There’s no longer any denying that the latest wave of gun control activism has passed. Following the Sandy Hook shooting everything was on the table, and the usual gun control extremists managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once more by over reaching and proving that they really have no idea what they are doing. It’s taken two years, but it seems that not only has gun control fever gone back down to “normal” levels (at a national level, anyway) but gun rights groups have made some major gains. With the typical gun control targets no longer proving as fruitful, I suspect that we are about to see a shift in tactics to focus on the new “low hanging fruit” . . .
In my former life, I was a risk analyst working on terrorism-related questions. One of the things that we often did was threat and vulnerability analysis, trying to determine where the bad guys would likely attack and whether there was any vulnerability in those areas to exploit. When it comes to gun rights, the same kind of analysis is equally applicable. And as I see it, there are three high-probability targets that gun control extremists will focus on in the next couple years.
One of the main reasons that Shannon Watts and her Bloomberg-funded group Moms Demand Action has been so successful in getting mainstream media attention is they exploit a very basic parental instinct: the “think of the children” appeal.
Starting immediately after Sandy Hook, the gun control groups started using children as a valid avenue through which to attack gun rights. The New York Times got it started when they published a hilariously biased an terribly researched hit piece (debunked here), then Sannon and her Moms picked up the torch and ran with it. People might not assign much risk to being assaulted or shot personally, but when it comes to poor, defenseless children, the emotional response frequently overrides the logical response and people are much more likely to give up individual rights for the promise of security.
There has recently been a renewed push to keep guns and children separated following the isolated incident of a 9-year-old child accidentally killing a firearms instructor. And while the guns-and-children theme has been constant throughout the recent gun control campaigns there’s a real possibility that this latest event will snowball into an attempt to use legislation to ban children form using guns.
The real danger from this isn’t for the average gun owner, but for the gun culture in general. Over 50% of gun owners (who read TTAG) started shooting before they turned 11, and that early introduction is key to starting those individuals on a lifetime of gun ownership and usage. Practices that are introduced early tend to have real staying power, and banning the time honored tradition of parents teaching their kids how to shoot is a direct attack on the culture.
While using the “think of the children” approach might be useful in getting an immediate emotional response, the good news is that it usually peters out pretty quickly. Emotional appeals have proven time and again incapable of gathering the support needed to push legislation through at the federal level, mainly due to the raw power of a pissed off NRA membership opposing weak, emotional arguments. There have been some emotion-based wins in California and New York, but on the national stage it isn’t a sustainable approach.
Using children as a platform might be good for a quick localized victory, but it isn’t powerful enough to fuel a national campaign. An attack on firearms usage by children is definitely something to watch for in local elections and politics, but unless another major school shooting takes place it’s doubtful that there will be any national traction on that front.
We’ve already seen the “pivot” to mental health take place. Prior to 2012, the majority of the discussion around firearms in the United States focused on the objects and not necessarily those that posses them. Recently though, that has all changed.
The real turning point seemed to happen during the Isla Vista shooting episode. Despite the already numerous options the parents of the murderer had at their disposal to keep their son from committing crimes, they used exactly none of them and allowed a mass murder to take place. The discussion in the aftermath of that incident wasn’t based around already existing options and why the parents didn’t take advantage of them — the discussion was about the need for a new “gun violence restraining order” mechanism. More laws with less oversight, designed to make it impossible to legally own a gun in California.
There’s a definite “slippery slope” when it comes to mental health. There is no Voight-Kampff test for identifying future serial killers, so any metrics used to disqualify someone from purchasing a firearm would naturally need to be excessively broad. There’s already a form of broad mental health disqualification associated with the federal NICS background check system and ATF form 4473, which disqualifies people who have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective by a judge. Adding anything else above and beyond that metric is opening the flood gates.
Where would it stop? Anyone who takes anti-depressants (~10% of Americans)? Anyone who sees a mental health professional (~14% of Americans)? Anyone prescribed any psychiatric drugs (~20% of Americans)? Anyone who even recreationally takes any psychoactive drugs (~50% of Americans)? Who even defines what falls into each category?
While banning individuals based on mental health conditions is definitely an avenue for attack that the gun control groups are using, the more effective argument seems to be using mental health as an excuse to impose new loosely overseen gun laws. California’s new Gun Violence Restraining Order law is one shining example, where politicians have successfully used the argument that these orders could be used to stop “mentally unstable” people from owning guns. The problem is that the law is so broad as to be applicable to any gun owner. If anyone on the street sees someone buying some ammunition, they can get one of these restraining orders issued against that individual and send the friendly local SWAT team to raid their house and forcibly remove their firearms. That’s one of the most blatant infringements of a civil right that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.
The power behind the mental health argument is that any opposition is easy to portray as extremist. “The NRA wants crazy people to have guns! Mental patients with assault rifles!” The intelligent people know better, but for the uninformed masses it’s an easy message to get across. It’s for that reason that I see this avenue of attack as the most likely and the hardest to defend against.
