Previous Post
Next Post

Guns Sales Rise As Fear That Obama Will Change Gun Laws Persists

“The city of Chicago, bedeviled by street gang violence, refuses to give in to ever more restrictive court rulings against enactment of sensible gun safety laws,” The New York Times editorial writer opines. “The Supreme Court’s misguided 2010 decision ended the nearly 30-year-long ban on handguns in Chicago.” Now that’s what I call tortured logic . . .

Misguided as it wasn’t, the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision wasn’t “restrictive” against “sensible gun safety laws.” It was for the restoration of residents’ indeed all Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Thwarting the spirit of that ruling with onerous regulations (surprise!) doesn’t make Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel a man of the people. It makes him a fascist.

Instead of rolling over, Mayor Rahm Emanuel responded this week with some reasonable proposals designed to pass constitutional muster while upholding the city’s basic obligation to protect citizens. This time, zoning regulations would be used to limit gun shops to less than 1 percent of the city’s geographic area, with tight auditing of the shops, sales limited to one handgun per customer per month, a 72-hour waiting period to buy handguns and the simple videotaping of gun sales to deter buyers from using false identification.

Don’t you love the word “simple” in the phrase “simple videotaping of gun sales”? Neither do I. It sounds . . . creepy. Hell it is creepy. You can almost hear a bureaucrat saying “if you’re doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.” Except fear of government itself, I might add.

Since when does a city government get to say how many examples of a lawful product you can buy, and make you wait to buy it? I know: there are states with one-gun-a-month laws (California, Maryland and New Jersey). And states that have even longer “cooling off” handgun purchase waiting requirements (e.g. Rhode Island’s seven-day delay). But four wrongs don’t make a right. In fact, they piss all over a right – in that “a right delayed is a right denied” kinda way.

These sensible efforts underscore how difficult it is for local governments to protect the public from gun violence when obstructionist politicians in Washington blithely refuse to enact federal laws closing gaps and loopholes in state and federal laws that feed the nation’s gun mayhem.

Is there a “sensible” drinking game? You know: take a sip of coffee every time a gun control advocate uses the word “sensible,” “reasonable,” “gaps,” “reform” or “loopholes.” Or the phrases “common sense” and “gun safety” If there was I’d be wired like an electric power sub-station. As for the politicians’ blithe spirit, I don’t suppose the Times’ editorialist would care to entertain the idea that their refusal to enact civilian disarmament legislation has something to do with their constituency’s desire not have them enact civilian disarmament legislation. No? OK then.

The Chicago proposals are rooted in proven reforms that Congress should be considering nationally. In 2006, New York City sued 27 out-of-state firearm dealers that were major sources of guns used in city crimes. In a settlement, the dealers agreed to videotape sales and train their staffs to recognize straw buyers, who are in the business of reselling weapons. Follow-up studies showed a major drop in crime-scene guns that came from the shops that had been feeding the underworld pipeline.

What follow-up studies? A citation would be helpful. As would some kind of context. What were the variables involved? Which shops, what training, who reviewed the videotapes, were the videotapes used to arrest ONE person? Did the actions have an impact on New York City crime? PROVE IT. Especially when you use the word “proven” to promote a Big Brother intrusion into the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.

If I may be allowed to use the term, common sense tells us that the Chicago proposals will do sweet FA to reduce the flow of firearms into the “underworld pipeline.” Not because surrounding states have lax gun laws. Because criminals need guns to threaten people and shoot each other. The idea that gun store laws will “choke off” their supply of firearms to the point where a gang banger says “Damn! I’m can’t shoot that MF’er who ripped me off ’cause I can’t get a gun!” is laughable. Ludicrous. Preposterous.

Which is not to say that the New York Times is totally deceitful or deluded. They “get” that the disarmament they adore is only possible in places where Democratically-controlled regimes hold sway.

Washington lawmakers’ disgraceful surrender to the gun lobby was clear last year. The Senate defeated gun safety reforms despite public outrage at the carnage in Newtown, Conn. There usually comes a point after a mass shooting when the word “closure” is invoked and the politicians move on. It looks as if those in Congress can’t embrace closure soon enough, particularly as this year’s electoral cycle heats up.

If “closure” means the pols leave Americans’ gun rights alone, I’m all for it. It’s too bad we can’t move on to addressing some of the issues that leave mentally deranged and criminals on the streets, but I’ll settle for stasis. For now.

Regarding Chicago’s foot-dragging on firearms freedom, f that. If they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accordance both the letter and spirit of the law, let the kicking and screaming begin. Continue. Whatever.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. In a lawsuit, the “video taping” will be construed/declared as unconstitutional, and that will be that…leftist/liberal in position of power cannot be allowed to do as they deem necessary to circumvent The Constitution of the United States of America any longer…I welcome November, if for no other reason than to oust the leftists/liberal in public office…

      • You really can’t figure it out, can you? I guess you can blame your “education”. But *I* don’t. Many people are smart enough to overcome their “education”.


