Tag Archives: gun control

mindset, resistance

My Line In The Sand

13 Comments

Guest Commentary
Exclusive to The Zelman Partisans
by PigPen51

The battle for our guns continues to grow, with no end in sight.
Although polls indicate most Americans support private gun ownership, there will always be an element that wants to usurp our right to keep and bear arms. That element is becoming more desperate and is showing its true nature: they’re not for “gun safety” or against handguns or “assault weapons” any more; they’re openly against us and our firearms, period.

I’m sure regular TZP readers have already thought, and perhaps made decisions, about how to handle any attempts to disarm you. I’ve made my own decision, as well. For me it was not easy. I want to share my decision-making process with you, partly to help you understand the thinking of someone who is not perhaps as strong-minded as you are.

First, I have to share where I come from. I’ve been around guns all my
life, growing up in rural Michigan, where small-game hunting and deer
hunting was just a fact of life. So rifles and shotguns held no mystery
for any of my brothers or me. We neither feared them nor treasured them. They were simply tools, like any others. In this respect, I guess I grew up like a good many of you.

The one thing I didn’t grow up around was handguns. We simply had no use for them.

I’ve always been a freedom supporter. I’m a follower of the
constitution, not liking it when the government takes away my rights. I was particularly appalled when the so-called Patriot Act passed. Then the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back was when Barack Obama was elected president. It was then I first joined the NRA. I saw the real threat to my gun rights and this was a tangible way that I could express it.

When Michigan passed shall-issue concealed carry, I began saving money for the mandatory class and the fee, and soon became a CCW holder.

That, to make a long story short, brings us to my proverbial line in the
sand: what do I intend to do if the knock comes on my door and the
authorities ask me to turn in all my guns?

I know some of you would say, “I’ll just start a firefight the likes of
which the nation hasn’t seen since the Tet offensive. The police, or the
National Guard, would lie in the streets until the cows came home.” From my cold dead hands, or something like that.

I understand that. It sounds very Rambo-like and brave, until you factor in things like what if the knock on the door comes when your family is sitting down to breakfast on Sunday morning, with your daughter and son in their pj’s? Or if your brother-in-law is on the sheriff’s department and your niece is in the National Guard?

For me, these are the kind of things that make it real. They are the
issues that kept me up at night while I pondered where I would draw that line in the sand. Because, once I drew it, I wanted it to stay drawn
deep and unmoving. So I had to decide what sacrifices I was willing to
make, and honestly, which ones I knew I just could never make.

I knew in my heart I could never willingly sacrifice my family’s lives.
Call me weak, if you wish, but that’s simply who I am. That option was
completely off the table. If the call for disarming happened, my family
and their well being would have to be taken into account. Therefore, any “last stand” heroics would not happen near them.

I’m not saying I would surrender any guns, just that my family couldn’t be around if I expected a confrontation. But how do I avoid that situation?

I think the best way is to try and prevent confrontation in the first
place. That calls for planning. So part of my ultimate line in the sand
is proper preparation.

For instance, I don’t think it’s wise to keep all firearms in the same
location. Best to keep them well-secured and hidden in multiple places. But that’s easier for a well-off person than for someone poor like me.

A wealthy person who had a hunting lodge with his rifles locked in in a safe, could easily keep his other guns at home in his basement (with
ammo stored at each location, of course). That also gives this happy
guy the convenience of not carrying his guns each time he travels. But
even less rich gun owners have options for storing guns in different
locations (for example, keeping a few firearms at home and hiding others securely underground in the woods).

On the other hand, knowing guns could be confiscated at any time, some people might think it would be prudent to get rid of them, one way or another. After all, you would hate to get into any trouble with the authorities over some steel and wood, right?

Another part of preparation might involve sending family members away to stay with a trusted relative who would not allow guns anywhere near them in any shape or form. But this assumes knowing when the confiscation squads will arrive, and we’re unlikely to know that until and unless times have gotten truly desperate.