Handguns, Smart and Otherwise
This weekend, the New York Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” aren’t a real problem. After decades of demanding that every politician ban “assault rifles” and shaming those who don’t, they themselves have admitted the futility of their position both in a logical sense and a political sense. In that same article they went on to describe how the real villain in terms of firearms is the lowly handgun, and seemed to be agitating for a ban on the evil devices.
The good news in terms of handguns is that there’s a Supreme Court case gumming up the works for the gun control extremists. The Super Seven have specifically ruled that handguns are protected under the Second Amendment, and cannot be banned. But while a full frontal assault is out of the question, a flanking maneuver is already underway.
California recently instituted a new law requiring all new handguns to have microstamping functions built into the gun. For a peek into how dumb that idea is, check this article out. Anyway, while it would seem to keep the doors wide open for new handguns (provided they meet the new specs), the reality is that gun companies don’t want to sink their R&D dollars into a concept that doesn’t actually work. The smarter and cheaper move is to simply ignore California, and therefore choke off all new handgun sales to the state.
There’s no doubt that the microstamping law will be coming under heavy scrutiny shortly, but it shows that there are ways around the Supreme Court to institute a ban even when the law seems to permit the sale of handguns. Another such law is in New Jersey, where the “smart gun” law is threatening to choke off sales of handguns in that state as well. For a look at that dumb idea, click here. The problem is that while “smart guns” seem like the silver bullet solution to “gun violence,” they aren’t even reliable enough for a trip to the range. Instead of improving firearms, smart guns intentionally break the gun and aren’t reliable enough to depend on when an emergency situation develops.
While the Supreme Court would seem to have our backs on handguns, the reality is that there’s some room on the edges for gun control extremist organizations to insert seemingly helpful laws that would in reality choke out all sales of handguns in the United States. Ignorance is their key tool in this fight, and the dumber they can keep the public in terms of how “smart guns” and microstamping actually works and how effective they are the better their chances of implementing those laws become.
The approach gun control groups use to advocate for their positions can be summed up in one word: ignorance. The less information the American public knows about how guns actually work and what the proposals gun control groups are making would actually do the better their chances. Gun control groups thrive on pithy one-liner quips and slogans that seem “common sense,” but when you break through the surface you see the real fear and loathing that gun control activists hold towards gun owners.
There are a couple avenues that gun control groups could take their campaigns in the coming years, but there is only one key to keeping them from winning. Education is the key, and the more the American people know about the truth about guns the better. Gun control activists want unthinking drones to follow their millionaire leaders, but all gun rights needs to do to win is show people the truth.
To celebrate, I think I’ll buy another gun! S&W 640 with Crimson Trace laser grips…(such a nice shooter)
My initial response was “yes” … same thing.
yep. reset the baseline, go for *everything*. What used to be Great Britain and Down-Under will be re-polished, re-worded, and amplified. Its the “civilized and cultureed” thing to do.
This is not the question you should be asking.
Here’s what’s next.
Ok, yay we stopped a significant amount of infringement to the Second Amendment. We are still on the defensive. We must take the offense at every opportunity. Our opportunity is now. What can we take back now? What do we plan to take back in the next X months while defending against more of the anti’s plans.
We simply stopped after our successes. Where is the leadership to restore and repeal the infringements? What are we doing now to ensure our success at the voting booths in 2 months? We need to keep moving forward. Cripple the anti’s cause. Put a face on it. Repeal as much as the NFA as possible? Let voters and the government know the ATF must be dissolved. What else? Make these talking points and ask how those running for office their position on the matter.
Who/what do we need to get going to keep the gains going?
That’s the strategy that Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) takes.
Go on the offensive no matter what.
Virginia has been able to reclaim a lot of lost ground over time.
Patience and persistence are key.
I like that there is some precedence for this.
I like the way you think, Sir. Some here in Illinois were content to bask in the glow of finally achieving a means to carry. I saw it as an opportunity to get rid of other archaic and stupid laws. Silencer ban, SBR ban, waiting periods. All useless laws that accomplish nothing except repressing my rights. Offense, offense offense. Overwhelm THEM with legislation. Put THEM back on there heels and on the defensive. That is the way to go.
It’s been working well in Virginia and many other states.
Victories aren’t quick, but with persistence there is a payoff.
They’ll just keep spinning the “Wheel of Misfortune.”
As Roseanne Roseannadanna said, “It just goes to show you, it’s always something—if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”
I would add referenda on background checks in a number of states. If successful, likely to be extended to other aspects of gun control.
Yes, this is the big one. Things they can’t get through legislation they will get through referenda and initiatives, because voters don’t spend a single second thinking about those. If it sounds good, they vote for it and move on.
They’ll lose even worse than they lose political elections. The low-info, disengaged types that they rely on won’t bother to vote on obscure referenda. And a straight-ticket “punch the “D” button” vote won’t cover it.
