Tag Archives: registration

Disingenuous Doctor

For new arrivals, I’ve been writing to “news” outlets and the writers of published gun-related misinformation. Call it education or calling them out on lies, I’m trying to correct bad reporting. Mostly, I an simply ignored, which indicates they know they’re wrong, and are disseminating BS deliberately. Once it’s clear that the outlet/writer is not interested in allowing facts to run, I’ve been posting my attempts here.

Today’s entry is a little bit different.

A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact
Our civil rights are under attack, and have been for some time. The freedom to assemble etched out in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is under attack by the Second Amendment — and it shouldn’t be. Jason Aldean’s concert was a peaceful assembly ravaged by a lone gunman who, for all intents and purposes, had the right of gun ownership.

What is it with doctors lying about firearms issues lately? 744 words of misdirection and falsehoods. I sent a proposed guest column of 721 words to rebut. To the Orlando Sentinel’s partial credit, they didn’t ignore me completely, as usually happens.

They told me to pare it down to 250 words or less and they’d consider it for a Letter to the Editor.

I couldn’t do it. There were too many Levy lies for 250 words. I got it down to 444 (remember, even my original column was shorter than Levy’s offering), by leaving out some specific references, and using more abbreviations and… not-so-great grammar.

They turned it down. So here it is.


Disingenuous Doctor

Doctor Marc Levy’s October 27, 2017 column, “A focus on gun safety – not control – leaves 2nd Amendment intact,” is as lacking in candor as the very column title, suggesting that delaying and infringing on rights somehow protects them.

In bringing up the Dickey Amendment and tying it to research, Dr. Levy implies that the amendment stopped federal funding of firearms-related violence. Just to be clear, this is false. The federal government funds much firearms-related violence research. As one recent example, there is “In-State and Interstate Associations Between Gun Shows and Firearm Deaths and Injuries: A Quasi-experimental Study,” primarily funded by the NIH.

Levy attempts another bit of misdirection in noting that Obamacare has a provision that prevents the collection of information on firearms. I’m sure that a doctor in Florida is well aware that Medicare/Medicaid sidestepped the law by implementing a rule requiring doctors to use Electronic Medical Records software, produced by nongovernmental agencies, which include questions on patient access to firearms in the intake questionnaire. Any doctor with Medicare/Medicaid patients will be asking that, while the CMS innocently proclaims, “WE aren’t requiring it.”

Dr. Levy also appears to be a fan of “universal background checks” (more accurately called preemptively-prove-your-innocence”), so that criminals and other prohibited persons could not obtain guns. He avoids the little problem that most firearm-equipped criminals already obtain their weapons unlawfully, and that the Supreme Court’s HAYNES decision upholds
criminals’ Fifth Amendment rights to not self-incriminate by reporting their unlawful activity; i.e.- criminals cannot be required to undergo background checks.

Levy mentions “assault rifles” as he wonders why we don’t track firearms purchases. Either he is unaware that assault rifles are heavily restricted, regulated, taxed, and registered; or he doesn’t want readers to realize that he’s talking about semiautomatic sporting and defense tools. Perhaps he meant to say “assault weapons,” a term with no legal meaning in Florida or federal law; only a handful of states use the entirely subjective term.

The doctor claims that all “responsible” gun owners approve of his restrictions: registration, taxation, limits on ownership, prior restraint on the exercise of a right, and more. Since I do not, that is demonstrably false, unless Levy has invented his own bizarre definition of “responsible.”

Similar claims that “90% of Americans favor Universal Background Checks” don’t hold water. A few years ago in Washington state, polls alleged that 90% of Washingtonians wanted UBCs; but when it went to an actual vote (Initiative 594), fewer than 60% voted in favor, missing the claim by over thirty points, and more than 40% opposed.

Since recent research shows that background checks do not reduce firearms-related homicide rates (“Do gun laws reduce gun homicide rates?,”), the 40% had a valid point.

Levy sidesteps other questions. Estimates of American gun owners range from a ridiculous fifty-five million to a possibly overly optimistic one hundred-twenty million. Estimates of firearms range from two hundred sixty-five million to a three quarters of a billion. Given the lack of knowledge demonstrated by that remarkable uncertainty, how does Levy propose to determine who has what? How does he propose to pry “extra” firearms out of the homes of those with “too many?” Does he expect dubious owners, who won’t tell a telephone poller what arms he possesses, to self-report to a government intent on registration and confiscation? Or does he advocate searching every single, individual domicile in the country? That’s a lot of doors to kick in, and when the California legislature first proposed mass confiscations of “assault weapons” several years ago, a police union spokesman announced they’d see the largest outbreak of “blue flu” in history if implemented.