This all boils down to my line in the sand: I will not keep all my guns
at my home. I will not get into a gunfight with the authorities in the
presence of my family, period. But if pushed, when alone, I will defend
myself or join with other patriots to defend liberty. Given enough time, it may become necessary to “lose” most or all of my guns. I could always attempt to find them later. Finally, given enough time, and only in very extreme circumstances, my family may have to stay with someone close to me who is not known to own firearms.

There you have it. My particular plan might seem like a coward’s way to a great many of you. It might seem unrealistic to some of you,
particularly if you believe that there will never be a confiscation
order or squads going door-to-door, looking for guns. It may even seem unpatriotic. But to me, given my nature and circumstances, this is what I’m willing to do and not willing to do. Call it what you might; you can’t call it wrong.

What are your thoughts about potential firearm confiscation? And
what planning have you done to avoid being caught unprepared if it happens?

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would lik>e to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun grabbers

Brady Center Files Lies Over 3D Printed Guns

1 Comment

Or, as the truth-challenged victim disarmers put it:

Brady Center Files Amicus Brief Over 3D Printed Guns
The government’s attempt to keep 3D printed guns out of the hands of terrorists got a boost Thursday with an amicus brief filed in support in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

That purports to be a Courthouse News article, but it appears from the text (including a “mission statement” for the BCPGV at the bottom) to be a press release. Let’s look it over.

  • “The U.S. Department of State ordered Texas-bases Defense Distributed to remove from the Internet what was essentially a do-it-yourself kit for making untraceable and undetectable guns.”
    Nope. It was electronic data files. No tools, no materials. 
  • “The kit included blueprints for 3D printed guns that could easily be carried through security checkpoints and used to wreck havoc.”
    I might allow that one if by “security” they mean the TSA. But to date, there are no really concealable 3D printed firearms (unless you count those AR lowers, which require a great many other parts to function). Most are large, bulky. They require metallic firing pins and barrels, and often metallic springs. Current US law alrready requires a minimum amount of detectable metal, and the DD plans incorporate that.
  • “What happens when these new, untraceable and undetectable guns wind up in the wrong hands, or easily slip through metal detectors at airports?”
    If they slip through metal detectors, it isn’t the fault of the metal-bearing gun, but of the sloppy security workers.
  • “Brady’s brief argues the Second Amendment does not give the right to make and publish plans for 3D printed guns”
    Technically true. For one, the 2A doesn’t give any rights, but protects a preexisting right. For another, it’s the First Amendment that protects the speech expressed in those data files.
  • “This case shows just how far the corporate gun lobby will go – fighting for a supposed right to export blueprints”
    Now that’s funny. Here’s a group working on the development of 3D printing technology that would allow individuals to make their firearms without having to get them from gun corporations. Eventually.
  • “undetectable plastic gun”
    Except for all those metallic parts required for function and by law.
  • “[T]he United States has the right to regulate the export of firearms, and that Defense Distributed’s attempt to give detailed plan to print guns to anyone with an internet connection amounts to international firearms exportation.”
    Yeah. Well, we saw how well that worked for encryption in the Crypto Wars. Now, if they’re claiming that these bulky, short-lived firearms are specifically designed for and used by the military, I wish they’d point to the units deploying with Shuttys and DD semiauto lowers.
  • “The mission of the Brady Center is to drastically cut the number of annual deaths from gun violence.”
    Then they should get out of the rights-violation business and get trained as mental health counselors, since two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this amicus brief is more of a fund-raising appeal to cover the expenses incurred for wrongfully suing Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, Elsewhere

Democracy is dead. Long live the dictator.

8 Comments

Not.

More and more, I believe that a lot of universities should close their doors forever, their buildings be razed, and salt sown in the earth. It might be a good idea to go over the ruins with a flame-thrower, just to sure.

From Oxford University Press:

Bang, bang — democracy’s dead: Obama and the politics of gun control
When it comes to gun control and American politics then maybe – just maybe – could there be a case for a benevolent dictator who understands that the ballot and bullets, just like guns and safety, just don’t mix?

No. There isn’t.

