Previous Post
Next Post

We hear the tired old shibboleth trotted out by civilian disarmament advocates in the debate over the Second Amendment again and again: “Nobody wants to take your guns.” Except when they do. It’s a transparent attempt to portray gun owners concerned about protecting their natural, civil, Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as a bunch of conspiratorial crazies. Yammering yahoos raving about the black helicopters that are coming for them and their firearms in the middle of the night. But every once in a while, one of the wannabe gun grabbers lets the mask slip just a bit too far. Case in point: Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans . . .

Here he is on Boston Public Radio, second hour, starting about 9:20:

“For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, and I don’t know a lot of people who are into hunting who, being lifelong residents, would actually want that who lives in the city, but, especially here in the city I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.”

There are several more minutes of ignorance of crime statistics and a simple desire for more power over people’s lives documented here. But what’s abundantly clear is that Commissioner Evans doesn’t think people need any kind of guns in his city, and short of an outright ban, the police should have full authority to decide who gets one and who doesn’t.

At one point, the “moderator” asks, well, if it was unconstitutional for police to decide who can own a shotgun, then it would be unconstitutional for handguns as well, wouldn’t it? Clearly the moderator never read — much less understands — the Heller decision. And it’s clear where her sympathies lie.

The police commissioner, tireless servant of the people that he is, says several times that he doesn’t want people to own rifles or shotguns because they might be stolen and used by criminals. His solution is to trample on the rights of honest, law-abiding people because criminals do what criminals do. It’s obvious that he does not consider the RKBA of any real importance at all.

If you live in the approximately 95 percent of the country where police can’t prevent you from owning guns by fiat  and, for some reason, you move to Massachusetts, the commish thinks he should be able to tell you what firearms are good for you. And if he decides that you shouldn’t own them? I suspect that if he gets his way, he’ll either send someone to take them or force you to turn them in.

The end game has always been to reduce the number of firearms owners until it is practically insignificant.  Commissioner Evans is obviously miffed that it hasn’t happened yet. As a matter of fact, he does want to take your guns. At a minimum, he wants the power to decide whether or not you can own them. It’s ultimately a distinction without a difference.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I’m just a hick from the backwoods of central Illinois, but me thinks that the Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans probably wants no one to own guns in Boston. That would give his officers more time to sit in the donut shops and reminisce what it was like being out there on the street conducting wild west shootouts when the common folks still had guns. Seriously, I think Commissioner Evans should lead by example. He should do the following: (1) removed armed protection from very important government officials in Boston, (2) make his own officers leave their duty weapons at the police station after their shifts are over, (3) make his officers also turn in their personal home weapons, (4) and most importantly, ask all criminals to turn in their weapons too – or else! Being the hick I am, I really don’t mind being asked to do stupid things if the person asking me leads by example. Commissioner Evans would become an instant star in his city if he would do the 4 things above (realizing the criminals may have a small problem with with his request to disarm).

      • If that’s Evans in the pic, he could use a couple of Doughnuts. Keep the cadaver dogs away from him.

      • You may follow his example (I do get your point) but as for me… I’d become a criminal like the 100,000+ gun owners in Connecticut and not register or turn in my fire arms. Matter of fact I went out and BOUGHT assault rifles and pistols and ammo JUST IN CASE they decided to get frisky in my state and impinge upon my constitutional rights. Jersey and California were insane asylums as long as I can remember… I can remember my uncle who was a police officer in Pennsylvania, not being allowed to carry in New Jersey.

    • I think the correcter response (yes, I know that’s not a word) is, “Yes, some do. Just ask Dianne Feinstein.”

      • “If I had it my way, I’d say, Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn em ALL in!, but I just didn’t have the votes.”- Diane *Puke* Feinstein herself.

    • I would suggest that the correct response is, “That is an untrue statement.” We’ll leave it up in the air whether it was spoken as a lie or just as an uninformed, ignorant opinion.

    • @MAP-

      With all due respect, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin tried that, in 2005 during Hurricane Katrina. His cops went door-to-door. Nagin forever put to rest the canard of “nobody wants to take your guns”.

  1. While I can’t agree with his stated position here, I can see supervision of those who have shown an inability to control themselves could be beneficial. Therefore, I could support a law giving mayors the choice whether their police force is armed or not. Especially since mayors are elected, and will always answer to the voter.

