Maybe TX Rep. Cuellar Should Have Been One of the 1.1 Million Americans Who Bought a Gun Last Month

26
Previous Post
Next Post

As we noted earlier, a US Congressman was carjacked at gunpoint on the streets of our nation’s capital last night. As the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Mark Oliva told us . . .

The despicable and violent attack on Congressman Henry Cuellar serves as a reminder why Americans continue to choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Crime rates are unabated and criminals prey on innocent Americans without consequence. Americans are choosing a different path.

By the millions, for 50 months straight, law-abiding citizens are choosing to their right to keep and bear arms, despite the efforts of gun control politicians to enact laws to chill that right and others that issue unconstitutional edicts that deny that right. Lawful firearm possession is truly the determining factor of the American character – that we are a people of self-determination and not left to be victims of those who have no respect for life or law.

Here’s the NSSF’s press release announcing September’s adjusted NICS numbers . . .

The September 2023 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,141,847 is a decrease of 8.2 percent compared to the September 2022 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,243,687. 

For comparison, the unadjusted September 2023 FBI NICS figure 2,035,410 reflects a -16.5% percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,437,563 in September 2022.

September 2023 marks the 50th month in a row that has exceeded 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

Please note: Twenty-four states currently have at least one qualified alternative permit, which under the Brady Act allows the permit-holder, who has undergone a background check to obtain the permit, to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a separate additional background check for that transfer. The number of NICS checks in these states does not include these legal transfers based on qualifying permits and NSSF does not adjust for these transfers.

The adjusted NICS data were derived by subtracting out NICS purpose code permit checks and permit rechecks used by states for CCW permit application checks as well as checks on active CCW permit databases. NSSF started subtracting permit rechecks in February 2016.

Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions. In addition to other purposes, NICS is used to check transactions for sales or transfers of new or used firearms. 

It should be noted that these statistics represent the number of firearm background checks initiated through the NICS. They do not represent the number of firearms sold or sales dollars. Based on varying state laws, local market conditions and purchase scenarios, a one-to-one correlation cannot be made between a firearm background check and a firearm sale.

Previous Post
Next Post

26 COMMENTS

  1. Sloppy, Dan. Cuellar probably already has PLENTY of guns. He’s an adamant 2A supporter and just about the last Democrat in Congress who the NRA has given an “A” rating.

    I don’t know if Cuellar has a DC permit to carry, but I’d point the finger at DC laws, not at Henry Cuellar. He’s an old-school Democrat, the kind that support guns and the pro-life movement. And after the vicious primary last election cycle where the democrats pushed a “progressive” to unseat him, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Cuellar finally switched parties.

    In fact, isn’t this the ideal time to push him for that? “A republican is a democrat who got mugged” and all? Instead of mocking him, how about you use your platform to drum up some “switch party” chatter instead? It’d be a huge win for TX, especially south TX, and for the USA overall.

    • He’s had plenty of opportunities to switch party affiliation and is well aware of how Liberal/Progressive Democrat ideology and policies are destroying the nation. Socially, Morally and Economically. He has voted with the Democrats over 98% of the time. He is simply reaping what he has sowed.

    • I know he’s a gun owner. But by his own admission, He didn’t have one with him last night. He clearly needs at least one more. It’s not like he need a carry permit (or can’t easily get one) in DC.

      • Wasn’t the reason the Bernie Bot was able to attack the baseball game with impunity because even Congress Critters had a hard time getting DC permits? That was before the recent cases, but that’s hardly defanged California.

  2. Once again I must thank dacian the dunce and miner49er the complete tool for the help they give in selling these guns every month.

    Morons.

  3. We the People are watching it all unfold before our very eyes.
    Things are going according to plan.

  4. If he was following the law in DC he could transport a gun but not have it loaded without a permission slip that even most congresscritters don’t have and mostly can’t get.

    If the gun was useful, he’d be in legal hot water (and political hot water with his party faithful). If the gun wasn’t useful but was being transported lawfully, he’d simply have lost it when the car was stolen.

    Capitol Hill has different rules for “Congressional Carry” than the rest of the city does. Even The Guardian noted how strange the situation was in terms of overlapping sets of rules back in like 2021 when the whole “OMG Boebert is a psycho” controversy was going.

    • “If he was following the law in DC he could transport a gun but not have it loaded without a permission slip that even most congresscritters don’t have and mostly can’t get.”

      Does the same apply if he were concealed-carrying it, not just transporting it?

      And, I thought congress wrote themselves permitless carry awhile back…

      • Congress can create the rules for federal buildings under their jurisdiction, particularly the Capitol and adjacent offices.

        They have no jurisdiction to impose those rules on D.C. itself, because that’s a separate jurisdiction.

        We went through all of this a few years ago when the media was screaming that Lauren Boebert was carrying a gun. It had to be pointed out that she actually was allowed to have a gun in her office but not in debate chambers or certain other places. That debate was about expanding the ability of lawmakers to carry IN the Capitol, not outside it.

        But to get a gun to the Capitol all she had to do was follow the transport laws of D.C. to get the gun to Capitol grounds where D.C. has no jurisdiction.

        Homie in this story wasn’t carjacked on Capitol grounds where he could legally carry. He was carjacked in D.C. jurisdiction where D.C. laws apply. Their laws say that without a special D.C. carry permit you can’t carry, you can only transport.

        The relevant statute is Code of the District of Columbia § 22–4504.02. Transportation of firearms, which states among other things that:

        (b)(1) If the transportation of the firearm is by a vehicle, the firearm shall be unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported shall be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment of the transporting vehicle.

        (2) If the transporting vehicle does not have a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console, and the firearm shall be unloaded.

        (c) If the transportation of the firearm is in a manner other than in a vehicle, the firearm shall be:

        (1) Unloaded;

        (2) Inside a locked container; and

        (3) Separate from any ammunition.

        Some Congresscritters supposedly have D.C. CCW permits, they are apparently extremely difficult to obtain even if you’re a sitting Senator or Congressperson.

        Obtaining such a license is governed by Code of the District of Columbia
        § 22–4506. Issue of a license to carry a pistol, which states, in part:

        (a) The Chief of the Metropolitan Police Department (“Chief”) may, upon the application of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the District of Columbia, or of a person having a bona fide residence or place of business within the United States and a license to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person issued by the lawful authorities of any State or subdivision of the United States, issue a license to such person to carry a pistol concealed upon his or her person within the District of Columbia for not more than 2 years from the date of issue, if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed.

        So they’re may issue and you need good cause. Which is probably why most Congresscritters don’t have one since they can request Capitol Police protection any time they want.

        • @KL:

          You should probably tell DC to update their CCW permit page then.

          And their posted legal code.

          “PUBLICATION INFORMATION
          Current through
          Sept. 6, 2023”

          https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-4506

          What? That don’t make no ding-dang sense, now do it?

          Well, if we go back to the judges ruling in the case you mention we find that the ruling pertains to the following regulation:

          “Chief Lanier issued regulations stating, “A person shall demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to his or her person by showing a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community as supported by evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life.” D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, § 2333.1. To satisfy this requirement, an applicant must “allege, in writing, serious threats of death or serious bodily harm, any attacks on his or her person, or any theft of property from his or her person” and must also “allege that the threats are of a nature that the legal possession of a pistol is necessary as a reasonable precaution against the apprehended danger.” Id. § 2333.2.

          https://casetext.com/case/grace-v-dist-of-columbia-3

          Ah, well it seems that D.C. made some changes to their language as I quoted above. IOW, they’ve found a workaround that hasn’t been slapped down by a judge.

          Color me shocked. It’s not like antis do this all the time or anything.

          Back to court, I guess.

  5. Y’all know he’d go straight to prison for killing one of their precious thugs. Even high society isn’t allowed. Take a knee

    • The faithful have no problem being woodchippered (or doing the woodchippering) to further the Revolution.

Comments are closed.