Previous Post
Next Post


“The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, joined by community leaders, launched a national initiative utilizing protests, petitions, a code of conduct and lawsuits to ‘Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers’ that turn a blind eye to gun traffickers, straw purchasers and criminals, and flood our nation’s streets with guns used in crimes,” reports. “An astonishing 60 percent of crime guns come from just one percent of gun dealers.” Whoa, that’s a lot of fail in a little space. But there is some win, too. The campaign (which began Saturday at Chuck’s Guns in Chicago) is a tacit admission by anti-gunners that there are “good” gun dealers. OK, back to the usual gun control-flavored epic mischaracterization and misrepresentation . . .

Start with this: the so-called “bad apple” gun dealers are doing nothing wrong. They’re selling a legal product legally to customers who are legally allowed to purchase firearms. If these guns then end-up in the hands of criminals or crazies, it is not the gun store owners’ responsibility. In the exact same way that a car dealer is not responsible for people who purchase cars and then commit vehicular homicide.

If, however, some of these gun dealers are selling guns illegally, then arrest them! If they’re not, well, how do the Brits put it? Piss off. The fact that more police recovered “crime guns” can be traced to gun stores in low-income urban areas than gun dealers in posh neighborhoods tells us what? Nothing.

Especially when you consider the fact that the vast majority of guns used in crimes were sold privately (illegally) or stolen from their original owner(s) (also illegal). According to the Department of Justice Survey cited above, just 8.3 percent of “crime guns” were purchased from a gun store by the [really, really stupid] criminal who used it. .7 percent bought them from gun shows, BTW.

Of course there’s no anti-gun fun in that analysis, is there? Better to smear individual gun dealers and, by extension, the “gun lobby.” To paraphrase Montell Jordan, this is how they do it . . .

“These ‘bad apple’ gun dealers choose profits over people and are largely responsible for America’s gun violence problem,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “We are working to mobilize communities directly impacted every day by the guns these bad apple dealers put on their streets to demand change. We are all fed up with the violence in our communities and this is something that we can all do to make a real difference – to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to keep our children safe.”

Did you notice there’s no “there” there? Sure there’s an implication that the gun dealers are arming criminals on purpose,. But there’s no accusation of illegal activity – aside from the “blind eye” bidness headlining their kvetch. And yet the Bad Apple bitching marks the [supposed] launch of a lawsuit against a gun dealer in Philadelphia for  . . . something. And the Brady’s new Code of Conduct for gun dealers.

The “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers” Campaign also features a Code of Conduct that Brady activists will demand that gun dealers across the nation follow. The Code of Conduct defines some policies and practices gun dealers should adopt to prevent the diversion of guns into the illegal market. Each element of the proposed Code has either been suggested by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), imposed as a legal requirement in certain states, accepted by dealers as part of litigation settlements, or urged as a standard by major gun industry trade associations.

Click here to read the code, which mostly includes stipulations that already exist (e.g., not selling to prohibited persons) with a few unconstitutional gun control measures snuck in (e.g., “limit purchases of handguns to one per 30 days per civilian, non-law enforcement customer” and “immediately notify local and federal authorities of any multiple handgun purchases that occur within any ninety day period”).

Not to mention a stricture to videotape all firearms purchases and buy liability insurance for “victims of gun violence.” The latter demand is unnecessary under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which shields gun dealers from lawsuits (like the one Brady’s about to launch) trying to hold them responsible for criminal acts committed with their products.

The Brady Campaign is fighting for relevance, now that billionaire ballistic bully Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and its wholly owned subsidiary Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in American have stolen the mainstream media’s liberal limelight. The Brady Bunch’s “Bad Apple” campaign is ill-advised and ill-timed (what with the imminent release of the latest Apple iPhone). Here’s hoping it gets all the success it deserves. None.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I was under the impression that the “Bad Apple Gun Dealers” tend to be ATFE front stores, so if that is the case, yeah, I can get behind that slogan!