Plus a continued push to get judges that are not friendly to the RKBA placed on both state and Federal benches. That would be huge.
make no mistake, we are winning and have all the momentum. the next 2 elections are very critical we need either pro gun(read freedom) politicians or apathetic ones who will at least not pass any new anti gun laws. the bloomberg org is dead in the water. I mean lets be honest hear MDAs main goal is targeting private businesses not lobbying or politics. while we have groups like SAF and NRA WINNING court battles and restoring rights (Peutra and texas will soon have open carry again) The gun control orgs are media performers that have NO real power.
Think longer term. The antis have taken over our colleges and schools, which means even if your kids leave home properly taught about the benefits guns offer society, they’re just as likely to come home with an anti gun slant along with their undergrad degree.
Thus, their strategy isn’t short term bans or sending cops door to door to take arms. Its to sit back and let time and attrition do their work for them. As us gun owners age and die off, a generation raised to despise its own civil rights will vote to scrap their own ballistic birthright to the sound of collective applause.
I agree … gun grabbers are pushing really hard in academia.
They are also pushing hard in television and movies.
Finally, gun grabbers are pushing hard in the corporate world trying to convince large corporations to ban firearms. Think about it: why do we go out in public? We go out to patronize a business for whatever it is that we want which we do not have at home. If gun grabbers manage to ban firearms at most/all corporations, it becomes extremely inconvenient to go out armed in public.
Between academia and television/movies brainwashing our next generation plus many corporations banning firearms, I can imagine lots of people giving up.
I think the liberal socialist progressive Democrats infiltrated many of our institutions and influenced national political thought as a result of the natural draw of ‘liberals’ to academic, arts and scientific areas of learning institutions. This resulted in the predominantly ‘liberal’ character of our educational institutions as much as if not more than orchestrated strategic planning by liberal Democrats, not that they didn’t move to capitalize on the liberal movement in education.
Their liberal dogma spread from there. Gun control *piggybacked* along the way as an integral philosophical part of the overall liberal progressive nanny state control agenda, and now with liberal mind-think permeating much of the urbanized parts of our country from years of brainwashing propaganda being echoed throughout schools and colleges, we have a large mostly metropolitan and bedroom community population of low information sheeple who must be de-programed from the misinformation and non-information they have been fed for many years in order to have a realistic balanced perspective on many issues, including ‘guns’.
Sheeple – low information voters – mostly just need to be educated in reality and truth; a big hurdle to overcome when a major political party controls most of the educational institutions and near all the libby mainstream legacy media.
And yeah, I’ve been sensing a change in strategy toward focusing on hand guns, and backdooring gun confiscation through state confiscation for any excuse available, including health and welfare excuses.
This is largely true, but it’s not part of a plan about guns. Schools and media are largely in control of statists. If you favor state power over empowered individuals, being anti-gun is just one small part of your world view. Gun rights are one part of bigger picture and a general trend toward towards state power and away from individual autonomy.
To preserve gun rights, we have to think short-term, small picture and long-term, big picture. Long-term big picture is about much more than gun rights.
Self defense (i.e. gun) rights are a massive affront to statists because it is the ultimate expression of self-ownership.
I own my life, my body. I therefore have a right to defend it with all force necessary.
That is anathema to statists.
It’s not about guns, it’s about CONTROL.
Don’t be fooled though there are plenty of statists who are gun owners. They are the one’s who believe in but not limited to:
Favor background checks
Think CCW should be mandatory
Against rifle carry
Worship the police who to them can do no wrong
Hypocrites to other’s freedom protected under the 10th Amendment that people do but they don’t agree with (drugs, abortion, etc.)
Believe in import bans
State control in the name of “civil society” Bill of Rights be damned
Interference in others affairs (whether it be other freedom’s like the above mentioned or in the affairs of other countries)
I could go on……
Hypocrites to other freedom’s that people do but they don’t agree with (drugs, abortion, etc.)
I really couldn’t care less about what drugs someone decides to take. Darwin Awards come in many varieties. But abortion isn’t a “freedom”; it’s the murder of an innocent, unborn human being.
– push for laws requiring gun owners to carry insurance policies… Poll tax, infringement yes, but so are FOIDs, etc…
– the billionaires start buying up the major gun companies and ending or limiting retail sales
– push on the regulatory front… EPA, BATFE, NLRB, wherever they can get the camel’s nose in the tent
– demonize guns with kids early on, just like they did with cigarettes. Only the “bad” kids play with guns
I was with you until:
– demonize guns with kids early on, just like they did with cigarettes. Only the “bad” kids play with guns
Let’s face it, as long as bad guys are smoking and shooting guns in movies it’ll be “cool.”
This is true, but 20 years ago when I occasionally smoked cigarettes, my 6 year old niece saw me a my cousins smoking and ran in the house crying because “we were all going to die!”. Run enough active shooter drills in a school and the kids will be convinced that guns leap out of holsters and kill babies for sport.
True story; I was driving my nephew to school one morning and he started freaking out because I was drinking and driving… the drink was my morning coffee. I showed him that there is even a cup holder built into the car so I can set it down easily, and it was like I showed him buddha.
I respectfully disagree.