Perhaps Dr. Levy and the other estimated one million doctors in America will volunteer to do the door-kicking; they outnumber the FBI’s estimate of fewer than 700,000 law enforcement officers anyway.

Consider those fifty-five to one hundred-twenty million gun owners; then consider the roughly thirteen thousand firearms-related homicides. If each homicide represented an individual shooter and gun, that’s 0.01-0.02% of all firearm owners and 0.001-0.005% of firearms. While personal tragedies, statistically homicides are “black swan” events.

Those tiny fractions of a single percentage point do not point to a gun problem or gun owner problem. There is a criminal problem. Perhaps Dr. Levy should lobby for a gangbanger tax to fund criminal violence research.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

That cars vs. guns regulation argument again

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 336-750 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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Malicious ‘Compliance’

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.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Precedent

FAA Finally Admits Names And Home Addresses In Drone Registry Will Be Publicly Available
The FAA finally confirmed this afternoon that model aircraft registrants’ names and home addresses will be public. In an email message, the FAA stated: “Until the drone registry system is modified, the FAA will not release names and address. When the drone registry system is modified to permit public searches of registration numbers, names and addresses will be revealed through those searches.”

“Wait, what’s that got to do with RKBA, or Jews, or whatever?” I pretend to hear you mutter.

Let’s take it a step at a time. The Federal Aviation Administration, in response to a few incidents involving RC drones near aircraft — none of which caused deaths, injuries, nor even an aircraft crash — issued a new, retroactive rule requiring a national registration database of nearly all drone owners. [ding]

Lacking new legislation to authorize this, the FAA simply, and arbitrarily, redefined toys to be aircraft requiring registration. [ding ding]

Despite telling prospectively compliant drone owners that their personal data (name, address) would be kept private, in fact, they plan a publicly searchable database. [ding ding ding]

“So what?” you might wonder. Hopefully not though, since I’d expect regular TZP visitors to be ahead of me here.

President Barrycade has stated his intent to issue executive orders to implement gun control, since he lacks legislation to do so.

Reportedly, one element of this will be to — again, lacking new enabling legislation — simply redefine occasional sellers as “dealers”. Bound books, 4473s, NICS checks, ATF inspections, and all. [ding]

Hey, it worked for the FAA, and they don’t even have an executive order. [ding ding]

The ATF already has their searchable FFL database. [ding ding ding]

Since Obama and other blood-dancers have stated publicly that they wish to crack down on private sales, it seems safe to assume this will be in one EO or another. But what if he emulates the FAA a little more closely?

Imagine “redefining” all firearms as NFA items. Just like toys became airplanes. Or how atmospheric plant food became a pollutant.

Or how a shoe string became an NFA machine gun.

Registration. Permission slips. Inspections. And maybe that database would become publicly searchable, too. Oh, well; for once we might be glad of ATF incompetence.

There is precedent for registering undesirables.

Fortunately, there’s an easy answer to any such moves.

No.

Your move.

Backing up those brave words might be a little harder, but let me leave you with two quotes.

And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family?”
– Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
, The Gulag Archipelago

The sheer immorality of victim disarmament aside, one would hope every government thug out there would stop to consider all the possible ramifications of kicking in several million doors because the occupants are well armed.
– Carl Bussjaeger

When the law is twisted by arbitrary, unilateral redefinitions, there is no law to break.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

More Anti-Gun Loonery from the Soccer Mom Cabal

I initially posted this fisk at the Liberty Zone, but I thought that even though a renewed push for gun control is going on in my own state, it’s actually a nationwide problem, so I decided to post it here as well.

My husband got so angry with our local officials, he took his anger out in writing on the top Virginia political conservative blog. Angry Rob is angry. And he has every right to be. These gun-grabbing embarrassments are doing a blood dance on the corpses of innocent victims of violence!