    • Well played ; )

      Here’s another one: I’ve never had a problem with restricting fully automatic firearms (and explosives). These are weapons of war. But I think this should be across the board. So why do civilian law enforcement (and the police ARE civilians, no matter what they tell you) have access to “machine guns?” Furthermore, if they are decent marksmen (a big if, I know), why would they NEED fully automatic weapons anyway? Seems to me a standard AR (a common patrol rifle anyway) should be sufficient. But I’m not a firearms expert, so I could be wrong. Police need to follow the laws they say they are sworn to uphold, right?

      • So you firmly support the Second Amendment, but…
        The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress… Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. “- Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Continental Congress

      • Call Security!: I respectfully submit that you have it backwards.
        – – – You properly identify two sub-classes: LEOs; and, civilians. And, you correctly point out that LEOs are also civilians.
        – – – We say that the Constitution grants “powers” to government and guarantees “rights” to the People. Our military and police (and a few others like Secret Servicemen or Postal Inspectors) carry guns on-duty per the powers delegated to government by the Constitution. Civilians (when not in the service of the Federal or State government pursuant to a militia muster or other lawful command) keep and carry guns off-duty by right guaranteed by the Constitution.
        – – – It is fair to say that “arms” are – in general – weapons of war. The bow and arrow are so; the cross-bow is so (and, incidentally, the only such arm banned by the Pope for use in warfare). To quibble about particular calibers of firearms as being weapons of war vs. sport is factually devoid of real substance; to quibble about “assault weapons'” features such as bayonet mounts takes the exercise to an absurdity. You are free to place the “action” (flint-lock; percussion-cap; bolt; pump; lever; semi-automatic; burst-fire; fully-automatic) anywhere in this spectrum of greater-or-lesser substance.
        – – – Absurd as it might be to quibble, for the intellectual exercise, let’s quibble: The 2A guarantees the right of the People (i.e., civilians not actually mustered for militia duty) the right to arms for even the ultimate purpose of waging lawful warfare against a tyrannical government that might defy the Constitution. That is, the People are guaranteed the right to keep weapons of war in the grave contingency that such weapons might be necessary to preserve a free state. That you – personally – or others of like mind accept restrictions on fully automatic firearms (or explosives) is neither here-nor-there. Likewise, you might also accept restrictions on rights guaranteed by Constitutional Amendments such as the 1’st, 3’rd, 4’th, 5’th. Readers of this forum need not agree with you; we remain entitled to claim the full measure of rights granted by the 2A up-to-and-including whichever arms might be necessary for us to preserve a free state.
        – – – The powers – by which military and civilian officers under active duty in government service – carry are delegated by the People through their legislatures and Congress. We the People are always at liberty to ask our legislatures to regulate the bearing of arms by military and LEOs. At our behest, Congress MIGHT, for example, bar the use of nuclear weapons in war. Our State legislatures might bar police from using fully-automatic weapons. On THIS point, apparently, you agree. (So why do civilian law enforcement . . . have access to “machine guns?”) You reason to a CORRECT conclusion; but, by the WRONG rationale. An OFF-duty policeman has – arguably – a right to keep a weapon of war to carry out his militia duty. An ON-duty policeman is subject to his government-employer’s rules for carrying (or not) a service weapon to keep the peace. As paradoxical as this might seem to you (policeman-ON-duty-with-only a .38 / policeman-OFF-duty-with a machine-gun), I believe it to be the correct Constitutional reasoning.

    • Words that must echo everytime the left says “we’re not coming for your guns”

  2. There may be some gun-grabbers that don’t want to take ALL of your guns and not all of them YET. With their continued ignorance and no desire for the truth combined with their flawed way of thinking most of them will indeed include all guns eventually.

    There certainly are many of them (especially the ones that believe in magic wands) that want to take all of your guns away right now or do these deniers put blinders on to hide from their own camp to avoid the plentiful amount of people that are not shy at all about admitting that complete confiscation is their true goal?

  3. Nobody wants to take your guns!*

    * Of course what I really mean is we just want to make it really hard/nigh impossible for anyone to legally own a gun. And “assault weapons” will not be able to be passed on to any other family member once you die because you shouldn’t have property rights if you own a “weapon of war”… or handguns… or sniper rifles. Because not taking is giving and see, we’re really not taking anything! You can keep what you have and when you die, your guns will be handed over to the State… unless we change our mind between then and now. Because FYTW!


  4. Boston Bill “Skeletor” Evans is typical of the breed — arrogant, ignorant, dismissive of any rights except his own and a devout and committed statist. He just may turn out to be the finest chief of police since Heinrich Himmler.