I carry a gun for safety, as do at least 14,134,740 other Americans (that doesn’t count those who lawfully carry without a license). It seems to work since the American violent crime rates are at their lowest in decades, unlike the UK, where you have to fudge your allegedly low crime rates by failing to report 20% of the crimes, and by not even counting a murder until after an investigation, arrest, trial, and conviction; under the UK system, if a killer is never caught, they never add the death to their statistics. Given that their cops had to cede entire ‘no-go zones’ to the criminals, it seems justifiable to think the real crimes are astonomical.

And I might add that America is not a straight democracy. This is a representative constitutional republic. That means that unless you gin up the votes to amend the Constitution, there are some things you cannot do even if a ‘majority’ supposedly want it. As a British subject, who “was once, for a very short time, a member of the British Army but had to leave because he did not like guns or loud bangs,” I wouldn’t expect Flanders Flinders to grasp that subtle difference. As a “Professor of Politics,” writing on American politics, he certainly should.

What doesn’t mix is a ‘benevolent’ dictator and guns in the hands of the people. We set it up that way deliberately.

Given that Flinders wants to impose another dictator on America, I think we should hang on to our guns. We certainly should not send them to quivering cowards frightened of loud noises the next time their victim disarmament policies get the best of them.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, You can't fix stupid

Unintended Consequences

2 Comments

The title has been used, but victim disarming wanna-be tyrants seem deadset on providing an endless stream of appropriate legislation. One of the most recent is this:

The alarming phenomena of homemade firearms and their ease of access without any scrutiny, has led me to introduce two pieces of legislation in the House – the Homemade Firearms Accountability Act and Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act. These two bills would mandate anyone who intends on legally manufacturing their own firearm to obtain a registered serial number to be affixed on the firearm and would block the sale of any form of do-it-yourself firearms parts or kits – especially those currently being sold over the internet. It is my hope to draw attention to the too often overlooked issue of homemade firearms and include these firearms in the national discussion on gun control. For once we may be able to have a proactive approach in protecting the American people from an emerging threat rather than retroactively lashing out after great damage and loss has already been done.
 – Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.)

Starting with HR 376: Home-Assembled Firearms Restriction Act, the PRK’s ill-informed, ethically-challenged congresscreep wants to ban gun kits for home use. But kit being tough to define when one is that box-of-rocks dumb, he bans basically anything that could possibly be used to contruct a semiautomatic firearm.

Like… steel pipe, sheet metal, blocks of metal, nails, springs, rivets, iron oxide and aluminum,and even plastic bags.

Looks like Home Depot is going out of business. And I guess we will see the return of paper grocery bags. Finally. (Luckily, Honda only obsessed over semiautos, or paper would be gone, too, as I’ve seen single use paper shotguns which were confiscated from prison inmates.)

As an aside, 376 also prohibits marketing or advertising castings and blanks. Gotcha covered, dimwit. (Amazon has pulled that listing, but expect more elsewhere.)

Next up is Honda’s HR 377: Homemade Firearms Accountability Act, stripped to basics, requires all ‘homemade’ firearms be registered and serial numbered. It’s a repeat of ‘Ghost Gun’ Honda’s HR 5606 from the last session.

On the one hand, it assumes that gangbangers and thugs, who have been assembling gadgets like these…

… for pretty much since the dawn of firearms, will suddenly exclaim, “Oh, darn! I need to run down to my local FFL and register my crude zip gun.” C.R.I.M.I.N.A.L.

On the other hand – and here’s where consequences raise their little heads – up to now, a home-built firearm, like an AR built from an 80% lower blank, could not be sold. No record, no serial number, no sale. Under GG’s bill, your handicraft project can be sold down the line, if you need the cash to build a better gun. You can’t go into the manufacturing business, sans FFL, but this moves your little science project into the ‘occasional personal sale from collection category. If anything, this will get more 3D printed and CNC milled goodies out into the wild.

On the amusing side, Honda is mandating the individual FFLs issue their own ‘unique’ serial numbers,without specifying a format that identifies a serial number set by FFL. Assuming this managed to get passed, some 50,000 FFLs could all uniquely (in their shop, anyway) SN 1, SN 2… SN 51998.

You could see a lot of homebrewed ARs with the identical serial number 666.