    • Yeah, get to the bottom of those Bad Apple dealers, except the Fast & Furious ones, keep that on the back burner for awhile, not enough people have been wiped out yet by the (last few-thousand legally transferable) full-auto firearms that got exported that, if found to have been returned, could be confiscated/destroyed by the ATF.

  2. So somehow the “Morons trying to stop law-abiding citizens from owning guns” knows who is selling guns illegally, but the BATFE does not?

    • Oh the BATFE knows, its just that it tends to be them…OR, they just fail to follow up (see their miserable prosecution rates).

  3. Well let me say that first of all, I don’t like the Brady campaign.

    However, all I’ll say is that, while it’s not the Brady Campaign’s job to harass anyone, any gun store that knowingly (notice I said knowingly) breaks the law deserves the heat they get. Sorry, but we can’t expect to look good in the press if we aren’t obeying the laws of the land, whether we agree with them or not.

    I don’t know where they got their statistics from, but I cry foul simply because someone could be out there forging paperwork in the store’s name and they may not find out about it, so those stats are incomplete. But either way, again, the way to stay out of the public eye in terms of wrongdoing is to simply not do wrong.

    I hope that percentage is overinflated.

    • ” just 8.3 percent of “crime guns” were purchased from a gun store”

      Bear in mind that that percentage includes legally sold firearms that were later used in crimes.

    • The statistics probably aren’t overinflated, but that doesn’t mean they give an accurate impression of what’s really going on, or that the dealers are doing anything wrong. In fact, I think it’s pretty darned certain they aren’t doing anything wrong, because the BATFE can go over their records and inventory every year with a fine toothed comb, yet they never bring charges.

      What’s actually happening is that first, there’s a natural variation in the volume or size of various licensed dealers. For instance, in my area you can buy a gallon of milk from any number of gas stations, convenience stores, or small mom-and-pop mini-marts. There must be hundreds of them. But you can bet the vast majority of milk gets sold by the Kroger, the Wal-Mart, and the Meijer.

      Second, there’s the natural variation in these dealers’ proximity to high-crime areas. Being near a high-crime area increases the probability that straw purchasers or criminals who’ve never had a felony conviction choose your store, because it’s convenient to them. It also means there’s a larger legitimate market for law-abiding citizens seeking to defend themselves. That, in turn, means that more of the guns that are stolen in that neighborhood from law-abiding gun owners will come from nearby stores.

      Third, there’s the decidedly artificial effect of urban liberal governments actively pushing gun retailers away and trying to put them out of business. By diminishing the number of gun dealers within a convenient distance of hgh-crime areas, local governments create this concentration of crime guns coming from a few dealers.

    • I wonder what percentage of “crime cars”–cars used in the commission of a crime like DUI, reckless driving, vehicular homicide, etc.–were bought from car dealers. Nearly all, I’d guess. Obviously, we need to shame these bad apple car dealers who sell cars to people who later drink and drive or whose car gets stolen and subsequently is used in a crime.

  4. Ironically enough Chuck’s Gun Shop in RIVERDALE,illinois( NO gun shops in Chicago yet RF) has a one gun per month restriction by city ordinance. I know because I bought my first gun there. And they were extremely strict about the 3 day wait and even looking at a gun without a FOID card. My wife got her card there and it was $20(cheap). They are good people. And yeah most of the customers are black. The only “bad apples” I see are the brady bunch and fadda’ Pfleger…but we knew that.

  5. Um, that’s a pretty lame code of conduct. Just one example:

    Prohibit dealer personnel from directing a customer as to how to answer questions or forms required to be completed in connection with the sale.

    Seriously? You mean like informing purchasers not to use the United States Postal Service two-letter abbreviation for their state on the 4473, because if they don’t spell it out completely, it will be denied? Or following a state-mandated checklist to ensure that the forms are complete and properly filled out, and that all documentation is present? Can they not see the hypocrisy of requiring an extensive form that must be completed in a precise way, and then telling the buyer, “Sorry, you’ll have to figure it out for yourself”?

