◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

This is a real shame . . . Nevada’s voter-OK’ed gun background checks blocked – “The expansion of gun background checks approved by Nevada voters last month will not happen as expected, based on an opinion released Wednesday by the Nevada Attorney General’s Office. Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers – with a few exceptions – be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System administered by the FBI. The FBI sent a letter Dec. 14 to the state of Nevada’s Department of Public Safety saying it would not conduct these checks. The department asked for a legal opinion on the letter’s ramifications.” This, after Mayor Mike poured all those millions into the ballot proposition. Bummer.

Oopsie! . . . Colorado gun law backfires; Wyoming loads up with Magpul deal – “Magpul Industries announced a mega-deal to supply ammunition magazines to the Marines last week, a boon for Cheyenne and a loss for Colorado. Magpul, one of the country’s largest producers of ammunition magazines and other accessories, left Colorado in protest of the state’s 2013 gun laws that limited the size of magazines to 15 rounds.” Former Colorado Senate President John Morse could not be reached for comment.

Why punishing Democrats for their gun-control sit-in is dicey territory for Paul Ryan – “No surprise, then, that Ryan has decided to go a more roundabout way that doesn’t directly lay the blame on any lawmaker. We learned Tuesday that one of the first things on his to-do list in January is to pass a rule authorizing the House’s top cop to levy a fine, up to $2,500, on any lawmaker who shoots video or takes photos on the House floor. This rule would apply to future breaches of action and enforce already existing rules about having phones on the House floor (you’re not supposed to).”

Obviously NRA’s fault – “Bloomberg seed money-funded The Trace said it, I believe it that settles it, right? I wonder why they don’t provide for comments…? Curious– their top referral sites are pro-gun.” Does anyone besides pro-gunners read The Trace?

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms – “Five states and several cities outlaw possession of stun guns, even for self-defense. But such bans could fall by the wayside in the coming year as Second Amendment advocates ramp up court challenges against jurisdictions that deem the weapons illegal. The D.C. Council last week approved legislation to roll back a city ban on possessing stun guns, as well as a requirement for residents to register pepper spray with police, after the ban was challenged in court. Officials in New Jersey and New Orleans are working to settle similar lawsuits brought this year claiming bans on stun gun ownership violate residents’ constitutional right to bear arms.”

Every successful football team begins with a good offensive line . . . Carson Wentz buys Eagles’ offensive line customized shotguns – “Take care of the offensive line, and the offensive line will take care of you. That’s the time-tested quarterback mantra. And now, the Eagles’ offensive line can take care of themselves thanks to the gift given by Carson Wentz. The rookie quarterback endeared himself to the men up front by buying each of them a Beretta shotgun for Christmas. Each is personalized with the player’s number engraved on the butt of the gun. ‘This is an awesome gun. I’m excited about it,’ said Allen Barbre, a fellow hunter. Barbre believes the Beretta model is a Silver Pigeon, which retails around $2,000 a pop. ‘I don’t know if I’ll shoot it, though. It’s pretty nice.'”

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

54 COMMENTS

  1. Let’s hope, for Carson’s sake, none of the Eagles’ players have records (because with football stars that really doubtful)

  2. Ryan should remember that his party won’t be in power forever. Anything he can do to his opposition now, they can do to him after the inevitable reversal occurs. The Democrats are about to learn this to their sorrow.

    • So… you’re worried that in some future, Democratic-controlled Congress, the Republicans might throw a temper tantrum on the House floor, break a pile of rules in the process, and get fined?

      I’m not.

      We need to send a message that we expect everyone to abide by the rules, and their sophomoric behavior won’t be tolerated.

      • Honestly, I don’t believe a 2500 dollar fine is enough. The median income for congress is more than 1 million. Why don’t they pay their “fair share.”? I say violating the rules, especially regarding video or photography (can we say national security risk?) should be a fine of 15% of their income.

      • So you want the enemy to obey a set of rules when we have 100 plus year record of them not obeying them….Why?

        Stop cucking, lets unleash hell on the left, lets break them, end mass immigration, voter Protection laws, etc.

