone tries to rob you.

      That said, a lot of so called conservative politicians are behind on the times. One of my senators has been in the Senate since Jimmy Carter was president and he’s about to be reelected to yet another term. Hard to keep your finger on your constituants’ pulse from DC.

      • “Now the conservative view of being ‘tough on crime’ is to carry a gun and to shoot the bastard when someone tries to rob you.”

        Why not, we pump our own gas (except in OR), pay for parking at the meter, scan our own groceries and hardware. Seems citizens can defend themselves against criminals and lower the cost of policing.

        • I hated it in Oregon when they tried to gas up my old mustang. They would dump gas all the way down the back of the car and on the chrome bumper discoloring it. I eventually made them hand it to me while they stood there. My Charger with the flip top gas cap over the rear quarter is a non starter. If I ever go back to Oregon, they will not touch that car to fuel it. I’ll keep hopping gas stations until they relent.

      • Whenever I see a post like this I remember all the flack George Zimmerman took for doing just that from the same people who now advocate “let John Q Public do it. I get it you aren’t a dork cop wannabe like Zimmerman and you would never shoot someone holding a cellphone like those over militarized cops.

    • Every time one of these voter I.D. cases goes to court, there’s always a lack of evidence that felons are voting. Hence, the Dems push to restore felon voting rights. So how are liberals gaining electorally from felons on the streets right now? I know, you said criminals in general. Still.

      What do conservatives have to do with big police budgets when Democrats already control government in virtually every major city?

      • “So how are liberals gaining electorally from felons on the streets right now? I know, you said criminals in general.”

        The most prominent example is Chicago where the councilmen/women (or whatever their title is) of the various wards literally have agreements with the local criminal gangs. The city councilmen/women agree to reduce policing and agree to pressure police to not charge (or at least charge lower crimes) in exchange for the local gang leadership’s promise to insist that the people in their ward vote for the incumbent councilman/woman.

        In the general sense, when felons vote, to which party do you think they are going to cast their votes? The “law and order” party or the “feelings” party that eschews personal responsibility — including personal accountability — and hands out much lighter prison sentences and lots of government freebies?

        “What do conservatives have to do with big police budgets when Democrats already control government in virtually every major city?”

        If Republicans controlled a large city, they would be asking for huge police budgets. And where Republicans control police at the state level, you never seem to hear the Republicans touting how they are going to reduce staffing of state police. And the major reason: those government employees will immediately vote against any Conservative who promises to eliminate that government employee’s job. Keep in mind that there are upwards of 100,000 government employees in any given state, not including teachers. That is a huge voting bloc that Conservatives are going to be extremely reluctant to alienate.

  4. “it seems our taxpaying dollars could be better spent going out and finding real criminals” like the people claiming to “work for” us in Washington, and half the people running for President.

    Funny (kinda) if we hired criminals to find and eradicate the criminals I dare say they woulda got the job done already, and in such a manner as to disincentivize anyone else thinking of becoming a criminal.

    • That was exactly Caesar Augustus’ approach to the gang problem in the early Roman Empire: he sent experienced centurions into the cities to find the most disciplined gangs, then “hired” them to wipe out their rivals. They became legit, and the cities became safe (-ish).

      He repeated the process to eliminate Mediterranean pirates.

  5. Public and private cameras are everywhere now. You have no expectation of privacy once you leave your home. That is the hard truth.
    Become a better dresser. You will photograph better. Always try to look good for the camera watching you!!

  6. Taking down license plate numbers at gun shows is all about intimidating good Americans into retreating from their rights, while giving oh so brave, heroic, “our lives are on the line every day!”, feds some busy work to do.

    God forbid they go investigate some terrorist whom the Russians warned us about, or whose own father warned us about, or whose social media activity reeks of terrorist sympathies, or who was already investigated (sloppily) by the FBI before….. I can go on, but I’ve made my point.

    • Of course they’ll investigate. The Clinton campaign needs to know where to send its platform party invitation, after all.

  7. Why do some people continue to insist that the gun control agenda is about reducing crime? If we’re not honest with ourselves, we have no chance.

  8. Well I don’t go to gun shows anyway. Everyone I’ve seen has higher prices than the local shops-and now we have the interwebz. AND in Illinois we have universal background BS. And nothing changed…I’m not at all shocked/surprised by fibbie. You’d think there’s a conspiracy;(

  9. “our taxpaying dollars could be better spent going out and finding real criminals”

    That’s easy. Pick up a copy of your local newspaper where the criminals are listed by electoral district and party affiliation.

  10. “I wish people would go and try to purchase a firearm at a gun show just to see what happens.”

    Mark Kelly to the white courtesy phone, please.

Comments are closed.