    Also, exactly whom does Dan Gross think he’s kidding with that remark about “something we can all do to make a real difference to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep our children safe”? What kind of pressure, short of intimidation or just being an annoyance, can these people ever put on a firearms dealer? Hello, Acme Arms? I will never, ever buy any of your products. Now, I insist that you make changes to your business as I demand or I will never, ever buy any of your products.

    I’ve always been open to the idea that at least some of the antis actually believe in what they’re doing, and that they’re sincere (if emotionally motivated and badly misinformed) in their efforts. But with this truly pathetic effort, the Brady Campaign’s current leadership has revealed an incredible naiveté and really poor judgment.

    If they believe that this tactic will work, well, I’m starting to understand why they think more restrictions on guns will somehow make an ant-fart’s worth of difference to your average gangbanger.

    • even more racism from Brady Bunch – what if someone cannot read so well or have less than a college education? Don’t help them understand the words on that fancy govt form?? Why – that’s a POLL TAX!! RACIST BASTARDS!!!

  6. This is blatantly false:

    “A gun dealer is the principal agent of federal enforcement in restricting criminals’ access to firearms. ”

    A gun dealer is NOT an agent of the federal government. Period.

  7. Sorry, I couldn’t take it. When I got to the point where the gun dealers were exhorted to prevent thefts from themselves, it became obvious it was constructed by a imbecile. I had to retire.

  8. Does this mean somebody will finally be getting to the bottom of the fast and furious gun running, illegal transfer of guns by this administration to the Mexicans. And the subsequent murder of a US citizen because of these illegal gun runners in this administration. That the commie muslim, eric holder, et al will finally be tried convicted and hung for murder. That will be the first descent thing the Brady farce campaign has done.

  9. There are over 50,000 retail gun shops in the USA. Many of these could be very low volume dealers. I wonder what percentage of all the guns sold in the country are sold by the 500 largest dealers?

    • Yeah, you gotta figure that somewhere like Bud’s will be the source of a pretty high number of “crime guns”, not by doing anything wrong but because they sell so many and have customers all over the country, some percentage of whom will get robbed at some point.

    • ^This. Without the statistic of the percentage of guns sold by that 1% “Bad Apples”, the 60% number is not particularly helpful. I imagine those 50,000 are mostly FFL and C&R holders who do very little business outside their friends and family. When the Brady Campaign flaunts the “there are more gun dealers than McDonalds” they always fail to mention that the vast majority of those are not in it as a business, but as a hobby.

  10. Gun dealers that have a larger percentage of so-called ‘crime-guns’ traced to them tend to be the larger dealers that sell more guns. Common sense says that a gun dealer that sells 90% or more of the guns in an area is going to have sold the majority of the guns that are stolen in the area and then used in crime.

    Once again the antis focus on the wrong thing, instead of trying to put the burglars behind bars, they try to penalize the stores that sell the merchandise that gets stolen when the criminals commit burglary.

  11. These must truly be dark days in gun-grabber-land. Look what these folks are doing–thrashing madly about for some kind of “hook” that will get them a little bit of notice, a faint whisper of relevance, some small perception of “traction”. Has-been Bradys are reduced to calling for gun dealers to act legally, playing like there is a major percentage that don’t. The space cadets at “Responsible Solutions” are trying to hook up to the “War on Women” train that has already left the station. And Big Boy Bloomie and his photogenic phony Shannon are left with crowing about some candy-arse yuppie eatery “proactively” asking their overwhelmingly non-OCing patrons not to start OCing. And they are still mindlessly reciting their now-discredited statistics to try to turn the trick for them. Just for the moment I’m feeling optimistic.

  12. Eliminate the “worst dealer”, and the next worst dealer now becomes the “worst”.

    Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

    Continue until the last gun dealer is driven out of business.

  13. What dealer is going to risk jail and loss of license to sell a gun to someone prohibited? This is nothing more than a last gasp of a irreverent group of gun banners. Quick do something to make headlines. Nobody is listening to these people anymore.

    We transfer 400-500% more guns than we sell. We figured out early on that there is more profit in doing transfers than outlay in capital to keep a large inventory. Our capital goes into the stuff we build which is high $$$ and has a much larger margin overall. We could tie up $300 to clear $20 to compete with say Buds or we could tie up $300 to build a gun that sells for $700 after its built.

    High volume dealers will sell more in a day than we sell all year. They will of course have the most guns show up at crime scenes. This doesn’t mean they did anything wrong.

  14. A lot of gun shops in both North East and South East Indiana are owned or have LEOs as employees. Before NICS, a lot of LEOs would fudge the 4473 forms with false paperwork names and addresses because they did not believe in Federal gun registration. A lot of gun store LEOs think gun control is crap.

  15. Funny thing – I never heard of Chucks Gun Shop before last Friday. The free publicity they’re getting from the Brady Bunch and Alter Boy Pfleger must be generating more sales than a billboard on I-90.

    That Dan Gross is one special snowflake.

    • Hey Curtis Chuck’s has been around forever. Jesse Jackson also protested there a few years ago. I hope their business gets better too. Every time I’ve been there they are very busy. They don’t deserve any of this s##t.

      • I don’t feel sorry for Chuck. He’s probably laughing all the way to the bank with all this free advertising. And as long as he follows the law (and apparently he does), more power to him!

  16. So if many guns used in crimes were stolen, doesn’t that mean that people restricting where gun owners can take and keep their guns on their person are responsible for those weapons making it to criminals? If I had to leave my gun in the car to run into the library due to posted signs and it gets stolen from my car, whose fault is that?

  17. This “Code of Conduct” is a bunch of anti-gun bovine excrement:

    It is the duty of gun dealers to deny sales where there is a sufficient likelihood or suspicion that it is a straw purchase…

    Purchasers complete a Form 4473, by which they attest, under penalty of perjury, that the purchase is not a straw purchase. FFLs are not law enforcement. If the purchaser lies on the Form 4473, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to deal with that crime.

    Screen for and refuse to sell to straw purchasers, including by observing and asking
    questions of prospective purchasers to determine if they are buying for someone else

    Refer to the Form 4473. Anything beyond that is an invasion of the privacy of the purchaser.

    Maintain records of all trace requests received from ATF and all purchasers that bought a
    gun later traced to crime to identify such potential purchasers if they attempt to purchase
    another firearm

    This is the role of FBI/BATFE/NICS. The FFL is merely the facilitator of a firearm purchase transaction.

    Screen for and refuse to sell guns or ammunition to purchasers that exhibit signs of alcohol
    intoxication, drug use or possession, or mental instability

    What qualifies an FFL to make many of these determinations? By the way: what is a “sign of drug possession”?

    Prohibit dealer personnel from directing a customer as to how to answer questions or forms
    required to be completed in connection with the sale

    Prohibit tax professionals from directing customers how to complete their tax forms? Prohibit poll workers from explaining how to complete a ballot or how to work a voting machine? What is the logic here?

    The hypocrisy here is: such a requirement would be far more discriminatory against low-income, low-education people than Voter ID laws, but I would hazard a guess that most Brady types are against the latter, because they are allegedly discriminatory.

    Limit purchases of handguns to one per 30 days per civilian, non-law enforcement

    …which will accomplish absolutely nothing, while blatantly infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. And why should law-enforcement civilians be exempt? Ever bothered to read the Equal Protection clause?

    As a result of the landmark Brady Law…


    Refuse to transfer a firearm until a background check has been completed and the
    purchaser is cleared to purchase the firearm

    A transfer of a firearm from one FFL to another is… a transfer between FFLs. No purchase has been completed.

    Here’s a counter-proposal: get rid of the absurd and unconstitutional restriction of out-of-state firearm purchases, so that the originating FFL can conduct the NICS check and complete the purchase.

    Search state court and criminal government databases that may provide information on
    whether the potential purchaser is prohibited.