        • and, of course, the republicans never break the law or the rules. they are as pure as the driven snow. uh huh.

        • Horace – No party is immune from idiots and lawbreakers and rule-breakers, it just seems to be a hobby on the left and an embarrassment on the right.

          In most (most) cases when a miscreant is identified on the right his own party will vilify him and hound him into resignation. On the left they circle the wagons and try everything possible to protect and retain. Getting the left to even admit that the acts were wrong is a struggle, much less getting the person involved to admit the wrongdoing and voluntarily leave office. The name Weiner ring any bells? Left Congress in disgrace, then actually ran for mayor of New York!

          Politicians are loathe to leave any position they have managed to get elected to, but the really bad ones on the right side, once outed, usually understand that it’s time to pack up and go home. On the left they just seek a different office or appointment to some other government position.

        • “No party is immune from idiots and lawbreakers and rule-breakers, it just seems to be a hobby on the left and an embarrassment on the right.”

          There’s a reason for that. Most on the right believe in a Supreme Being, one to Whom they owe obedience. Right and wrong actually mean something.
          Most on the left, OTOH, are humanists, and don’t believe in an absolute right and wrong. To them, if they have a good reason for doing something, all is fine.

        • Bill, you have some serious problems with apples and oranges, mixing in some rumor and superstition just when you were making some sense.

  3. Colorado gun control backfires. Ya’ think!?! And in a cowboy state… anymore recalls in the cards? Kudos to the QB…

  4. “Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms – “Five states and several cities outlaw possession of stun guns, even for self-defense. But such bans could fall by the wayside in the coming year as Second Amendment advocates ramp up court challenges against jurisdictions that deem the weapons illegal. The D.C. Council last week approved legislation to roll back a city ban on possessing stun guns, as well as a requirement for residents to register pepper spray with police, after the ban was challenged in court. Officials in New Jersey and New Orleans are working to settle similar lawsuits brought this year claiming bans on stun gun ownership violate residents’ constitutional right to bear arms.”

    Michigan’s laws concerning stun guns are idiotic. They are allowed, but outside of LEO’s, the only people allowed to have them are CPL holders who have to undergo additional “training”, and – here’s the kicker – the ONLY ones allowed are actual “TASER” brand stun guns, which have to be purchased directly in a face-to-face transaction from an authorized dealer, because “TASER” brand stun guns eject micro-marked “confetti” when fired, I.D.-ing the individual TASER that was fired. First off, what stops CRIMINALS from buying normal, generic stun guns via internet sales (or from another state)? Second, TASER brand stun guns cost as much as many meduim grade handguns (or more, depending on the model), putting them out of reach of many people who would like to have a less lethal means of self defense (and that bolt of “lightning” crackling between the electrodes can be as intimidating as the racking of a pump shotgun, in some cases). For that matter, why should they be limited to people who have CPL’s? Not everyone wants to carry a handgun, or has the money to buy a decent handgun, and pepper spray can be blown right back at the user by a gust of wind. Why not just recognize that fact and allow any stun gun to be used by any non-felon for self defense? For that matter, why not ditch CPL’s and adopt constitutional carry nationwide, and acknowledge the fact that self defense is a natural right and that rendering law-abiding citizens helpless does not make the lawless people harmless. But hey, that might just make WAY too much sense for the leftists, who need a ready pool of victims of violent crimes so they have the bloody shirts to wave while they scream for further disarmament of ALL Americans except the police and military…

    • The real question is what criminal would use a taser to rob someone? They hardly work for the cops as it is. There was even a study done by tasers themselves which showed 10% of people can resist the shock without any dope in their system. Would you use a gun where every tenth round was a dud?

      • I would tend to agree with you, and I do advocate for concealed handgun carry, but there are situations where lethal force would not, to me, be the FIRST choice, such as when being confronted by an overly aggressive drunk who is otherwise unarmed, but who for whatever reason you are unable to avoid. Or that “entitled” idiot who wants to get into a fist-fight over a parking space at the mall that he (or she) was eyeballing but you happened to get to first, and now they want to fight you over it because they obviously “deserved” it. I would rather have a less lethal option to go to before pulling the pistol, in cases like that – and those sorts of situations aremuch more likely, where I live. There HAVE been armed robberies on occasion, mainly of businesses, as well as assaults (both provoked and unprovoked, armed and unarmed), but the “aggressive drunk” and “parking space altercation” scenarios are much more common.