As long as the following types of things continues, children will grow up with a distorted view of the world and guns.
New Jersey threatens to take child who ‘twirled pencil like a gun’ away from father
On a related note, our schools are not helping children and young adults mature and grow, but rather keep them sheltered from the realities of life.
As one small but telling example, some school districts in central Virginia invoked snow-day school closings last winter because it was…wait for it…wait for it…
… too cold outside.
No snow, just cold.
I repeat NO SNOW, just TOO COLD.
demonize guns with kids early on, just like they did with cigarettes. Only the “bad” kids play with guns
A REAL PAIN IN THE BUTT! Smoking rate in NYC rising 16% to topple 1 million, despite heavy health blitz
Nice pic of “The Nanny” too.
Here’s what I still haven’t figured out: why hasn’t someone like Bloomberg gotten an FFL (or hired someone with an FFL) to open a storefront and sell a “smart” gun, thus invoking New Jersey’s poison pill?
The only thing I can think is that Bloomberg knows the judicial landscape, and realizes that the New Jersey law would go down in flames in the court, so he’s biding his time, in the hopes of flipping SCOTUS after 2016?
Why stop there? Bloomberg could single-handedly outright purchase and then dismantle pretty much every firearm and ammunition manufacturer in the U.S.
At that point the only source for firearms would be foreign manufacturers and an executive order could shut that down.
I really cannot explain why he has not done this … unless he really doesn’t care about eliminating firearms.
Except that would be pointless as you just open up the market to private competitors who won’t agree to a buyout. Now instead of dealing with one Colt, you’re dealing with hundreds of private manufacturers. The reality is that making firearms on an industrial scale is just not that difficult.
It’s true that commerce will fill the vacuum. Cottage industries would rise up in vacuum created should the majors get out of retail sales or only make single shot rifles. I don’t have to buy them out, I just have too make it too hard to do business… What if UPS and Fedex stopped handling firearms or ammo? There’s other ways to influence the logistics chain.
Don’t give any ideas Chip 🙂
Bloomy’s net worth pales in comparison to the amount of money the gun industry rakes in annually. Small boutique makers may cave, but the big boys make way too much off the 2A to piss it away for a one time payout.
Yeah the smart gun law does more for them in theory than it does actually in practice. As long asit hasnt been enacted they can use it to beat “gun extremists” over the head with it. It is a convenient strawman that they can whip out any time they want to try and lobby for public opinion that gun owners are a bunch of uneducated Luddites.
If the law ever goes in to practice people will realize it is worthless and does nothing, the last thing they want is the law to go into effect. What they want is exactly what we have given them. Every time a gun shop owner looks to sell the thing they get death threats, temper tantrums, and general weeping and gnashing of teeth from none other than gun owners themselves. Own goal… us.
Is that Creed Bratton from the Office standing next to bloomy?
I dunno which one you mean, but the one on Bloomie’s right looks like “The Jackal” to me…
It’s Ray Kelly, NYPD commissioner.
Barring some hyper-fascist turn I feel like prohibition in all its forms is losing the long game.
Given the high amount of craziness I see daily, the mental health restrictions would most likely have the quickest return on lobbying effort. Who can be against preventing crazy people having guns? Then when over 50% of the people realize they can’t have guns (because technically they’re crazy), they will resent the minority that can have guns. Rather than repeal the ‘crazy gun law’, they’ll figure out ways to expand it. After all, if you want to have a killing machine, you must be crazy too….
Great muzzle discipline!
Can we vote on a short drop and a sudden stop as the “next step” for those clowns?
The worst dimension of the mental health aspect is the outright complicity of the families and immediate professionals who went above and beyond to hide the truth about the most bloodthirsty recent maniacs. It isn’t a question of some poor soul suffering in long neglected silence who one day snaps. The kid at VA Tech, the maniacs in Conn and LA respectively were all well established as having serious problems to any and virtually all laymen. Yet in spite of that they were insistently treated as though utterly normal, evidently the imagined stigma being worse than actual treatment or in the most severe cases institutionalization.
They will use the EPA and OSHA to go after public and private ranges.
@Nick Leghorn, Thanks for posting this. A well written and thought out piece.
I’d add one more attack vector to the list: Focus on the future generation. As more and more children are being taught in school that guns are ‘bad’, they will grow up to have similar feelings. It will take several generations, but if you can continue to make guns ‘uncool’ to kids, eventually those kids will become politicians who will make laws…
Yeah, when kids get the message that a Pop Tart chewed into the shape of Idaho (er, a gun) is BAD, BAD, BAD…what must they think about the real Idaho (er, gun)?
You missed one big one – Ammo Control
They tried that one when I was in the sixth grade (it was in an article the “My Weekly Reader” paper they handed in school–the “indoctrination” part isn’t new either.)
“The Super Seven have specifically ruled that handguns are protected under the Second Amendment, and cannot be banned.”
Ummm . . . . . did something change or is it me? There are NINE JUSTICES on SCOTUS.
Yeah, but two voted “no” on Heller I think.
Heller was 5-4
Aha, I was thinking 7-2 for some reason.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor??
Forget it, he’s rolling,,,
Ah, Animal House. The source for what surely must be one of the most popular quotes in gun-control circles:
“I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part.”
Glad to see ol’ doom and bloom outlawing that vicious 15-22.
Lord knows that the 15-22 is a truly fearsome weapon sporting a high capacity bullet clip, collapsable pistol grip, fully autosemimatic hollow points, a bayonet jug and no less than TWO shoulder thingies that go up. A win for the children of the world.
One more thing, the front sight has been put on backwards.
If they are going back to handguns then they really are running in circles. Recall the Brady bunch was originally “Handgun Control Inc.” and the mainstay argument was that long guns are OK (think Fudds) but those concealable (!) handguns are eeevillll. As for “the children”, that has long been the trademark justification for every lame-brained liberal idea to come down the pike. Heck, incinerating all those kids in Waco was done “to get those children out of there.” I think they may have jumped the shark on that one.
The image for this post might serve well as a caption contest.
So…what should we pitiful Californians do to show the unthinking drones the truth?
Dynamite the fault lines and start over at the Sierra Nevadas… 😉
Join the NRA, at least for the yearly pricing. It is your way of telling the feds and the states that “you care” about gun control. Buy more guns, as many as you can afford. Tell your senators that you will vote them out of office as best you can with YOUR vote if they stand behind gun control.
VOTE in NOVEMBER ! vote Harry Reid out and gain control of the Senate.
The next target will be ammunition. They will propose either a tax, background check, regulation….something to make it hard to obtain at a reasonable price.
Relabel ammunition as an explosive precursor and regulate the heck out of under the Department of Homeland Security.
Good article, Nick. It’s interesting, but not surprising, that you’re way ahead of the print media on this. Dick Metcalf should have seen this coming, but sadly didn’t, and lost his career because of it. I began watching the gun-control movement in earnest about a decade or so ago. What I noticed then, gun-controllers were making a big push at the time, was how counterproductive their best efforts were. Then, as now, if the NRA and People Of The Gun wanted to create a unbeatable strategy for recruiting new members they/we could have done no better than to go out and hire the gun-control movement. Every time the gun-controllers become active the NRA membership starts expanding and gun-stores and ranges start filling up with new customers.
Social movements live or die on their ability to shape public opinion by claiming moral imperatives which they then attempt to impose on the rest of society. Despite its best efforts, however, the gun control movement is doing more harm to itself than good in this. In its hubris, its leadership consistently fails to realize that People Of The Gun are fully capable of joining—and defeating—its best arguments.
+1. Very good article, and spot on. The top down Progtards haven’t given up, they have just gone “under the radar” abusing the non-profit org reporting rules, and have the advantage now, in Executive branch abuse of those entrusted with enforcement of those rules (think IRS integrity and “independent investigation” by DOJ, as examples of new oxymorons that are the legacy of Progtard Democrats generation…).
So, We The People, have to continue to evolve, too. And Nicks SA and Threat Assessment model is highly useful, in a strategic sense, to go with the tactical tools, that work, grass roots up. We can copy what has worked, in the culture war, and go one step beyond. Google is your friend. As are FOIAs, run by similar justice for the republic type orgs.
And there is a ton of “interesting” stuff the Journolistas wont touch, in the blindness, or worse, fear they wont be invited to the year end WH Correspondents Dinner, or get the obligatory faux Pulitzer, which is even more ridiculous than the Nobel for POTUS Being A Progtard, example.
So get to work, all you young passionate inquiring minds of the POTG, Gen 2.
Here is a useful reminder….follow the money. Why do we keep seeing Picatinny Arsenal tech folks showing up in Progtard seminars and Sockpuppet campaigns for “Smart Guns”? Hmmm. Can you say, Executive Action?
DOE – Solyndra? EPA – Carbon tax credits brokering? EPA- water rights?
Lots of rich guys in CA and WA with their eyes on the big bux….
You want a role model? Sharyl Atkinnson.
The push right now seems to be getting as many businesses as possible to ban guns–thus making it too inconvenient and/or annoying to carry a firearm. If you can’t take it anywhere, why have it at all?
Scare people away from guns with the “c” word.
Start with California slapping their cancer warning on all gun-related products and accessories:
“This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.”
Fear and momentum will take it the rest of the way.
And they will also step up the lawsuits: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/lawsuit-targets-ammo-retailers-that-allegedly-sold/
Keep your eye on the ball, people. MDA is fighting a Culture War, not a legal or legislative war. Their purpose is to marginalize us.
We have won some courtroom and legislative battles and we will continue to do so. But the Culture War is the one we have to win or all the courtrooms in America won’t mean squat.
Yep. Look out for Washington, the enemy is going to get universal registration passed via referendum. People like to vote yes so they feel they’ve changed something. Their likely success will spread to other blue states.
Politics follows the culture, it doesn’t lead it.
MDA’s tactics with private businesses is all about staking out turf in a culture war.
This. As the immortal Breitbart said, you have to win the culture war, before you can win the political war. The Progtards took 40 years from the 60s, via Bill Ayers, et al, to get here to POTUS as the great gasping last failed example of how Socialism/Progressivism v2.0 just doesnt work….
But they arent going down withiut doubling down, just as Mussolini, Hitler, Ceausesco, Saddam Hussein, and other Fascists didnt go down without a fight and hiding in a hole in the ground in their denial…
The good news is the innertubz is in our favor, and the time to productcycle is much advanced. And we have numerous role models to learn from, Breitbart staff, PJ Media, The Blaze, and simply, the facts on our side.
So, we have to Press On, and Do The Work…
Actually the Progressives have been at it for over 100 years.
We’ve got a lot of catching up to do.
Yep. History repeats.
Didnt work for V.I. Lenin, in the long run, to Perestroika/Glasnost/Fall of the Berlin Wall,
but then he didnt have nearly as many Useful Idiots, as Moms Demanding Fascism Action,
nor do we have a Reagan, waiting in the wings…
So we will just have to Press On, and Do the Work. An Army of Davids, if you like, including TTAG,
Nope, the next step is UBC, Universal Background Checks — that will be the push.
+1. Concur. That appears to be The Talking Point memo, if you read both what the StateRunMedia and the various Vox/Journolistas v2.0 are saying, concurrently.
Watch for the tactical instructons…”Oh, the AWB didnt work….” floated and repeated on command….
for hints of whats next. MDA and lesser nitwis will be used for FUD and dizinformatzia, to capitalize on news opportunities, like the machinegun nitwit, but keep your eye on the ball…top down Executive Action before the Dems lose the Senate,ie no credible threat of impeachment.
And more…we shall see. Holder can count on a Marc Rich pardon at he end, and he is quite proud of his Activist AG Legacy…so, theres no telling how low he will go, sorry to say, if the post Zimerman, now Ferguson distraction to Get Out The Oppressed Vote campaign is underway….
I agree that UBCs are more likely to be the next battlefield. Moreover, UBCs are apt to sound appealing as “common sense”. We have to be prepared for this debate; and, we will be either:
– ill-prepared; or,
I do not consider a brusque assertion of “No!” as being well-prepared for this debate. That is not going to persuade any low-information voter. In fact, it’s not going to persuade any voter who is not already committed to the RKBA. We need to win these voters and their senators/representatives.
The first point to be made here is that it is more-or-less futile to deprive criminals access to guns. They will steal them, buy on the black-market, or make them. Enforcing felon-in-posession is the only realistic control. Any BC scheme is nothing more than a noble gesture about as effective as carding youthful buyers of alcohol or tobacco. We DO pass laws that are mere noble gestures; but, when we do so, let’s recognize what we are doing and admit that it is nothing more than that: a gesture.
The second point is that fielding a NICS inquiry (i.e., assuming the database would be maintained irrespective of any BC law) is not free. It’s probably not terribly expensive, but not free. If the taxpayers want to provide this service (fielding inquiries) then the taxpayers should recognize that doing so is at the expense of providing other law-enforcement services (cops on the street). Gun-buyers won’t pay for the “service” of this infringement on their Constitutional rights. We willingly submit to excise taxes on guns and ammunition because it is ear-marked for conservation of game, an environmental objective we support for ecology. (Would the environmentalists consent to changing this ear-mark of excise taxes to support BCs?)
Servicing BCs on private transfers would be an additional expense; we won’t pay for it. If the taxpayers have any doubts about the cost of servicing FFL inquiries they ought to be concerned about the cost of servicing private inquiries.
Gun owners/users will NOT willingly accept peril of criminal prosecution for failing to jump through bureaucratic hoops in entirely benign transfers; e.g., husband to wife, father to son, neighbor to neighbor. Particularly, not for temporary loans of guns. Loans of guns must be absolutely exempt from the BC requirement. We must make the public understand that we will fight vigorously any UBC affecting a loan.
A showing of a CCP/FOID would have to be sufficient to satisfy any UBC just as it is sufficient under federal law for FFLs (affecting about 20 states.)
Assuming the foregoing, there would remain only occasional private permanent transfers for a sale/raffle/gift/inheritance; i.e., those cases where the transferee didn’t have a CWP/FOID. Precisely what mechanism do proponents have for doing a BC on these private transfers? How will proponents shift the cost of this mechanism to the taxpayers? FFLs won’t do it for free; will the government reimburse the FFLs for running the checks? Will sheriffs/police-departments run the checks for free? Prescinding from the cost of providing the service, how will UBCs affect residents of rural areas who might have to travel 10 – 100 miles to the nearest FFL/sheriff/police-station? Will the federal government pay milage to/from the BC venue for both buyer and seller?
Once we have dug this far it ought to become apparent that the gun-controllers really are interested in getting a 4473 form for every transfer. That is out-of-the-question. It would create a de facto national registry of guns which is already prohibited by law. Under no circumstances will gun owners allow UBCs serve as a Trojan horse for a national record keeping system covering virtually all gun transfers. It was an expensive and colossal failure in Canada which even the Canadian government abandoned.
Having staked-out the metes-and-bounds of the debate, as above, what is left to discuss? If we will not consent to a de facto national record keeping system nor will we submit to becoming felons when we skip the paperwork on a loan or gift to a relative, what do the proponents of UBCs think they can get? At what cost? To whom?
Every one of us needs to be prepared to have a discussion along the foregoing lines with friends and neighbors. Voters, their senators and congressmen need to understand that extending BCs from FFLs to private transactions is fraught with serious impediments and implications – and, all to no avail. If UBCs actually succeeded in choking-off the supply of guns to criminals they would simply make their own (if necessary). The Sten gun is an easy model for the low-skilled craftsman to begin with. Unintended consequences indeed!
Gun control’s next target is their only target, which is our right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Hunker down and get ready. The next mass killer that employs a gun instead of something else like a bomb, a vehicle, or a flammable liquid in a confined area, will be the next opportunity the anti-gun people will try to hitch their wagon to. Theirs is a game of trying to catch the wave of emotional public reaction after a tragedy, at just the right moment to ride it to shore. The sober mind can’t agree with their arguments, and they know that and will simply lay in wait until the next time minds are less than sober.
We have several ways of trying to protect against this that require ceaseless participation. We have to support the industry to make sure it remains strong and influential. We have to support the rights organizations, even the ones we think are too strict or too soft. We have to educate the public. We have to give people their first time at the range and make it a positive experience for them. We need to participate and promote the shooting sports. We need to be supporters of individual rights, and all civil rights. We need to “regulate” ourselves through teaching and practicing and promoting gun safety, tactics, and technique.
A root cause of the problem is staring out from the mirror.
I was in a gun store a few days ago and another customer was asking a salesperson what kind of ID he’d need to buy an AR-style rifle.
Salesperson told customer that he’d need to have proof of citizenship (in addition to the picture ID) and suggested getting his birth certificate.
I chimed in and asked if he had his voter ID card since he could use that as citizenship proof.
The customer’s response was, “I’m registered, but I don’t vote.”
Insert facepalm here.
If all gun owners just VOTED and invited a newbie to the range, we could turn this country around in a heartbeat (at least on the 2nd Amendment front).
+1000. This and ever this. Walk your neighborhood, work the phones, get iut the vote, even if its an uphill battle as those voters are then engaged for next time, when the sea change is more obvious…..and even if its lunch money, once a month….give money to winnable candidates, or the effective lobby in other states if yours is hopeless, and whatever you do, dont “sit out the election” becuz some candidate isnt perfect.
The number of Republican voters who stayed home in 2012 over 2008 was the margin of victory, in spite of the obvious voter fraud in Dem districts, GoogleGeeks hacking, and IRS Tea Party Targeting Voter Suppression.
If you doubt the Dem/Progards will go down without a dirty, dirty fight, you simply haven’t been paying attention.
All hands on Deck!
Nicely written article and fantastic comments. I can’t add much that hasn’t already been said but there is one thing…
I think with this momentum we have, we really need to keep going and push hard as mentioned about changing NFA laws, national carry, etc. Something that I don’t hear talked about but should be is that we need to keep growing the gun popularity trend. This is the kryptonite to the indoctrination of our youth in schools. We need the most popular gun right now, the AR15, to keep growing in popularity. The cooler that gun gets, the more it counters the “guns are bad” attitudes taught to our youth and the more they want them when they get old enough to own them.
I think the market flooding of AR manufacturers and aftermarket parts companies is helping this along. Jesse James is now making custom ARs. I wouldn’t want one but if he is making them, they just went up in pop culture cool factor and that’s what we need. We need guns to keep getting cooler. More gadgets, colors, shapes, brands, advertising, competitions, etc., to appeal to new people. The more mainstream they are and the harder the antis try to demonize them, the more people will want them especially the youth.
Concur. Education, Information, starting with kids, is key.
Many tools in the tool box. Pick one you like and chip away at the Progtard Fortress of PC.
Its made of BS, and more fragile than they would like you to believe…
The truth is just underneath….cant stop the signal, Mal.
What’s next? They keep beating our brains in on the northeast/midatlantic/west coast, that’s what.
On a federal level, our success holding back their agenda this time around was nothing short of a miracle.
But we can’t forget that many, many citizens in many states have had their rights severely curtailed with new, more restrictive laws.
So, what’s next? More of the same. Gun control is a darling of the progressive, and a solid progressive resume is what’s needed to succeed, at least nationally, in today’s Democratic Party. So, we can assume new, even stricter laws in those states where they can get away with it.
Take NJ for example. Once able to rightly claim the strictest laws in the nation, NJ has been “outdone” by NY and Conn. Only Christie’s vetoes (thank you, Governor!) saved us. But he’ll be gone soon, one way or another, and is almost certain to be replaced be a very left leaning democrat.
Given someone like that in the executive seat, and a perpetual democratic legislature, would it be wrong not to assume the coming of 5-round magazine limits, long gun registration, bans on magazine fed semi-auto rifles, mandatory training, and mandatory psych screenings?
And we keep beating them in the heartland, in the increasing support for 2A in the polls of what used to be called The Silent Majority. It will take work to unwind Political Tyrrany, starting with recalls, as in CO, or winning vulnerable Senare seats this November, or wiining at the law, Heller, MacDonald, Peruta, Palmer…unthinkable by some even in the NRA a few years back.
You wanna run with the big dogs ya gotta get down off the porch…
“While banning individuals based on mental health conditions is definitely an avenue for attack that the gun control groups are using, the more effective argument seems to be using mental health as an excuse to impose new loosely overseen gun laws. California’s new Gun Violence Restraining Order law is one shining example, where politicians have successfully used the argument that these orders could be used to stop “mentally unstable” people from owning guns. The problem is that the law is so broad as to be applicable to any gun owner. If anyone on the street sees someone buying some ammunition, they can get one of these restraining orders issued against that individual and send the friendly local SWAT team to raid their house and forcibly remove their firearms. That’s one of the most blatant infringements of a civil right that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.”
It would be a blatant civil rights violation if your description were true, but as I’ve said before, it id NOT. The restraining orders can be applied for ONLY by close family relatives and the police, and must be supported by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger to himself or others, which, by the way, is a more stringent standard of proof than that required for the police (or a physician) to take someone into custody under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 (probable cause).
“California recently instituted a new law requiring all new handguns to have microstamping functions built into the gun.”
Again, not true. Although it detracts only slightly from the obnoxiousness of the law, the microstamping rule apples only to semiautomatic pistols, not revolvers. And it is not a new law–it was passed in 2007–but it only recently took effect when the Attorney General declared that microstamping technology was generally available.
“The restraining orders can be applied for ONLY by close family relatives and the police…”
It depends on your definition of “close.” Here is the Calif statute referenced by AB 1014:
422.4 (b) (3) “Immediate family” means any spouse, whether by marriage or
not, domestic partner, parent, child, any person related by
consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other
person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the
prior six months, regularly resided in the household.
That’s a fairly large group — all the way to the spouses of your cousins or grandchildren. Or anyone who lived in the same house in the past six months.
“…and must be supported by a showing of clear and convincing evidence that the individual is a danger to himself or others, which, by the way, is a more stringent standard of proof than that required for the police (or a physician) to take someone into custody under Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 (probable cause).”
Also, although AB 1014 does use the phrase “clear and convincing evidence” repeatedly, the bill explicitly lists recent (within past 6 months) acquisition of a firearm or deadly weapon as “evidence of an increased risk for violence.” Further, it does not require that any other factors be present. Read:
18155 (b) (2) In determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court may consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including, but not limited to, evidence of any of the following:
(A) The unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm by the subject of the petition.
(B) The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the subject of the petition against another person.
(C) Any prior arrest of the subject of the petition for a felony offense.
(D) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition of an emergency protective order issued pursuant to Section 646.91 or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6240) of Division 10 of the Family Code.
(E) Any history of a violation by the subject of the petition of a protective order issued pursuant to Part 4 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 10 of the Family Code, Section 136.2, Section 527.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Section 213.5 or 15657.03 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(F) Documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports and records of convictions, of either recent criminal offenses by the subject of the petition that involve controlled substances or alcohol or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol by the subject of the petition.
(G) Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons.
(3) For the purposes of this subdivision, “recent” means within the six months prior to the date the petition was filed.
Also note that “increased risk of violence” is also demonstrated under AB 1014 by any past felony arrest, no matter when, no matter whether for a violent offense, and no matter whether charges were filed or a conviction was obtained.
You answered my questions.
The next big push will be to pass a universal background check law. Although the federal government cannot register firearms, there is no law saying it cannot “register” firearm owners (as is done in some states through the requirement of obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm, as in NY, NJ, Md., Ma.,and Illinois.) Other states have firearm registration (e.g. California*), and that will be the next step after universal owner registration.
*In fact, there is a bill now on the Governors desk that will require retroactive registration of all home-built and otherwise unserialized firearms, including long guns made after 1968 and handguns that do not qualify as a “curio or relic.”
The gun industry could choke off California and New Jersey government agencies by cutting off sales. Government sales in these states probably represent less than 2% of their revenues. Gun and ammo manufacturers, show some real support for the Second Amendment and cut these leftist states off. The states have no legal recourse so they will be left with two choices, eventually not be able to keep their guns in working order and not have enough ammo to qualify, train or to use in the field, or they repeal their draconian laws.
Next? Full confiscation and mass arrests or gun owners.
Source: I live in NY.
In the short term, (next two years or so) bulk and internet ammo sales.
Does anyone know what guns are out in the wild today (or soon) with the CA required micro-stamping? I’d love to see some detailed reviews.