    • Naturally, if the Commish can unilaterally reduce the number of gunowners in Boston, the newly disarmed citizens will then clamor for more police protection – which ultimately benefits the union membership. Power and money, kids.

  5. Hmmm…they sure didn’t trust the good people of Boston when the Tsarnyev boys were being hunted. I’m pretty sure in CookCounty,Illinois we would have the same levels of trust for a similar situation. You are your own first responder. And train for head shots…

  6. They don’t want to take your guns. They just want to take your future guns. When looked at in retrospect, this would be equal to them taking your guns. I’ve found that when people make a point to say something like this, take the inverse as the truth. Here are some examples:

    Read my lips, no new taxes.

    I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

    The Patriot Act will not infringe on privacy.

    If you like your insurance plan you can keep your insurance plan.

    This demonstration was the result of a video that was disgusting and reprehensible.

    No one is talking about giving amnesty.

    Not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS.

    Pretty much ANYTHING Jay Carney said between 2008-2014.

    No one is talking about registration.

    I appreciate the 2nd amendment, but…

    On and on. If they feel like they need to say it likes it’s super obvious, then they’re just trying to mislead. The lies are pretty transparent.

  7. Denial is not just a big river in Egypt. There are probably some that believe their own propaganda that they simply want to keep guns out of the hands of those that can’t handle the responsibility. But since their “solutions” always make the situation worse, (think Chicago) but which they will never admit to; the only solution for them is to keep increasing the restrictions until they just try to outlaw guns all together.

    Which, surprise, surprise; increases their power and control over the people. Most though know exactly what their end goal is; total power, total control. It is the question from the oracle in the Matrix that says it all, “What do people with power want? More power.”

  8. From the article:

    “At one point, the “moderator” asks, well, if it was unconstitutional for police to decide who can own a shotgun, then it would be unconstitutional for handguns as well, wouldn’t it? Clearly the moderator never read — much less understands — the Heller decision. And it’s clear where her sympathies lie.”

    Maybe it’s me, but, unless some words didn’t make it into the quote, isn’t the moderator stressing how unconstitutional it is for police to determine who owns guns and who doesn’t?

    • The context was that police in MA already have the power to determine who may and may not own a handgun. The Comish wanted the same power for long guns. The moderator was clearly saying “we do this with handguns, why not long guns”.
      It was a classic example of slippery slope.

  9. Wow.
    After reading this, I’m even more happy I’m buying another gun this weekend.
    Private party sale. I’m finally getting my Mosin rifle at a great price. Then off to the gun show for a case or two of ammo.

    Suck on that Evans.

  10. We should try to understand where he’s coming from. He really want’s to look after our well-being; he just needs us to recognize that we must make some compromises so he can do that. It’s all about officer safety and getting to come home at night. Surely we can understand that.

    • I’m always quick to agree that I don’t need my rifles or shotguns or handguns. I’m grateful that I live in a peaceful place in peaceful times. I hope I never need any of my firearms.

      I own firearms because it is my right and I want to own them. I believe that the knowledge and ability to use firearms is paramount to the protection of our country and our freedoms; an apparent lack of need for citizens to own firearms does not change this–it simply means things are going pretty well right now. May they stay that way.

      As a responsible firearms owner, I am public safety. Protect my right to keep and bear arms (and to practice with them) and I am one more person who can step up in the name of public safety if the need arises. Trample those rights and you trample both public safety and faith in the common decency of mankind.

    • I understand exactly where he is coming from. And if he plans to live to a ripe old age, he needs to keep his happy ass in Boston. The rest of us in Mass. have had enough of this crack pot dictator wannabe.

  11. “Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers”. Fortunately they can’t get their stories straight. This one is saying no shotguns. Double barrel Biden is saying all you need is a shotgun out the window. Just sit back and watch them flip around like a fish out of water.

  12. Seriously, self-righteous and moronic statements like this one make me want to go out and buy a few more guns. Keep talking, chief.

  13. It’s about the money they get from registration and more importantly, friends of friends.

    Oh, I forgot, they eventually (next week) want ALL your guns.

  14. This is why I send pics of my sexy AR builds and other nice acquisitions to my friends in NJ, MD, etc. whom I have taken shooting. Those pics make the rounds with their friends under captions like “Another fun toy you can’t own in [your state].” My friends become ambassadors for the truth behind enemy lines simply by sharing their own stories, what they’ve learned about the absurdity and inconsistency of gun laws, and a few provocative pics to help draw into focus the freedoms they do not have and cannot currently enjoy.

  15. You’ll recall that Boston enjoyed unannounced martial law after the dubious “Boston Marathon Bombing”. Black-uniformed military with armored vehicles marching up and down the streets.

    When you hear a cop or a politician insisting that you have zero need to worry about your guns being confiscated or outlawed, it’s a good idea to buy another rifle or shotgun or three and a few cases of ammunition. Be prepared.

  16. I just have to wonder if this numbnuts got his butt kicked very often in school. He makes Barney Fife look like Melvin Purvis.

  17. You know, you have to wonder where in the hell all these anti-American, anti-Constitution, liberty-hating, rights-denying, control freak Statists came from and how they got the arrogant idea they can self-appoint themselves to decide what everyone else can or cannot do. It’s almost as if every dead NAZI from WWII got reincarnated and now is a Police Commissioner, Police Chief, Politician or Bureaucrat here in the U.S.. It’s getting intolerable…absolutely intolerable.

    • you have to wonder where in the hell all these anti-American, anti-Constitution, liberty-hating, rights-denying, control freak Statists came from

      They come from the Democrat Party.

  18. I laugh when they trot out that old, tired line. I really do. Right in their faces.

    Then, I point out all the people who do.

    Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does. “I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.

    “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

    “The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

    Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.

    “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

    Thankfully, he died last year.

    Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.

    “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989

    Thankfully, he died in 2008.

    Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.

    “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
    that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”
    – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001

    Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI) did.

    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992.

    Thankfully, he died back in 1999.

    Then-Senator Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.

    “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

    Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.

    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp

    Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.

    “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

    Thankfully, he died last year.

    Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.

    “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

    Vermont State Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.

    “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing
    who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”

    New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.

    ” …confiscation could be an option…”

    Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does.

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

    “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

    “Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” – The National Educator, January 1994, pg. 3, to Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

    Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.

    “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”

    Thankfully, he died in 2012.

    Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.

    “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” – Written affidavit by Fred Diamond, 1984 B’nai B’rith meeting in Coral Gables, Florida

    Deborah Prothrow-Stith, of the Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.

    “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

    Rosie O’Donnell does.

    “I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999

    “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.

    The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

    “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47

    I mean, I could go on literally for days and days, listing pages upon pages of people saying exactly how and why they’re coming for our fucking guns. Not a single bit of it could ever be supported, defended, or refuted by them, either.

    And if you want to see the true legacy of gun control, roll on out to YouTube and search for “Innocents Betrayed”, and learn that well in excess of 200,000,000 people have been killed by their own governments — and all of it was preceded and enabled by gun control.

    Gun-grabbers are literally sick in the head, and don’t need to be thieving our oxygen anymore. They are sexist, racist, antisemitic, anti-rights, anti-Humanist dogs, totally unworthy of the title of “Human”. They are something far, far lesser.

    • Excellent post. Thanks for that.

      I remember some of those, but not all. It’s truly amazing seeing it all in one place – and to contemplate that even still, that list my not be complete.

      • Oh, this is hardly an exhaustive list. It would probably be at least twice as long, if not more, than it turned out to be if I really well and truly wanted to be completely thorough about it.

      • The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

        “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47
        Yeah, and after the prohibition of private ownership of guns is passed, you will kiss your other pro ACLU rights good bye so fast it will make your head spin.

  19. In Boston, nobody needs a car – there are taxis (professionals, doncha know!) and public transoortation. There is no need for homes for people who are single. They only need a one bedroom apartmemt. There is no need for private schools – public education is sufficient. Starbucks and other frufru coffe? Not needed. Fine dining? Burger king is sufficient, if dining out is considerdd a “need” (it is not, imo).

    Point being, since when in the United States has private property ownership have to be justified as a need to LEO and Government?

  20. Little Billy just wants to ensure that people do not have rifles or shotguns in their closets, so no more kids get shot. He wants to child-proof the city of Boston. If no one has a firearm in their home, kids can not break in and steal them and use them to shoot each other out on the street. His logic is fool proof. Wile E. Coyote must be very proud of him.

  21. That guy needs to lay off the weight lifting for a little while. Maybe work on cardio for a bit instead. You want to retain a certain degree of flexibility for police work and clearly the officer pictured above has way too much muscle mass.

  22. So again use laws to disarm all the good guys, and the bad guys as always never follow the law. And the proof is England after many years of total gun control has more CRIME than ever…(even has lots gun crime)… and YES START with disarming all police and military as lots of public guns end up in the black market too…save tax money and retire the Boston police chief .

  23. Two points. When I became an USAF SP, we turned our firearms into the armory when we went off-duty. Until I see all civilian police officer disarm when they are off-duty, I could care less about their opinions about terminating the 2nd amendment. Second point… While serving overseas, we were constantly warned that it was common for criminals to ambush and kill police officers for their guns. How would this police chief prefer criminals to get their guns?

  24. I guess you people don’t believe we have registration either…you people are fools. Ever since 1968 there has been a registry on guns and guess what when police run serial numbers, your name pops up. That’s why the serial numbers are on the 4473 because they know exactly what you have and where you’re located

  25. “…he [the Police Commissioner] doesn’t want people to own rifles or shotguns because they might be stolen and used by criminals.”

    Two questions:

    1) How is that different from the Commissioner wanting the public to be completely disarmed in the face of armed criminals who break into their homes with such regularity that his department is powerless to prevent?

    2.) When and where has disarming victims, particularly in an environment of rampant violent crime, as the Commissioner suggests, ever been proven to be an effective means of law enforcement?

    Not that any of that matters, anyway, because my right to keep and bear arms is, well, MY right to keep and bear arms. It isn’t subject to police department ignorance, irrationality, or expediency. So there.

  26. “Nobody wants to take your guns.” At a minimum, he wants the power to decide whether or not you can own them. See the police state fascists are not lying. You cannot have the guns in the first place.

  27. Firearms are already registered but they tell you they’re not. Have a Leo run your serial number and watch a name pops up. You people are foolish. But I’m not in favor of gun control it’s just the fact that background checks register your firearms

      • Thanks. Yes, I’ve read some of Kleck. Good stuff.

        I was actually looking for references from bg regarding bg’s comment:

        “Firearms are already registered but they tell you they’re not. Have a Leo run your serial number and watch a name pops up.”

      • BG has a point; albeit, he reaches too far. FFLs have a 20 year retention period on 4473 forms. (If an FFL goes out-of-business then it must send it’s records to the ATF which will keep them permanently). Thus, all new guns and used guns sold by FFLs have a form of registration to the first buyer. Congress might adopt a law requiring all those records to be summarily turned over to ATF; whereupon, they might be scanned and processed into a database. With scanning and character recognition technology, this is no longer a farfetched conjecture. It wouldn’t be a trivial undertaking; nevertheless, it could be done. I, for one, think the temptation is too great. The Feds might conclude that they could get enough info from such an effort to make it worthwhile to undertake the effort. E.g., suppose the pretext were that Glocks were especially dangerous and had to be registered. So, they gather all the records as an aid to finding all the Glocks to make sure they got registered. (Any pretext would suffice; make up your own.)
        – – – Because private transfers remain largely unregulated in most States it would be tough to actually track-down all the ultimate owners through a chain of 2 or 3 transfers. Still, it would be feasible to track-down some fraction of transfers.
        – – – The greatest risk is that the Feds could then identify the “frequent buyers” for harassment.
        – – – I do not understand why we PotG are not “up in arms” (so to speak) about reducing the 20 year retention period on FFLs holding 4473 forms.
        – – – Cutting back the retention period from 20 to 10 years would cover about 1/2 the tracings (mean-time from sale to tracing is about 10 years). Cutting it from 20 to 5 years would – I imagine – cover most cases of straw-buying. I believe that most FFLs would refrain from an annual purging of their files such that the actual retention period would substantially exceed the minimum required. Therefore, most law-enforcement traces would succeed to the much same extent that they do under a 20 year mandatory retention if the voluntary retention were reduced to 10 or 5 years. Effectively, almost all such records would be kept long-enough.
        – – – Another approach would be to pursue a “poison-pill” amendment to the law. Get Congress to change the law to provide that: IF ever a bill is introduced in Congress providing for the gathering of 4473 forms then the mandatory retention period would be reduced immediately to 5 years. No gun-controller Congressman would ever introduce such a bill in the face of the threat that FFLs would shred 15 years of records under the poison-pill provision. Law enforcement would continue to enjoy the present system; and, gun controllers would be estopped from building a national registry from the 4473 forms.

      • To John Galt.
        Take a look at ATF Ruling 2008-2 and the replacement Ruling 2013-5. In defiance of the Firearm Owner Protection Act, both of these require a dealer to turn over a computer (digital) file of his entire A&D Book to the ATF Out-of-Business-Records-Center. This, my friends, is blatant registration. Is anyone so naive that they think ATF won’t enter those Acquisition and Disposition records into the ATF databases?

        You should also take a look at a couple of Wikipedia articles:
        ATF eTrace System:
        ATF National Tracing Center:

        The information about ATF databases can easily be verified.

        • Bob is right here; it’s a “nose of the camel under the tent” kind of argument. As a practical matter – THIS particular infringement – doesn’t seem especially alarming. So, Pop decides to hang-up his spurs and retire. He has to send his records for the last 20 years to the ATF. He has been winding down his business for the last 10 years anyway; now, the business is no longer valuable enough to sell to a successor. So, he must comply. Unless-and-until Cabellas or Walmart decide to get-out-of-the FFL business, we don’t have to worry about all of the “Pops” that want to retire. But wait-a-minute! What would happen if Cabellas or Walmart decided to give-up their FFL business? In such an environment (where a national chain decided to abandon its FFL) who would succeed to their business? Who would take over their records? Suddenly, what seems to be a non-issue could easily expand into a large issue; and, then, rapidly cascade into a huge issue. Imagine that Walmart gave up their FFL and Cabellas soon followed, and then another large chain and yet another. Sales volume is somewhat concentrated in a modest number of large volume dealers. Most of the 4473s are probably kept by 10 – 20% of dealers. Given the wrong environment (regulatory, PC-ness, economic, who-knows-what) large diversified sporting-goods business could decide that the FFL product line is more trouble than it’s worth.
          – – – I don’t see any politically-viable measure to preclude such a development.
          – – – I see shortening the mandatory record-retention period from 20 to 10 or 5 years as being very effective in limiting the damage.

    • John Dennis, I was born and raised in New Hampshire, and you sir, are a dumb@ss and a disgraceful human.

      Who are you to tell anyone where to travel within Americas border ?, You must be related to BPD Commissioner Bill Evans …

  28. Progressives (liberals, Democrat Party, Communist Party etc- no difference) always say that nobody wants to take our guns. I have been following this for 40 some years and remember when this sentence was in the Washington Post. Well, yes they do. Since they cannot do this, however, they will place so many restrictions with the hope that gun ownership become so onerous that we will consider it not worthwhile. That path dispenses with the inconvenience of repealing 2A. There are no Constitutional gun laws in this country. Ignore them all.

  29. another speech by another anti who doesn’t get around much. I know plenty of city dwellers who are into hunting. Most of us aren’t rich enough to live on a country estate and commute to our mediocre jobs in the city. Some of us are stuck in apartments because the job is necessary to not be a welfare drone.

    many cops are hunters. But I’m guessing this Chief doesn’t get out among those rank and file officers beneath him much. Too busy hobnobbing or playing politics perhaps. Or the rest of the officers can’t stand him.

  30. We had a wave of anti gun sentiment wash through Australasia in the early 1990s, post Port Arthur and Aramoana, resulting in some constriction of gun rights. But here in New Zealand we have always had an unarmed Police force, along the British model. There has not been a right to bear arms for self protection since the 19th century gold rush days.

    There are specialized armed offender squads, but most Police you meet will be unarmed. Lately, weapons have been provided in some patrol cars, in case of armed emergency. Those weapons are locked in the trunk…

    We have licensing which ensures license holders are trained and knowledgable about gun safety. There is no weapon registration, as this is too expensive to administer, and unwieldy. Firearms purchases are noted by retailers, but not notified to Police.

    There may be some further strictures put in place after a recent case where an older firearms license holder bought multiple weapons for an Auckland drug gang, and also traded methamphetamine. He was a straw purchaser.

    I must say the hypocrisy of your Democratic politicians and “celebrity spokespeople” is breathtaking. In America you have quite a number of dangerous wild animals, and a large population of released felons, who congregate in depressed urban centers. Personal safety must always be an everpresent factor in daily life, especially for the less well off. And yet these gated community dwellers presume to speak for everybody, as if they know how actual real people live. Senior Police personnel seek the approval of those gargoyles, and present a disarmament program as the best way to get to and stay at the top of their totem poles. Never mind the actual needs of the citizens they purport to serve.

    It seems they completely lack any sense of honor or commitment to their oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution. Surely this is grounds for their impeachment? Playing consensual physical sports with an intern is one thing, but this issue goes to the heart of their capability and willingness to perform their sworn duty. A Police Chief who avows an intention to seize legally owned private property is no better than a burglar.

Comments are closed.