        • You just aren’t getting it. There is such a thing as using ONLY the amount of force required, and NO MORE than that. Excessive use of force, by either cops or the average law-abiding Joe who refuses to lay down and be a victim, is what turns a case from a valid defensive situation to “Your honor, may it please the court, I intend to prove that this individual, Officer Friendly/Joe Citizen, did wantonly decide to ‘go Rambo’ on the victim, snuffing out his life and denying his children their father…”, or similar nonsense from a prosecuting attorney wanting to further his political career by making a successful case against you. Calling 9-1-1 as a “less lethal option”??? Give me a break. That is only for when you are not in imminent danger of being harmed/robbed (i.e., you have barricaded yourself in your room, have your weapon out, and it will be a bit before the bad guy can get to you, OR, you have been forced to act and the bad guy is either neutralized or has run away). Not every defensive situation calls for deadly force, but may call for more force than you are physically able to dish out. Thus, the need for a less lethal option to be used when lethal force is not necessarily called for.

      • I would tend to agree with you, and I do advocate for concealed handgun carry, but there are situations where lethal force would not, to me, be the FIRST choice, such as when being confronted by an overly aggressive drunk who is otherwise unarmed, but who for whatever reason you are unable to avoid. Or that “entitled” idiot who wants to get into a fist-fight over a parking space at the mall that he (or she) was eyeballing but you happened to get to first, and now they want to fight you over it because they obviously “deserved” it. I would rather have a less lethal option to go to before pulling the pistol, in cases like that – and those sorts of situations are much more likely, where I live. There HAVE been armed robberies on occasion, mainly of businesses, as well as assaults (both provoked and unprovoked, armed and unarmed), but the “aggressive drunk” and “parking space altercation” scenarios are much more common.

        • I would not want a less lethal option. If I did have one, and gods forbid ever needed to use lethal force, then the prosecution could have the same field day with me that they do with police.

          No, thank you.

          Limited choices can clarify thinking and subsequent action.

      • Besides, I’m not thinking about criminals using a sun gun to rob someone, more likely that they would (and in fact have at times) use them to render people they have singled out for kidnapping and/or sexual assault helpless. Or they might assume they would get a lesser penalty for committing a crime while using a stun gun as opposed to using a handgun. The fact remains, criminals will always have access to the weapons they want, and will get them by any means available, so why not level the field? As for the courts having a “field day” with you for using a less lethal device, YOU are not being held to the same standards as the cops. The media isn’t likely to trumpet “BRUTALITY” all over the headlines like they do with the cops, and any good lawyer would put forth the argument that you didn’t use the lethal means to defend yourself. If you were then subsequently FORCED to shoot the offender in self defense, that shows that your attacker intended to do you harm and would not be dissuaded.

  6. I was going to stay an Eagles fan (and Wentz fan) next season anyway, but I’m probably going to be a bit more enthusiastic about it now. And if any of them happen to read TTAG, I can recommend a few places to practice near-ish to Philly (about an hour or so).

  7. +1 to Carson Wentz

    But there is no good reason to be an Eagles fan. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

  8. You’re telling me nobody saw the loss of state revenue before they booted Magpul essentially? Magpul is a fine American company. The whole Air Drop campaign before they left was amazing. Discounted, fast shipping 10packs of mags to only Colorado residents.

    • Magpul earned my respect when they gave Colorado the middle finger. After that, I bought my first AR-15 and I adorned it with Magpul furniture and magazines out of principle (and their reputation for quality and value).

      As for the economic impact of their departure from CO, that’s beyond the comprehension of Democratic voters. They have a habit of $h!tting where they sleep.

  9. “This, after Mayor Mike poured all those millions into the ballot proposition. Bummer.”

    My heart bleeds. LOL!

    “Former Colorado Senate President John Morse could not be reached for comment.”

    ‘Course not. He’s busy trying to think of a way to spin this to fit the libtard narrative. Probably will blame the Russians, their latest excuse for every FAIL the left has/will make.

      • Of course not. Half of them were in Brezhnev’s pocket anyway. The only reason they have anything against Russia is because it’s the only country in the western world actually fighting the muzrat invasion of Europe.

  10. Ballot Question 1 requires that private party gun transfers – with a few exceptions – be subject to a federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

    Would I be correct in assuming it was this sort of wording that messed them up? Because of course the FBI doesn’t allow private parties to run background checks via NICS, such checks usually require using an FFL as an intermediary, so such requirements are really a ban on private transfers. The gun control lobby does its best to hide that fact in their language, it looks like this time they might have hid it too well.

    • I think they don’t know how any of this works and just assumed anyone could “run a background check”.
      And we all know what assume stands for.

    • I believe the original 1994 AWB bill was written so anyone could run a check and the FFL’s / NRA raised a stink. What everyone in the news stories are forgetting about is the additional cost of hiring more contractors at the FBI to deconflict the false positive hits. Figure the contract employee makes about $50,000 a year so the contractor is paid about $100,000 a year to fill that seat (rough guessimate of their salary, but the contractor is paid about double of the pay of the employee) . Betting the FBI saw this for what it was designed to do, to bog down their system, have more checks go into default 3 day approved so bloomypants brownshirts could say see it’s NOT working, we need more restrictions, longer wait times. But not everyone got the memo to vote for what’s her name.

    • I was wondering the same. Did the FBI balk because they only conduct background checks for federal firearm licensees and not John Q. Public? Or did the FBI balk on principle because federal background checks are exclusively for dealer activity and not private activity that only goes to a dealer because a law demanded it?

      • No, under Question 1 transferees are required to use an FFL for the transfer. However, FFLs in NV must use the ‘Central Repository’ (an in-state solution that uses both FBI, in-state DBs, and in-state mental health records) when conducting their background checks.

        This started because of the stipulation that FFLs HAD to use the FBI, however, they had no mechanism by which to do so under state law. Since the FBI refused (see their explanation) and the law stipulated that the FBI MUST be used, the question was raised if they could use the Central Repository.

        As the AG stated in his opinion, to do so the language of the Question would have needed to included a fiscal line item for the cost impact of doing so. As this was not included, AND the question was carried by less than a 1% margin, AND the law specifically stipulated that the FBI MUST be used, the AG correct said ‘no can do’.

      • The FBI is federal, and has no duty to do anything because a state tells it to.
        California has the CBI, but they don’t have access to federal databases.
        IOW, it ain’t happening the way the law says it will. For now.

    • I just finished reading the FBI’s rejection letter and I am not sure what to think.

      On the one hand, the letter tells Nevada that Nevada cannot dictate how the FBI applies its resources — so Nevada will have to conduct their own background checks to satisfy Nevada’s new state law. On the other hand, the letter tells Nevada to conduct background checks through their “point of contact” like they have always done … where Nevada’s “point of contact” is Nevada’s office that traditionally queries the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Check system.

      So, the letter says that the FBI will NOT conduct background checks for Nevada, except that the FBI will conduct background checks for Nevada (when Nevada’s “point of contact” requests the FBI background check). I suppose that is typical of a government entity.

      I need more information to make sense of this.

      • Nevada cannot use the Central Repository (aka as the PoC system) as:

        The law specifically stipulated that the FBI MUST be used.

        To use the Central Repository, by law, a fiscal line item would have been needed in the legislation. Such a line item was not included.

        The AG’s opinion includes wording regarding the slim margin of the question’s passage (less than 1% margin) and that such a line item may have had a material impact on the outcome of the voting.

      • Not really…
        The FBI has no mandate to do NICS checks for ammo purchases. Their entire NICS firearm buyer check system is based on firearm transfers, not ammo transfers, by federal rules.
        The FBI does not answer to any state.
        The legislators who passed this simply don’t know how a limited government works. (Please, don’t argue with me over the concept of a limited government. That’s what we have. It may not be as limited as we would like, but it is still limited.)

    • What I read said it was that Nevada is a Point of Contact state, and FBI does not allow FFLs in POC states to access NICS. They have to go through the state, and the law specifically says the dealers have to run the check through NICS.

      edit – Uncommon_sense beat me to it, and with more detail.

    • Okay, I just read the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s request for an opinion from the Nevada Attorney General. That request includes the relevant wording from the recent ballot initiative. For whatever reason, the ballot initiative requires that Nevada federal firearm licensees contact the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Check system directly and does not allow for Nevada federal firearm licensees to go through Nevada’s Point of Contact, as a Nevada federal firearm licensee presently does for all other background checks for all other dealer transfers.

      For whatever reason, the FBI said they will not process background check requests from Nevada FFLs … although the FBI will continue to process background check requests from Nevada’s Point of Contact office. As far as I can tell, the FBI’s language about a state affecting the FBI’s resources is utterly silly: either an FFL can query the FBI or Nevada’s Point of Contact can query the FBI. Both queries are identical and use no more or less resources.

      I suppose this is one instance where bureaucracy works to our advantage.

      • If requiring you to have a background check that you aren’t allowed to obtain before selling a gun privately, AKA a total ban on private transfers, is to your advantage.

        Perhaps an unconstitutional law is to our advantage if we can spend millions of dollars and 7-10 years on a court battle to overturn it?

        • The AG also quoted the NV Supreme Court on ‘impossible tasks’. Essentially that a citizen cannot be held to the law if doing so would require impossible tasks.

          Meaning, if they cannot get an FBI background check, then they cannot be held liable under the law.

      • Yes, and the ‘better’ of this is that the NV Legislature (now firmly Blue) cannot make changes to this law for a period of three years (NV law to keep the Legislature from fiddling with voter initiatives that they, the Legislature, do not like).

    • No, under Question 1 transferees are required to use an FFL for the transfer. However, FFLs in NV must use the ‘Central Repository’ (an in-state solution that uses both FBI, in-state DBs, and in-state mental health records) when conducting their background checks.

      This started because of the stipulation that FFLs HAD to use the FBI, however, they had no mechanism by which to do so under state law. Since the FBI refused (see their explanation) and the law stipulated that the FBI MUST be used, the question was raised if they could use the Central Repository.

      As the AG stated in his opinion, to do so the language of the Question would have needed to include a fiscal line item for the cost impact of doing so. As this was not included, AND the question was carried by less than a 1% margin (meaning the line item could have had a material impact on how people voted, given the associated costs), AND the law specifically stipulated that the FBI MUST be used, the AG correct said ‘no can do’.

  11. I’m going to print out a quiz to hand to a Liberal the next time we have a gun debate. Give me some ideas for questions. I need the best questions because a Liberal can’t stay on topic very long before I am called spawn of Hitler. Here are some questions I have so far.

    What is an assault rifle?

    What is The Gunshow Loophole?

    True or False: Since the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire under G. W. Bush in 2004, assault weapons have been used to kill more people in the entire United States than hand guns have in Chicago in just 2015.

    What is an FFL?

    How much ammunition should a gun be allowed to contain?

    What is the difference in a clip and a magazine (firearms related)?

  12. Banning stun “guns” – all the evidence you need that it’s not about the harm you might do, but keeping you depending on them to survive.

  13. And lets not forget the MA stun gun case.
    “Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal. See Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J (2014). When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.”

    This was unanimously reversed by SCOTUS.

    The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

    Even the far left anti-gun liberals understood how far reaching it would be to let the MASJC ruling stand.
    It would set the precedent that no technology invented after 1791 was protected under the US Constitution. The 1st amendment would only be applied to quill pens and individual owned manual printing presses (a view that Hillary and many on the left actually favor)

  14. I’ll further add this:

    As a FFL, I get email from the FBI every week, telling me about their latest outages and overloads to the NICS system. They’re changing the software and adding heuristics to improve the ability of the system to keep up with the load as it is now.

    If the FBI saw even a couple of states’ additional workload dumped on them for private sales, I do believe the NICS system would collapse under the load.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here