But on top of all that, which would amount to a disgusting display by itself, they are flat out LYING. No, Del. Hope, buying a gun at a gun show is NOT “as easy as buying a pack of bubble gum at the 7-Eleven.” Purchases at a gun show of firearms happen the same way they do outside of gun shows, and Patrick Hope knows this. Dealers are required to perform background checks, private sellers are not. He also knows that the Smith Mountain Lake murderer, a disgruntled former co-worker of the two victims, passed a background check to purchase the gun he used. The fact that he and his cohorts got 30,000 signatures for their petition doesn’t matter, other than to demonstrate how easy it is to prey upon low-information folks to advance a cause.

Rob and I once had a very respectful, decent conversation with Del. Patrick Hope during Virginia Lobby Day. He spewed anti-Second Amendment platitudes, cited faulty information, and listened respectfully when I called him on it and corrected him. He also seemed genuinely interested in the facts I gave him about gun safety, background checks, etc.

Apparently, that was just lip service…

And his “guns are oh-so easy to get” mantra is being echoed by Shannon Watts wannabes in the Old Dominion. It is one of these ignorami that I fisk below.


 

Why is it that no matter how much you correct, inform, reason, and debate with gun grabbers, they continue to contend long-discredited, disingenuous crap in order to promote their odious agenda? It seems there’s a cabal of soccer mommies out there whose sole mission is to become the next Shannon Watts. Frankly, they’re unoriginal and uninformed, and yet some newspapers pick up their spew and run with it as if they’ve discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. Such is the case with the latest anti-gun mommy in my own backyard, who recently penned a column for The Roanoke Times entitled, “Why should it be easier to own and operate a gun than a car?”

Let’s put aside the obvious stupid of this question, and do a little fisking.

Melynda Dovel Wilcox lives in Alexandria, VA, and she’s the mommy of two high school students. Alexandria is in my backyard, so I take a keen interest in any kind of disinformation being spread “for the children.” She writes:

In no other country is driving and owning a car as quintessential to the culture and lifestyle as it is in the U.S. So it’s no surprise that, for Virginia teenagers, turning 16-plus-three-months is noteworthy because they can get their driver’s license. With two 17-year-olds in my household, I’m well-versed in the steps required for the commonwealth to grant this privilege. It’s an arduous process — rightly so — and as a citizen I’m grateful to the government for implementing these measures to better protect all drivers and pedestrians.

Here Wilcox makes an interesting statement. Driving on public roads is, in fact, a privilege. Many will confuse the right to travel with the right to drive, and that’s just not right. U.S. jurisprudence confirms this fact in Miller v. Reed. There is no right to drive a vehicle on public roads enumerated in the Constitution, and since driving a motor vehicle on public roads is, in fact, a privilege, the government is well within its right to regulate it.

Wilcox then goes through a litany of allegedly “arduous” steps one must take to become a legal driver in Virginia.

Personally, having had two kids go through the process, I don’t think it’s all that onerous, but then again I’m not a spoiled Alexandria mommy, who thinks attending a 90 minute session with her kid (twice)  to cover parental responsibilities of having a teenage driver in my house, is a terrible imposition.

First, all 10th-graders receive 36 hours of classroom driver education in their required health and physical education classes.

Students can apply for their learner’s permit at age 15 ½ and must produce original documents proving their identification and residency. They must also pass a knowledge exam and a vision screening.

Next, provisional drivers must log 45 hours of driving time with an adult passenger and take a behind-the-wheel course consisting of fourteen 50-minute in-car sessions from a commercial driving school. One program in Northern Virginia, I Drive Smart, costs $499 and is taught by current and retired police officers. During the final session, the instructor administers the driving test and issues a temporary license. Not counting time spent on homework for the classroom portion and studying for the Department of Motor Vehicles exam, that’s more than 82 hours of instruction and training.

It’s amazing how first world problems can impact one’s worldview! Eighty-two hours of instruction is a little more than 10 days. Ten days’ training to operate a complex machine made of steel, glass, and plastic, capable of traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles per hour – a machine that was involved in 32,719 deaths in 2013, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Hey, Melynda! Know what it takes to gain the privilege to drive in Germany?

First, you have to pass an onerous theory test, which a full third of test-takers fail. You need a vision and a road test, as well as first aid training. That’s right – first aid – an eight-hour class. An actual license is handed out when the driver turns 18, by the way. None of this 16 and three months garbage. Oh, and by the way – you bitch about a $500 cost to train your precious snowflake to drive? It costs about €1400 in Germany. Still think that’s onerous?  You’ll need a minimum of twelve 90 minute on the road training sessions, four of which have to be on the Autobahn and at speed, and about three of those have to be at night. That’s a minimum By the way, if you take your training in an automatic transmission, you’ll only be licensed to drive that. Driving a manual transmission automobile when you’ve only qualified on an automatic is considered driving without a licence.