    This is the job of FBI/BATFE/NICS. The FFL is merely the facilitator. You got your federally centralized clearinghouse; let them do their job, rather than putting an onerous burden on FFLs.

    Refuse to sell a firearm to a potential purchaser if the dealer has information that the
    purchaser may be a danger to themselves or others.

    Well, first you failed to read the Equal Protection clause; now you’ve obviously missed the Due Process clause. There are ways to have such persons appropriately adjudicated, which would make them ineligible for firearm purchase, as screened by Form 4473, and if States would bother to submit such adjudications to NICS, such persons would be appropriately flagged. No need to involve FFLs in the screening process.

    Refuse to sell firearms at gun shows unless all firearm sales at such shows are conducted
    only upon completion of a background check

    The 1980s called. They want their gun shows back.

    Seriously; I’ve never been to a gun show that didn’t require all sellers to conduct background checks. If you sign up to sell at the gun show, you’re required to sell via FFL.

    Perform background checks for private sellers for a reasonable fee.

    This already exists, if a private seller wishes to avail himself of an FFL transfer service.

    Gun dealers should therefore do all they reasonably can to develop a safety
    plan to protect the dealership and deter theft…

    Are there any gun shops that don’t take measures to prevent theft? Businesses that don’t protect their goods don’t tend to stay in business very long – not that I expect Brady types to know anything about free-market business sense.

    Electronically record the make, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of all firearms
    that are acquired no later than one business day after their acquisition and electronically
    record their purchaser no later than one business day after their disposition.

    This has nothing to do with theft prevention, and everything to do with establishing a de facto gun registration.

    To be an effective gatekeeper, gun dealers should employ responsible, diligent, law-abiding people, and
    develop and provide resources to equip its employees with the tools to keep guns out of the wrong hands.
    Gun dealers should therefore do all they reasonably can to employ responsible people that are trained to
    adhere to comprehensive and current compliance policies and procedures…

    More nonsense meddling, that will accomplish nothing, while placing additional burdens on FFLs.

    Immediately notify local and federal authorities of any suspected straw purchasers,
    prohibited purchasers or dangerous individuals who attempt to obtain guns

    I thought the LANDMARK BRADY BILL, which passes all would-be firearm purchases through the centralized federal clearinghouse, would make this unnecessary? Oh, what’s that? The feds don’t lift a finger to prosecute attempted purchasers who lie on their Form 4473, and are denied approval due to a Form 4473-related issue (felons, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally incompetent, etc.)?

    Immediately notify local and federal authorities of any multiple handgun purchases that
    occur within any ninety day period.

    Such information, absent specific, reasonable, articulable suspicion of unlawful activity, is none of law enforcement’s business.

    Videotape (including audio) and/or electronically record (including audio) the point-of-sale of
    all firearms transactions and maintain the videos or electronic recordings for at least 5 years.

    More pointless, needless, onerous record-keeping burden placed on FFLs, while invading the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

    Maintain insurance for victims who are entitled to compensation.

    Are there any real lawyers among the Brady Bunch? Maybe even a first-year legal intern, who could inform them about the blatant illegality of this suggestion?

    Victims of gun violence whose injury or loss was caused by the irresponsible
    practices of a gun dealer deserve to be compensated for their injuries. A responsible gun dealer should
    not keep profits that resulted from its failure to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

    FFLs only sell firearms to purchasers who complete a Form 4473, and for whom NICS provides approval for the purchase. Thus, if any entity is liable for victim compensation, it would be the centralized, federal clearinghouse established by the Landmark Brady Bill, that allowed the purchase to take place.

    Gun dealers should
    therefore secure liability insurance that will insure the dealer against liability for damage to property and for
    injury to, or death of, any person as a result of the sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition

    Usually, firearms are unloaded during sale, lease, and transfer. I would imagine that negligent discharges during sale, lease, and transfer are quite rare indeed. I suppose an encased firearm could fall on the toe of a purchaser, lessee, or transferee; but I don’t think such injury would rise to the level of a tort claim.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here