        We’re TIRED of cleaning up after your constant mess.

      • How about we video tape you in the voting booth to make sure you’re following the law? Or maybe we should video tape you every minute you’re on your computer or phone, just to make sure you’re not posting or tweeting anything insulting or threatening while using an anonymous account.

      • 4th Amendment.

        Read it.

        Learn it.

        Then, go read the applicable case law. ALL of it.

        After that, you can answer me this, Batman: What on all of God’s good green Earth makes you honestly think — think ’cause you quite obviously don’t know squat — that the State outright demanding the videotaping a private transaction done legally and in good faith could ever possibly pass Constitutional muster?

        Unless and until you answer that question, and only after performing the aforementioned tasks beforehand mind you, this is as far as this conversation needs to go.

        Hop to it.

        • So, Excedrine, just out of sincere curiosity. We are video recorded by security systems just about everywhere nowadays. However, that footage is usually not full motion, low resolution, may or may not have sound, and usually kept for a specific, limited amount of time. Security video of this type can be used in a Court of Law as evidence.

          OTOH “video taping” would be at least VHS resolution, digitally recorded, full motion, have sound and, presumably in Chicago, become a permanent record of the gun sale (probably including some sort of Label identifying the purchaser, seller,date time and other exact ID information).

          Besides being objectionable at a gut level, the recording of the gun sale violates the 4th Amendment because it is a detailed and “permanent” record that would be very strong evidence in a Court of Law.
          The substantive difference being the detail of the recording and permanence of its retention?
          At what point would the, apparently, “legal” security recordings cross the line to be as illegal as you state the proposed gun sale video recordings would be?

          I am asking these questions in all sincerity and want to understand this issue more completely. Thank-you.

        • DerryM,

          Those security recordings that you describe are fine. I wouldn’t mind at all of my LGS has security cameras. It becomes a problem when the government tells you the store owner that you MUST do it (and make it available to officer donut whenever he feels like it). To that, the only acceptable response is “sir, with all due respect, go f*ck yourself.”

        • I am suggesting that we might be wary of less direct attempts to record gun sales than the one being tried in Chicago. Older “security” recording systems were limited in their ability to store more than 24 to 72 hours recordings. Now, picture, sound and definition are much improved and storage is cheap and easy, particularly with a Cloud subscription. Retailers can store much more recorded data with little effort or cost. While they may not intend any ill-effects, they are still obliged to provide video to law enforcement on request (or forced to by subpoena), and may not foresee the accidental consequences of expanding/upgrading their video recording systems thereby making DVR files available to law enforcement from far longer in the past than we might be comfortable with.

          At the moment what Chicago is proposing is illegal, but, then, so are the laws we are now forced to obey regarding gun rights. Technology pushes the edges of legality quietly and steadily. It offers increased benefits while conveniently ignoring the mention of darker possibilities.

      • Videotaping is a de facto registry, perhaps not of specific guns, but of specific gun owners. The difference is immaterial since they’ll know which door to knock on when the time comes.

        Videotaping is also highly intimidating as people exercise their rights. If the anti’s ask why, then let’s videotape everyone as they show up to vote on Election Day and let the anti’s demonstrate they have no problem with that.

        • Okay, that makes perfect sense. I like the idea of proposing we “video tape” people voting…Hell! You can’t even get the liberals to buy-in to having to properly identify yourself at the polling place (NOT that I am so sure that is a good idea). But then if you had Voter ID Requirements it would keep all those dead people from voting.

          Given the state of technology where security/surveillance video is concerned (HD digital video, wireless connectivity, immense storage capacity, facial recognition software, remote capacity to covertly record from your own webcam, camera drones and more), is it not the case that we are being violated regularly already? Seems to me we are. It is definitely possible to “find” you on any number of such security recordings and, apparently, these are admissible as evidence in a Court of Law, or at least help Prosecutors build their case.

          I believe many gun stores already use these kinds of security systems as anti-theft measures, so if you are recorded buying a gun on a security system, it would be no problem to identify you. Most Retail Store security recording systems pretty well blanket the whole Sales Floor, entrance and exterior, so you literally cannot avoid being recorded buying anything, including guns. This is not, perhaps, the same as proposed in Chicago, but in a de facto way and with the advent of “Cloud” data storage, it can become far, far easier to produce a recording of anyone buying a gun in a retail store aka a “registry”.

          Next time you go into your favorite gun store, look around. What you find might be alarming.

        • “I like the idea of proposing we “video tape” people voting”

          We should be videotaping (or streaming) the politicians’ and bureaucrats’ backroom deals.