These extended driving sessions are followed by the so-called advanced, test-preparation phase, containing further exercises and preparation for the test itself. In all cases, the instructor may only terminate instruction when he is convinced that the learner driver involved has actually acquired the knowledge and skills required to pass the test.

The goal of driving instruction is no longer just to impart knowledge and techniques, but also to put across the social and ethical values, in other words to inculcate behavioral patterns and attitudes which are no less significant in reducing accident risks than the actual driving skills themselves.

[…]

The driving test consists of a theoretical and a practical part. An officially recognized expert or examiner for motor vehicle traffic is responsible for the entire test. If a candidate fails, the test can be repeated. Candidates are only admitted to the practical test when they have passed the theoretical part.

The theoretical test uses multiple-choice questions to establish whether the candidate has the necessary knowledge. A candidate passes the test if he does not exceed the permissible number of errors laid down in the test statutes. The theoretical tests should, in principle, be carried out in German, but the basic material may also be examined in various foreign languages.

The practical test consists of a test drive which includes certain basic driving tasks. The tasks, which are laid down in the test statues for each class of licence, are intended to demonstrate that the candidate is capable of properly operating and controlling the vehicle. The test drive is, above all, intended to demonstrate that even in difficult traffic situations the candidate is capable of safely driving the vehicle and adapting his driving to the situation.

The driving test is also carried out on country roads and motorways. A candidate passes the practical test if the basic driving tasks are accomplished without error and during the test drive he does not commit any grave errors or accumulate an excess of minor errors.

Still want to complain how hard it is, Melynda? Didn’t think so. Moving on.

To own a car in Virginia, you must register the vehicle in both the state and local jurisdictions, and registration must be renewed annually or bi-annually. The owner must carry liability insurance or pay a $500 uninsured motorist fee, and have annual safety inspections performed on the car, and in some areas, periodic emissions inspections.

Wrong. To DRIVE a car in Virginia, you must register it. You don’t need insurance to merely own it, and you don’t need to register it if it’s merely sitting on your property. There’s a difference.

The comparison between car ownership and gun ownership is remarkably apt.

No. It’s not. One is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and the other is a car.

There were about 254 million cars registered in the U.S. in 2012, and varying estimates of 270 million to 310 million guns. In 2012, there were roughly 33,500 traffic fatalities and almost 32,000 people died from gun violence.

How many of these were suicides? Oh, two-thirds? You know what a suicide is? Intentional. Can we say “disingenuous comparison,” boys and girls? I knew you could!

But there are some startling differences: Traffic fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled have been on a downward trend since 1963 due to safer cars, safer roads and better-trained drivers. In some states there are fewer highway deaths now than there were in the 1940s. By contrast, between 2000 and 2013, the number of mass shootings and resulting casualties rose dramatically, according to an FBI study released last fall. (There have been 135 school shootings since Newtown.)

I knew we would eventually get to the lies, obfuscations, and lies. Oh, did I say “lies” twice? Using Everytown’s misleading statistics doesn’t bolster your credibility, Melynda. Neither does quoting an FBI study which the media clubbed to death like a baby seal without actually understanding the misleading verbiage in the study.

And then there’s the vast difference in requirements to own and operate a gun. No permit is required to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun or handgun in Virginia. No registration is required either, except for machine guns.

Guess what, Melynda! No permit is required to purchase a car either. You need a permit and a license to DRIVE a motor vehicle on a public road, but if I want to keep a vehicle in my garage, or drive it on my private property, I can! You obviously don’t know the difference between “drive” and “own.” Perhaps an English lesson is in order?

Gun sales at licensed gun dealers require a criminal background check, but private sales or sales at gun shows by private individuals do not, despite repeated efforts in the state legislature to change that law.

The law at gun shows is the same as the law anywhere else in Virginia, Melynda. Differentiating private sales at gun shows from anywhere else shows how ineptly you manipulate words.