Perhaps Honda should have thought of opening up the ATF’smanufacturers’ registry to personal builders, so those numbers would be unique.

Not satisfied with banning virtually all metallic and plastic materials in the world, our deeply paranoid compulsive bill sponsor wants to ban body armor. HR 378: Responsible Body Armor Possession Act bans ‘enhanced body armor.’

WTF is ‘enhanced body armor,’ you ask? It is any “body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor”. Plain English: anything rated for rifle rounds. Since the vast majority of freelance criminals don’t bother with rifles (less than 2.5% of all firearm deaths, 2013 last year available), who is it that he wants to be sure can kill you?

Consequence of this one? A whole lot more citizen research into homemade ballistic plates. No doubt, the quivering mass of fear will sponsor yet another bill to ban that. (I should send him an email claiming that someone is 3D-printing armor.)

Honda is bound and determined to render you helpless, depriving you of active and passive defense. The real unintended consequence of these bills is that more and more people understand precisely that.

Added: Lest you think that the idea of common items getting caught up by Honda’s vague language, take a look across the pond in the UK.

Breaking: Policing and Crime Bill will criminalise possession of common tools
(a) the person has in his or her possession or under his or her control an article that is capable of being used (whether by itself or with other articles) to convert an imitation firearm into a firearm, and
(b) the person intends to use the article (whether by itself or with other articles) to convert an imitation firearm into a firearm.

Dremel, drill press, file…

Anyone believe the gun grabbers in DC are any smarter?

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, guns, hoplophobia

Maryland’s Scary Black Gun Law: Back to the Drawing Board

6 Comments

scary black gunsRemember when former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who during a Democratic debate (his pathetic campaign has thankfully and quietly faded into the annals of historical obscurity) got into a screeching argument with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton about who among them is the biggest enemy of American gun owners?

Remember how O’Malley and his gun-grabbing monkeys in the Maryland legislature rammed though the “Firearms Safety Act” assault weapons ban, which had nothing to do with actual safety?

That’s the one upheld by an activist judge last year, because she soiled her frilly, pink panties at the thought of scary, black guns being legal in the state, even though they were almost never used to commit crimes.

That judge has been issued a slap on the judicial nuggets by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Maryland’s assault weapons ban implicates its citizens’ core Second Amendment rights and must be reviewed under a more rigorous judicial standard than the one used by a judge who upheld the law’s constitutionality, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

[…]

The appeals court said Maryland’s law affects the constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense and home protection by banning virtually an entire class of weapons commonly owned by law-abiding citizens. In 2012, the number of semi-automatic rifles manufactured and imported into the United States – and banned by the Maryland law – was more than double the number of Ford F-150 trucks sold, the appeals court said.

I want to stress that the court didn’t rule on the constitutionality of said law, but did say that the judge who issued the ruling on the Scary Black Guns ban issued a ruling that “conflicts sharply with rulings of other federal appellate courts.”

What? You mean to tell me that standards pulled randomly out of a petty statist Clinton appointee judge’s fourth point of contact, influenced by her own  prejudices without any knowledge about these guns, and armed with nothing but an uninformed opinion, don’t represent sufficient reason to deprive Americans of their rights?

You mean “Well, I think these guns are scary, so I’m upholding their ban” is not sufficient legal standing to shred the Constitution?

Look at my shocked face!

Of course the gun-grabbing authoritarians in Maryland aren’t done yet. There’s a chance they will appeal this case to the Supreme Court. There’s no length to which they will not go to infringe on the People’s right to keep and bear arms!

But for now, at the very least, we have a ruling that recognizes that bigotry and ignorance are not standards by which the constitutionality of a law should be judged.

The entire decision is here (h/t This Ain’t Hell) if you want to read it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control

That cars vs. guns regulation argument again

8 Comments

Guns and Their Users Should Be Regulated Like Cars and Drivers Are
As a car enthusiast, the parallels between automobiles and guns — both of which are beloved objects that become lethal weapons when used in malice or handled incorrectly – strike me as obvious. They ought to be regulated similarly.

Sure, let’s regulate them the same way:

  • Manufacturers would have to submit samples of each model equipped with all factory options to the ATF to make sure it couldn’t go too fast or too far.
  • Car manufacturers would be sued when anyone uses a stolen vehicle in a DUI, hit&run, bank robbery, or speeding, despite laws that limit law suits to cases where the manufacturer actually did something wrong.
  • Dealers would have to run criminal background checks on all buyers.
  • The dealer would lose his Federal Automobile License if a customer filled out the ATF form 4473 incorrectly.
  • When buying a car from a dealer, you would have to disclose your race.
  • Some states would require you to obtain a license to buy a car, separate from the driver license.
  • You wouldn’t be able to drive your car to the post office, many restaurants and bars, or past schools.
  • Several states would require you conceal your car while driving.
  • MADD would encourage people to “swat” you if they see your car.
  • Some states would limit your car to a ten gallon tank, and require another background check when you refuel.
  • New York would limit you to 20 gallons of gas every 60 days.
  • California would require that your car be designed to be difficult to refuel without tools.
  • Your driver license might not be recognized by other states.
  • High capacity vans and buses would be banned in several states. Ditto large pickups.
  • You would lose your right to own a vehicle if you have a financial manager to help you with your money.
  • You wouldn’t be allowed to purchase a small economy car unless you are at least 21 years old, but you could buy a truck at 18. Congresscreeps would argue for raising the purchasing age for everything to 25.
  • Racing stripes would be banned, along with a host of other cosmetic features.
  • If anyone in your household got a DUI, your car would be confiscated.
  • Cities would have their own car ownership and driver license laws that differ from others within the same state.
  • NYC would only issue 37,000 driver licenses in the entire city of 8.5 million people, and only if you are rich or politically connected.
  • Driving your car in town would be prohibited.
  • In many areas, you would be required to drain your gas tank, lock your steering wheel, and store your car in a locked garage when not in use. The gasoline would have to be in a separate locked room.
  • Many states would allow the sheriff to deny you a driver license without cause.
  • Mufflers would be heavily taxed and registered, and outright banned in many areas. Where you can get a muffler, the process could take as much as 18 months.
  • The ATF would periodically flip-flop on whether your brakes are mufflers.
  • The ATF would also classify your shoelaces as high capacity buses, and charge you $200 dollars per lace.
  • When driving cross-country, you’d actually be required to drain your fuel tank and lock your car up in a shipping container. Get a large handtruck.
  • If you want to sell your old junker, the ATF will consider you a dealer, requiring hundreds of dollars in fees and months of waiting for approval. Then you’d be subject to random inspections of all your property.

Shall I go on?

And this:

More than a little eerily, roughly as many people die from automobile-related deaths in America each year as from guns.

There are an estimated 253 million automobiles on the road vs. an estimated 393-750 million guns in civilian hands. Despite being much less numerous, vehicles are used to kill more people than are guns. I don’t think the problem here is guns and their owners.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

It isn’t the gun people’s loophole

2 Comments

The “gun show loophole.” You’ve heard about it over and over and over and…

If you’re a gun guy, you get annoyed and explain that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” that lets unlicensed dealers sell guns at shows without background checks. After all, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) says that anyone engaged in the business of selling guns must be licensed (and thus must run background checks). It doesn’t matter whether that FFL sold the gun in his store, at a gun show, online, or in a back alley at midnight.

So… No loophole, right? The victim disarmers are simply lying to confuse the ignorant about occasional private sellers and dealers. Yes, but…

There is a loophole. But it’s the government’s loophole. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21) defines “engaged in the business”: a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

If you’re making repetitive sales to make money, you’re a dealer and must get a license no matter where you conduct your business. Occasional sales, liquidation of a personal collection, maintaing and tuning a hobbyist’s collection… none of that requires an FFL because you clearly aren’t a dealer.

Where’s the “loophole” that lets a dealer skip background checks?

In the 1990s Prez Billy Jeff Clinton decided there were too many Federal Firearms Licensees. In short, a bunch of folks who would normally be considered hobbyists or collectors had gotten FFLs so that if the occasion arose, they could make a little profit, and because it made interstate shipping easier. Note that they still had to do all the record-keeping, reporting, and checking as any FFL with a store on main street.

But Cigar-Boy and the ATF didn’t like that situation: 250,000 FFLs meant it was convenient (and competitive) for honest people to lawfully purchase arms. So they changed the definition of “engaged in the business” to “engaged in enough business, and in the right places.”

Worked out of your home? Scratch that FFL. The ATF began coordinating with local zoning authorities and you had to prove your home was zoned (or a variance granted) for a business, even if you only did business at gun shows.

Didn’t sell enough guns in a year to make a profit? You’re just a lowly collector, not really in the business. There’s goes another FFL.

And that’s when the ATF started with the insane form 4473 enforcement: wrong color pen used to fill it out? Lose your license. Customer wrote “Y” instead of “Yes”? Lose your license. Bound book got updated the next morning rather than at closing in the evening? Yep, another FFL bites the dust.

We went from roughly 250,000 FFLs in the 1990s to approximately 50,000 today.

FFL-chart

But let’s say you got a zoning variance for your home business. You do a lot of business; in fact, you make a decent fortune every year selling guns at shows across the midwest. Your paperwork is perfect. You won’t even release a firearm after the three-day background check hold if you don’t hear back positively. Sure was a good thing you got that FFL, eh?

Nope. Because you got trapped by the ATF’s loophole.

ATFform7-Gun-Show-Loophole

Yes, take a look at item 18a on the ATF form 7. Despite doing business, the ATF will not issue you a license. They pulled out of their asses invented a new condition not in law: a physical store front.

Gun shows don’t count. Except when they do, when people whom the ATF told weren’t really dealers got busted anyway. For doing what the ATF said was okay.

The Gun Show Loophole: ATF: “You’re a dealer any time we need some publicity and arrests for promotion points.”
Now, after decades of the Clinton rules on dealers, President TelePrompter says he’s going to make those terrible “gun show dealers” get FFLs so they have to run background checks. I hope he remembers to tell the ATF to take that restriction off of 18a, and start accepting those applications.

If so, I’ll think about getting a license myself. I’ve run across some particularly good deals on guns that I could have turned around for a profit. It might be nice to be able to take advantage of that without the ATF busting me. History suggests that 200,000 other people would also consider it.

Somehow, when if the number of FFLs increases five-fold, I don’t think the extra 230 NICS workers are going to be sufficient.

FBI background checks Dec 2015_0

A five-fold FFL increase probably won’t translate into a five-fold NICS traffic increase, but somehow I don’t think they be able to keep up. (Something to bear in mind when you hear about bills to increase the NICS-delay time to 25 days and beyond.)

In fact, I don’t think the ATF will issue those licenses. Instead of letting people operate legally as they wished to do, it’s far more likely that they’ll crack down further on the honest folks they’ve been denying FFLs. That’s why Barrycade is authorizing an additional 200 ATF goons, instead of clerks to process applications.

Obama’s self-admitted goal is not to get more dealers licensed and into compliance. Clerks would do that. He’s just looking to crack down on honest sales.

“It’s a little bit harder to get a gun.”
[…]
“It may be a little more diffult and a little more expensive. And the laws of supply and demand mean that if something’s harder to get and a little more expensive to get then fewer people get them.”

Barry, allowing me to introduce you to another little economic tidbit:

The black market
When he makes transactions difficult and expensive, he makes the black market cost effective. It worked for the War On (Some) Drugs. Fortunately for honest people who want defensive tools, the black market for firearms is already well established.

Now there’s a loophole.

“Smitty,what do you think of these trick rules the new Head has thought up? Should we knuckle under, or make a squawk”?

“Squawk? What for?” Smythe gathered up his tools. “There’s a brand-new business opportunity in each one, if you only had the wit to see it. When in doubt, come see Smythe — special services at all hours.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Red Planet

If he’s crazy enough to reverse the Clinton rules, we can make him look darned silly. Not just salesman of the year, but FFL recruiter of the century.

Sadly, he won’t. That’s talk. The real clue is: 200 new agents, not 200 clerks.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
authoritarian swine, gun control

About those “Executive Orders”: What really changed

7 Comments

Despite all the talking heads babbling about executive orders on “gun control,” there aren’t any. In fact, all I can find are a new FFL guidance pamphlet from the ATF, two versions of a “white paper,” officially “Presidential Memoranda,” and a Health and Human Services proposed rule change.

So what changes happened, or are going to happen?

Defining “dealer”: The ATF pamphlet, DO I NEED A LICENSE TO BUY AND SELL FIREARMS?, is getting nearly all the attention, with ignorant commentators claiming the “gun show loophole” is closed and dealers will have to get licenses. In fact, many people including myself expected that Obama would attempt to redefine “dealer.” According to the ATF publication, nothing changed.

18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(22) already defined “dealer” (the key phrases are “predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain” and “regular and repetitive purchase and disposition”). The ATF “guidance” merely reiterates that.

What to expect: Nothing. Sort of. Keep reading.

Investigations: “ATF has established an Internet Investigations Center (IIC) staffed with federal agents, legal counsel, and investigators to track illegal online firearms trafficking and to provide actionable intelligence to agents in the field.”

What to expect: Look for a lot more gun show stings. The ATF will be busting people for “dealing” even when they know the person is not legally required to be licensed. They don’t plan to win in court; they plan to destroy people through horrific legal expenses incurred fighting malicious prosecution. That’s why Barrycade is looking for an additional 200 ATF kitten-stompers.

Trusts: Rule-changes in progress to clarify that using a firearms trust doesn’t dodge “prohibited persons” restrictions. So far as law goes, this may even be a good thing in that the ATF has been selectively applying that at whim, sometimes revoking trusts retroactively. On the other hand, the ATF lives on whim, and this probably won’t really help.

What to expect: Continued confusion, and delays in establishing firearms trusts. Lawyers will be happy with their new Lexuses and Beemers.

Firearms Loss Reporting: To hear plastic-haired TV heads tell it, there’s a new requirement for FFLs to report lost or stolen firearms. No such thing; the reporting requirement has been there for years (not even counting simply recording inventory in the bound book). Supposedly this change clarifies that the licensee shipping the gun has the responsibility to report the loss. That’s no change, because the firearm is never in the inventory of the recipient until he receives it. The FFL in whose inventory the firearm is has always been responsible.

What to expect: Not much. FFLs with inventory responsibility already had a vested interest in knowing where their guns went.

Prohibited persons: This is a nasty one. Per the white paper: “Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rule-making process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.”

Current law prohibits persons from buying a gun if adjudicated a danger to themselves or others. Not because some SSA bureaucrat said so, due to someone having physical issues that make managing financial affairs difficult.

What to expect: Loss of rights by a large class of people. Cheering by idiots.

HIPAA & More Prohibited Persons: The HHS rule-change proposal is especially dangerous; probably the worst of all these actions. Currently, HIPAA forbids most disclosures by HIPAA-covered entities (doctors, nurses, insurance companies, hospital, etc) of patient data. There are large LEO loopholes, of course. The rule-change would eliminate much of the privacy protection and allow any HIPAA-covered entity to report directly to NICS and condition believed to be disqualifying. They could report adjudicated findings of mental incompetence. But they could also report suspected drug abuse, suspect domestic violence, and suspected any other disqualifying condition. Without proof, without adjudication, without any due process conditions.

What to expect: You told your doctor you’ve been feeling depressed? He may pick up the phone when you leave and abrogate your rights, without you knowing until you buy a .22 plinker for Junior. Of course, a prohibited person attempting to purchase a firearm is a felony… too bad.

Now imagine that your doctor is a dyed-in-the-wool believer in the AMA’s war on RKBA, and wants an excuse to disarm all his patients.

NICS: Throwing more money at NICS, supposedly hiring more people to man the phones, and extending working hours 24/7. Wonderful; more bureaucrats. If you are dependent on background checks, this –theoretically — is a good thing; FFLs would appreciate decreased phone-wait times.

What to expect: Hopefully, shorter wait times. We’ll need that with the brand new surge in sales triggered by the Salesman-In-Chief.

Smart Guns: Oh dear Bog… President Unicorn Dreams will direct the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security to research, develop, and promote the use of smart guns. I can save them plenty of time and research bucks right now: Replace all firearms held by all three department with Armatix iP1s. There. Done. And all the anti-war, anti-police, anti-rights protesters are happy.

What to expect: Lucrative R&D contracts, but no workable solutions until technology in general advances greatly.

Summary: Essentially, all the rhetoric comes down to this: A bunch of claims that they’re cracking down on “gun violence” while doing almost nothing new, but setting the ATF loose to conduct more more questionable operations. But hidden in the bureaucratic rule-making is the plan to let any health professional render nearly anyone a prohibited person by slandering them as “crazy.”

No.

Your move.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail
gun control, resistance

Malicious ‘Compliance’

33 Comments

While the Obamas remain on their tax-funded ‘free’ tropical vacation, Internet chatter drones on over what form his reported gun control by imperial diktat will take. Based on unsourced leaks, the most likely initial act will be to redefine those in the business of selling firearms to include darned near everyone. I myself have suggested that ― as the FAA did with toy drones, and the EPA did with CO2 ― he might even redefine some firearms to include them as NFA items. After all, the ATF once did that very thing with a shoelace.

Possibly the best way to deal with such efforts to render more honest people helpless is simple noncompliance: No. Your move.

And there is malicious compliance. These are just some idle thoughts of my own on the best way to ensure you’ve complied with all the possible rules; certainly not official TZP policy (it isn’t as if I’m an officer of the company).

You’re suddenly a ‘dealer’ in the eyes of the law(less)? You’ll need a six month supply of those free 4473s from the ATF. Naturally, all of you anticipate Cabela’s-scale business, right?

You’ll need to phone in your NICS checks, too. 1-877-FBI-NICS (1-877-324-6427) and selecting Menu Option 2, then Option 5, or by fax at (888) 550-6427. Better safe than sorry; you should call it in every time a ‘customer’ wants to handle a gun (you’ll need to know if he’s a felon before he touches it, you know). And call yourself in when he hands it back. And remember, you’re doing Cabela’s-scale business. Constantly. From “8 a.m. and 1 a.m. ET, 7 days a week”. All of you.

If some devices get reclassified as NFA, it might be a good idea for every single gun owner in America (absurdly lowball estimates of 60 million to a hopeful 120 million) to ensure none of their property is affected. Remember that shoestring.

Send letters demanding clarification to the ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch (Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division 244 Needy Road Martinsburg, Suite 1600 West Virginia 25405 USA, E-mail address: fire_tech@atf.gov, Voice: 304-616-4300, Fax number: 304-616-4301). One item per letter; you’ll want separate files should you be inspected, to match paperwork with item. Probably you should check on each of your individual magazines, too. Airguns, blowpipes, bows, your potato cannon. Junior’s Nerf guns. All of them. It would be a shame if you made typos so that you had to send multiple letters per item; just timestamp them so the FTB boys can sort out the most recent version.

Stick to snailmail to ensure a legal paper trail.  Keep copies.

All 60-120 million of you. As an extra benefit, imagine the coituscluster at the Martinsburg Post Office; you’re providing job security for USPS workers.

Registration is another bugaboo that never quite seems to go away; California, New York, Connecticut… And now we have HR 4269 (the new ‘assault weapon’ ban bill). That one grandfathers some weapons. It isn’t hard to imagine a registration mandate being added by amendment. How else can they be sure that AK-15 you have is one of the legal ones?

Register. Register early. Register often. See typos above, danr my clumys fingesr. Possibly you even own 544,000 of those buggers. With standard capacity magazines in proportion. Don’t forget shoestrings.

GIGO.

Of course, you’ll have to give them your address on all those classification (and maybe registration) letters. If you’re like me, you may get mixed up on your home address. This tool can help you with that.

Heck, while you’re at it, go ahead and register a couple million potentially existent drones with the FAA.

“No. Your move,” is easier, but compliance might be more fun.

Facebooktwitterredditpinteresttumblrmail