        • That’s a great idea, Rich! I wonder why the politicians haven’t thought of that because y’know the Obama Administration is the “most transparent” we’ve ever had *cynical derisive laugh*…”Transparent” is Obama Speak for “opaque”…just like most everything else he says is an antonym for what he means…

    • For some reason I see Mayor Rahm Emanuel surrounded by monitors and a jar a Vaseline. Kind of creepy!

    • In a nation with real appellate courts, you would be absolutely correct. But the courts are mostly packed, leaving this to be settled in blood, I’m afraid.

      Jefferson warned us. People will have to die. So sorry, but truth is truth.

      • I don’t have to explain anything to you. I don’t give two tenths of a fvck what you think.

        Learn some grammar, also.

      • Perhaps it concerns the usual line trotted out by those in favour of gun control that only the police can be trusted with firearms

      • It has to do with showing you all what your heroes have been up to this week. What is with all of the bitching about it being off-topic? Is it too inconvenient for you to see?

        You spend so much time talking about the left that you’re taking on their traits, control freak.

        • First of all, un-ruslte your jimmies, boy.

          Second of all, if you paid even the slightest shred of attention to this site, the first story you linked to was reported here already–and a lengthy discussion was already had about it. We had our say and now we’re talking about this. If you want to talk about that, go back to that thread and talk about it there instead of escalating the hysterics every time someone calls you out on your bad behavior.

  2. this is a politik theater at its wors because THERE ARE NO GUN STORES IN CHIRAQs CITY LIMITS. this proposal will affect no one

  3. horrible thumbs down revolver grip is horrible.

    gun hating fascists continue to be gun hating fascists. glad i’m not living there.

  4. “Follow-up studies showed a major drop in crime-scene guns that came from the *shops* that had been feeding the underworld pipeline.” (Asterisks added)
    No $h!^. That might have something to do with the abundance of online gun dealers who refuse to ship to NY.

  5. Nonexistent gun shops?

    Maybe we should call them ghost gun shops. (Is it the guns that are ghost or the shops, you will make them wonder?)

  6. Hmmm…didn’t gun crime go down in NYC because of Gestapo/secret police tactics of stop & frisk? My son spent a couple months in Jordan recently. He remarked how safe everyone was-especially at night. He also commented that there was a guy with a MACHINE GUN on every corner. I live in a suburb just south of Chicago. I don’t see anybody crying for gun shops in the city. BTW they just closed an outdoor gun range in crime capitol of Southern Cook County Harvey,Illinois. Sorry for the ramble…

    • Actually, according to an article in of all places, The Huffpo, the NYPD has been doctoring their numbers to appear better. Chicago PD has been doing the same. So, we can’t really trust the numbers from either jurisdiction– particularly sad in the case of Chicago, apparently the violence rates are even worse than what are being reported.

    • In the 1970’s I had a neighbor in on-base housing who was a young girl during Hitler’s rise in Germany. There was no crime under Hitler in those days – my neighbor remarked, wide-eyed, “You didn’t have to lock your door!”

      And we all know how that peaceful interlude turned out.

  7. Glad I don’t live in a 1 gun per month state. I just bought three CZs this month after selling a rarely used rifle at a gun show! OMG loopholes!

    • Really be happy. In NJ we have the stupid one-gun-a-month. I just bought three guns and have to juggle to get all three within the purchase permits’ 90 day life. I work in the evening and my FFL is a part-timer who works evenings. NICS is supposed to operate until 8PM but they stop answering at 7:30. This leaves you with basically Saturday to do it all. I’ve had to ask for permit extensions every time I get permits and I’m afraid our chief of police is starting to feel I’m a pain in the ass. So pray that the elected “geniuses” where you live don’t decide this is the solution to “Gun Violence”.

      • That really sucks. I didn’t plan on buying the pistols but I had been looking for a local P07 and found it. Then next week a P01 and then they got a stock of P09s last weekend. All guns I’ve been looking for for the past year. Plus one was one sale, one was used and the other was cheaper than buying online. 1 gun a month laws screw good people over from buying guns. Criminals probably aren’t paying 500 bucks for pistols at cabelas.

      • It pains me to hear how badly your rights are abrogated. Sounding off from Ohio, I have literally purchased a gun after calling the LGS and asking if they would stay a few minutes late. They did and I bought my mother a gun at 5:05PM. Or, at least that’s when I got to the shop. I was gone again, gun in hand at 5:10. I could have bought 2 guns, or 10, or 2 rifles, 10 handguns and a shotgun. In the land of the free, buying legal products should be this way, get all you can afford and want.

  8. They can’t get by with a simple registry they need to identify people’s faces for the database. Don’t believe anyone when they try to say that this is anything other than Orwellian control.

    • I’m unconcerned about the face thing but can understand why others are. I don’t like it, I believe it has a chilling effect of freedom and the exercise of rights, but I’m not personally worried about being videotaped. The reason is that the government already has my face and fingerprints, name and address, it’s all a part of my concealed weapons permit. I’m sure if they decide to go door to door my address is on the list. The CCW permitting system is the registration we’ve been fearing, I’m registered but not afraid.

      I believe that the notion of door to door confiscation is so unworkable that it will never be tried. Jefferson talked of trip wires that if crossed announced the need for a revolution. Door to door confiscation is such a trip wire. If you’re on the list, you are the resistance. You shouldn’t be at home when they come for you anyway.

      • They’ll do it by attrition, one at a time, in no-knock raids, where people are killed one at a time and nobody hears about it, or just going around confiscating recently banned items, at least that’s the sort of thing they’ve been doing so far.

  9. What a stinkin’ FARCE. If one law doesn’t work, we need 50,000. Sooner or later, this cynical game will be exposed for all but the lamest to see.

  10. Way do south in the land o’ cotton
    Gun rights there are not forgottin’
    Move away
    Move away
    Move away
    To Dixie Land!

    • Now I’m literally whistling Dixie, thanks! Ohio sure isn’t Dixie, but we have shall issue CCW permits, state wide unpermitted open carry, no state NFA laws, state wide gun law preemption, no license to buy, no waiting, no limits. A person could move here from a slave state with cash in hand and 30 days later (federal law) buy all the guns they could afford. They could arm up with rifles and shotguns before that, all you want, no waiting, no permit.

  11. I really like the Dixie bit. I moved to Dixie a long time ago. You have heard all this before, guns don’t kill people, people use guns to kill people, plus hammers, knives, ball bats, tire irons and the Muslims even use stones, among other things. Every Christian and non-Muslim should arm them selves against the Religious war that is coming. Also to protect them selves from our Government. I for one will never pray five times a day to Allah. There is no Muslim out there that can make me.

      • There are lots of scenarios, I mean lots, that I’ve considered. Some are paranoid, others creative and some practical, all have been fun for thought exercises or training concepts. Jihadists at the door? The closest I’ve ever gotten to that are persistent Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are annoying, but don’t really require a tactical response.

    • I saw a teeshirt today that read: Guns don’t kill people. Sight picture, trigger control and consistent marksmanship kills people.

      The rest of that? Just nuts man, nuts!

  12. Simple test; would the NYT be in favour of similar restrictions on freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. If not why not.

  13. Just another case of Rahm Emmanuel making it look like he’s “doing something” to stop the minorities in his ghettos from killing one another by penalizing all Chicago’s citizens to advance his civilian disarmament agenda. He doesn’t give a damn how many Blacks and Hispanics die, only about keeping the Whites fooled into thinking he cares while he disarms everyone, and the Blacks and Hispanics voting for him because they think he is “doing something” to help them save their children. The NYT swallows it hook, line and sinker, then regurgitates approval for this contemptible deception as pseudo-intelligent propaganda in support of Emmanuel’s cynical knavery. It’s disgusting and laughable at the same time.

  14. at least MD’s one-gun-a-month is one REGULATED gun a month and can be avoided with designated collector status. i mean, give it time and THAT’LL go away, but still.

    • Only handguns now.

      Also if you get a C&R license you avoid all the Maryland BS when it comes to buying handguns out of state except the 10 round mag limit.

  15. You can’t stop stupid at the top, but at least someone in Chicagoland is getting the picture:

    “I would just caution the administration that we tried all these things under a former administration, only to be shot down by the Supreme Court and it cost the citizens of Chicago millions and at the end we were left with nothing,” Alderman Howard Brookins, 21st Ward, said.

    Of course Howard Brookins is part of Chicago’s long time corruption bonanza that keeps on giving, or taking depending on your perspective. Well at least his chief of staff is:

  16. I find the thought of the videotaping amusing. Fill out the 4473, turn to the camera, give the Hawaiian Peace sign, and say a few words to Rahm.

  17. Maybe criminals stopped buying guns from the dealers that were videotaping transactions and bought from someone else. They don’t factor that in either.

  18. Sincere question:

    You said: “If ‘closure’ means the pols leave Americans’ gun rights alone, I’m all for it. It’s too bad we can’t move on to addressing some of the issues that leave mentally deranged and criminals on the streets…”

    Everyone agrees that mentally ill people with a violent history and violent felons should be restricted from certain freedoms. But wouldn’t taking people off the streets before they’ve done something indicating that they are “mentally deranged” or violent “criminals” require a big brother government intrusion that would also be unconstitutional? I’m not saying that bans on guns are the answer. But I’m trying to understand your argument. It seems like you prefer one form of government intervention over another, compromising the fourth amendment to protect the second amendment.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here