In short, the Commonwealth of Virginia has no information about whether gun owners know how to safely store a gun and ammo, for example, how many guns they own, or whether they have committed a violent misdemeanor or have a history of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has no business knowing how many guns one owns – or how many knives – or how many cars, for that matter. As we said previously, no one needs to register a car if they don’t plan to drive it on public roads. The state also doesn’t know how many motor vehicle accidents any given driver has had, UNLESS they were reported to police and the DMV. Care to guess how many Virginians commit hit and runs, or merely settle the cost of repairs among themselves?

One wonders how many mass shootings and other gun deaths could be prevented if prospective gun buyers were required to have just eight hours of training from police officers—one-tenth of that required for drivers;

Police officers such as this?

https://youtu.be/9ABCiPJRCyA

Hate to tell you this, Cupcake, but you quite obviously don’t know most gun owners. Most gun owners train much more than just 8 hours with professionals much more skilled than the “professional enough” DEA agent giving a presentation on gun safety in that video. We shoot consistently. We practice, because shooting and handling firearms is a skill – a perishable one. Additionally, if you think a lack of training is responsible for mass shootings, you may want to check your facts.

Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Isla Vista… you know what they had in common? Mental health issues. If you think registering firearms will somehow prevent violent acts by crazies, I have this bridge…

if they were required to register their guns each year (with a new background check performed each time); and if they were required to carry liability insurance, with insurance proceeds used to compensate victims of gun violence and their families.

You know how many are killed by accidental shootings? About 600 per year, according to the CDC. That’s what liability insurance covers. Since about 21,000 of the firearm fatalities are suicides, I doubt most insurance companies will cover that.

None of this would pose a significant burden on hunters or other recreational gun owners.

No? An average pistol costs several hundred dollars. Add to it registration fees, training fees, and insurance premiums, and you’ve just made a tool of self defense cost prohibitive for the people who need it most. People in not so nice neighborhoods that you and your shielded cohorts in Alexandria only tremble at the thought of entering. Those poor people, who want to protect their families, may not be able to afford to do so, because Melynda thinks that the right to keep and bear arms only pertains to hunters and recreational shooters.

As much as the DMV is loathed and derided, certainly almost no one decides against buying a car because the registration process is too onerous. It’s likewise absurd to allow people to own and operate a gun without any safeguards in place to protect ordinary citizens and innocent children.

You don’t allow me to exercise my rights, you pernicious, misinformed fascist! I protect my innocent children with that tool of self defense you think you and your petty tyrannical pals think you have the authority to allow me to keep.

Every year, legions of teenagers happily give up 82 hours of free time in exchange for the privilege of driving. It’s the price that our society has deemed appropriate and acceptable to advance the common good. Isn’t it time that we make the same trade-offs for guns as we do for cars?

I’ll make you a deal, Melinda. Let’s regulate cars the way we regulate guns, OK?

Your precious teenagers won’t be able to purchase a car until they are 18. Sorry, Punkins! You’ll have to wait. They will have to pass a criminal background check, and if they committed a crime, got caught with some dope, or aren’t able to prove their residency, they will not be able to make said purchase. They want to buy an extra fast sports car? They don’t need that, but they will have to get a special license to own one, and they will have to be 21 years of age to purchase one. Every time they purchase a vehicle, they will have to undergo a background check, fingerprints in some states, and fill out a form that will be kept on file with the auto dealership for the duration of that business’ existence. And if the State Police come back with an inconclusive check, or they have a record, or mental health issues, no-go on that car boys and girls! Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you’ll have to wait three days before purchasing said car.

Subject of an active misdemeanor or felony arrest warrant from any state? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Are you 28 years old or younger, have ever been adjudicated delinquent as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of offense of a delinquent act, which would be a felony if committed by an adult? Sorry. Can’t buy that car.

Were you adjudicated as a juvenile 14 years of age or older at the time of the offense of murder in violation of § 18.2-31 or 18.2-32, kidnapping in violation of § 18.2-47, robbery by the threat or presentation of firearms in violation of § 18.2-58, or rape in violation of § 18.2-61? (If adjudicated as a delinquent for these offenses, you must answer yes. You are ineligible regardless of your current age and prohibited for life unless allowed by restoration of rights by the Governor of Virginia and order of the circuit court in the jurisdiction in which you reside.) Sorry, you can’t buy that car.

Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime punishable by more than 2 years even if the maximum punishment was not received? Sorry, can’t buy that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves your spouse, a former spouse, an individual with whom you share a child in common, or someone you cohabited with as an intimate partner? Sorry, you aren’t purchasing that car.

Is there an outstanding protective or restraining order against you from any court that involves stalking, sexual battery, alleged abuse or acts of violence against a family or household member? No car for you!

So will you call for closing that car loophole that permits private individuals to sell motor vehicles to others without a background check?

I didn’t think so.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Never had any doubt

“You’re paranoid.”

“The government isn’t after your guns.”

“Nobody wants to confiscate your guns.”

“Registration doesn’t lead to confiscation.”

How many times have we heard gun control advocates snottily ridicule us for knowing our own history? For understanding the nature of statism?

“This isn’t Nazi Germany,” they say. “No one is going to disarm you and victimize you.”

“Registration is a safety measure,” they claim. “It’s a crime prevention measure.”

Is it? From Buffalo, NY comes a report that details a plan by the police department in that city to begin confiscating firearms of legal gun owners after their deaths.

Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so “they don’t end up in the wrong hands.” The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said.

Derrenda said guns pose a threat if their owner is no longer alive to safeguard them, especially if a recently-deceased gun owner’s home is burglarized.

[…]

The state law says that if the permit holder dies, the estate has 15 days to dispose of the guns or turn them in to authorities, who can hold the weapons up to two years. LoHud.com reported that violation of the law by survivors is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine.

So how will the police department find out whether the deceased had a gun? Carry permits? ATF 4473 forms, which licensed firearms dealers have to retain for at least 20 years?

While not “technically” registration, these records give the authorities the tools they need to confiscate firearms – to steal them from the families of the deceased when they are grieving and vulnerable – to violate basic property rights.

And Buffalo isn’t the only place where this odious infringement on basic human rights has happened.

In Connecticut, cowardly politicians rammed through a registration requirement for all firearms they deemed to look scary.  Gun owners resisted, and the majority of what these pusillanimous twits call “assault” weapons remained unregistered.  A few tried to register at the last minute, before the suspense, they wound up in limbo. The state now had their ownership information, and began confiscation proceedings against these gun owners, claiming they illegally held their property.

The state is sending letters to 106 rifle owners and 108 residents with high-capacity magazines saying they can destroy the guns and ammunition, sell them to a federally licensed gun dealer, move the items out of state or sell them to somebody out of state, or make arrangements to turn them over to local or state police.

Those who fail to do so could face serious criminal penalties.

In California, a de facto registration law signed by Jerry Brown in 2011 required the state to retain background-check records of those who purchase guns (although it did not register specific guns to specific people.) And you know what happened? Reason magazine explained in January.

The new law will bolster a program that has generated much controversy. Earlier this month, legislators held hearings on the effectiveness of the Armed Prohibited Persons System, used to confiscate the firearms of California residents who are no longer eligible to own them. The California Department of Justice relies on the current ownership lists to identify gun owners and cross check those with lists of people who have been convicted of crimes or have been involuntarily committed for mental issues.

The state auditor found, in a report released in October, that the department has not sufficiently notified courts and mental-health officials of their reporting requirements. Despite a new $24-million state appropriation, the auditor found that the program has failed to take guns from nearly 21,000 Californians who have forfeited their gun rights.

Not enough for you?

Registration led to confiscation in Australia, and Barack Obama wants to make that nation an example for the United States. (Yes, I know the link is RT – the Kremlin funded propaganda machine – but in this case, it’s actually correct reporting.)

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Australia, its government passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. They also implemented a mandatory gun “buyback” – also known as confiscation (with perhaps a nominal payment for the owner’s property).

Those who do not remember history are, indeed, doomed to repeat it. That is the warning Canadian news anchor Brian Lilley  gave his American neighbors last year when he emphasized that registration did, in fact, lead to confiscation in Canada.

And in my birthplace – the USSR – firearm registration was introduced in 1918, which led to confiscation of weapons from everyone but… you guessed it… members of the Communist Party, with a stint in jail for anyone who possessed firearms and wasn’t a member. This was how Communists cemented their power over the hated bourgeoisie – those business owners, capitalists, and other undesirables whom they wanted to keep defenseless.

Those of us who grew up in tyrannical holes understand only too well that registering people for exercising their natural rights can only lead to the demise of those rights. Those of us who have studied history understand this as well.

Those who ignorantly seek to treat their fellow Americans like criminals merely for daring to exercise their rights either forgot their history, or are ignoring it.

Those of us who remember history never had any doubt about the end result of registration.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail