How? In this case, how will sheriffs enforce the universal background check law, Balderas?
New Mexico AG says sheriffs must enforce gun control law
New Mexico’s attorney general says law enforcement agencies must enforce a new law expanding background checks to nearly all private gun sales and that they could be liable for damage claims if they don’t.
Short of a deputy witnessing a transfer as it happens, I don’t see how it’s enforceable on law enforcement.
Deputy: “Hey, citizen. I see you have a gun. Did you do a background check before you got it?”
Citizen: “Deputy, you know I’ve had this revolver for eight years.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
Or maybe it would go like so:
Deputy: “Is that a new gun? I don’t recognize it. You do your background check?
Citizen: “Screw that. I bought it from Joe Blow on March 7, 2019, before that dumbass law got signed.”
Deputy: “Oh. Yeah.”
For that matter, what’s the probable cause to investigate in the first place? Merely that an officer doesn’t recall seeing a particular person with a specific firearm before?
Deputy: “Nice rifle. Just get it?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Do a NICS check first?”
Citizen: “Yep.”
Deputy: “Can you prove it?”
Citizen: “Can you prove I didn’t? I went through all four pages of that BS law, and nothin’ says I gotta keep paperwork for ya.”
Deputy: “Who ran NICS for you? I can check the dealer’s records.”
Citizen: Damned if I remember. Nothin’ says I gotta have a perfect memory either.”
Or maybe Joe Citizen bought it from Dad, or his brother. And neither kept anything but a receipt… dated 3/8/2019. Or undated. Or nothing at all; it isn’t required.
Even if a deputy witnessed a private transfer, say… at a gun show, since that’s where victim disarmers think criminal buy their guns…
Deputy: “Hey, you didn’t do a NICS check!”
Citizen: “Don’t gotta. He’s my uncle; ‘immediate family member’ as specified in the constitutional abortion.”
Deputy: “Can you prove that?”
Citizen 2: “Can you prove I’m not? Ain’t like the law requires me to carry around a marriage certificate showing I’m married to his maw’s sister.”
Deputy: “We could subpoena that.”
Citizen 2: “Did I mention that it was a common-law marriage in New Hampshire?”
I suppose if the authorities had doubts, they could confirm the transaction with the seller… who has every reason to verify the buyer’s claim since the law makes both parties criminals if they didn’t conduct the check.
I don’t think Senators Martinez and Wirth thought this through.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
The deadline for compliance with the irrational “bump-stock-type device (BSTD)” — bump-fire — ban has passed. So how effective has the imperial fiat been at making the nation safe from inert “machineguns”?
Who the hell knows? No one even knows how many there were; the ATF’s “estimate” (“SA Smedley! Quick; bend over so I can pull a number out.”) was 280,000 to 520,000 BSTDs sold. I’d like to see them give a 95% confidence level for WAG.
But I was interested, so I’ve been collecting turn-in reports. Such as they are. The majority of reports of turn-ins and destruction were merely unsubstantiated, vague claims that “people” are “complying,” without so much as a single example. I don’t count those.
The biggie, of course, was RW Arms who turned in for destruction 60,000 items they still had in stock. I’m not counting those because they hadn’t been sold; they weren’t part of the 280-520K giggle-guess.
After that come the great state of Washington, with a reported 1,000 turned in during their “buy-back”.” The problem with that number is hiding in the details. People were supposed to be paid $150 for each bump-fire stock. But the most detailed report stated that they only paid for 122 of 150 stocks surrendered. I suspect they were paying for commercial products, and some maliciously compliant smartasses (bless ’em) slapped together some bump-fire stocks from hunks of wood or PVC pipe.
So my wild ass guess is that only 81% of the WA turn-ins would count against the ATF “sold” estimate: 810.
Illinois saw “a few” but a more detailed report clarified that “few” meant “1”.
Massachusetts, again with an earlier state ban: “only a few”. Since “few” doesn’t appear to be defined in statutory law, let’s say that between “handful” and “dozen.” Call it 8.
In North Carolina, the ATF claims “some” were turned over, but declined to give numbers. How many is “some”? I’m feeling generous. It was “steadily […] over the last few weeks.” Steadily = 1 per week. Few = 8. So call it 8 more BSTDs.
So, nationwide, I can only document 834 bump-fire stocks turned in. For some values of “document.”
But one can comply with the Royal Whim by destroying your valuable property. That’s going to be a little tougher to nail down.
I had no news reports specifically describing any destructions, just the aforemention vague “people are doing but we don’t know.” So next I turned to YouTube.
Frankly, a couple of searches there surprised me. I honestly thought I’d find more. As with news reports, it was mostly, “I’m going to,” or “I did, but I’m not showing it.”
The only videos I located which showed the destruction or the finished “product” numbered just…
Scratch the homemade unit (only counting those the ATF estimates “sold,” you know), and we have 10. We’re now up to 845 mass murder tactical death machines safely off the street.
845. Across the nation.
I searched a few firearms forums as well. Not a single turn-in or destruction mentioned. It was mostly, “They’re stupid; I never had one,” “I had one, but it wasn’t as good as I thought, and I got rid of it years ago,” or “They look like fun, but I never bought one.” I rather expected a “few” from my cold, dead hands declarations, but didn’t spot any.
845.
Taking the ATF’s low estimate of 280,000 BSTDs sold, they have achieved a miraculous 0.30% compliance rate.
Using the highball guess: 0.16%.
Trump must be so proud.
Zelman Partisan regulars are fine, upstanding people who obviously do their best to comply with constitutional laws. No doubt any of us who happened to own one of these evil machineguns has done the right thing. So quick poll of those who had them.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
While sorting through the news Tuesday morning, two seemingly unrelated stories ended up in adjacent tabs.
First…
Sandy Hook lawsuit against AR-15 maker could actually reach the Supreme Court
But the state supreme court ruled plaintiffs’ suit can proceed under Connecticut’s unfair trade practices law. Plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that Bushmaster’s advertising essentially encouraged customers and others to use their XM15 rifles — the type used by Lanza — for criminal purposes.
Leaving aside how Bushmaster is responsible for the use of a firearm it sold to a dealer who sold it to a woman who had it taken by someone else after she was murdered…
Alleged: Advertising the rifle as suitable for mass murder.
Which brings me to the second article…
Study: ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Bans Do Not Lower Homicide Rates
[Lead study author Michael Spiegel] observed, “Laws regulating the sale of assault weapons are unlikely to have a large impact on homicide rates, because these weapons are used in only a very small proportion of homicides. The vast majority of firearm homicides in the United States are committed with handguns.”
Hardly news. The government discovered the same thing after the federal “Assault Weapon Ban” of ’94. And that very thing had been predicted by numerous people when the bill was being debated.
But the juxtaposition of the stories struck me.
Pantytwisters: Eek! Bushmaster is advertising mass murder tactical death machines and encouraging us to go out and kill everything!
Everyone else: Didn’t work.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Last year, van Nieuwenhuyzen v. Sniff set up the Ninth Circus for the dilemma of upholding a gun control law or shooting down sanctuary cities.
Now federal Southern District of California Judge Roger T. Benitez has made a ruling in Duncan et al vs. Becerra that, once appealed by the state of California, likewise presents the Ninth with a little problem. Benitez has found California’s 10-round magazine limit to be unconstitutional.
Ah, but the way he wrote it. You have to like a ruling that begins
“Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts.”
And then the introduction: He cites three self-defense cases in which women needed more rounds.
The Ninth is likely to reverse Benitez, based on past history. And then we get to note that it means they want women dead.
Beyond the introduction, the ruling is rather dry reading, but worth the effort for Benitez’ analysis. He notes the irony of California’s law.
Perhaps the irony of § 32310 escapes notice. The reason for the adoption of the 19 Second Amendment was to protect the citizens of the new nation from the power of an oppressive state. The anti-federalists were worried about the risk of oppression by a standing army. The colonies had witnessed the standing army of England marching through Lexington to Concord, Massachusetts, on a mission to seize the arms and gunpowder of the militia and the Minutemen—an attack that ignited the Revolutionary war. With Colonists still hurting from the wounds of war, the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of new American citizens to protect themselves from oppressors foreign and domestic. So, now it is ironic that the State whittles away at the right of its citizens to defend themselves from the possible oppression of their State.
Exactly.
He spends a great deal of time explaining why the law is inconsistent with Heller, and why this law fails, not just strict scrutiny, but even intermediate.
In light of the ongoing bump-fire ban cases, I found a few other points interesting.
Plaintiffs who have kept their own larger capacity magazines since 1999, and now face criminal sanctions for continuing to possess them, no doubt feel they have been misled or tricked by their lawmakers.
[…]
In an analogous First Amendment case, the Supreme Court called this approach turning the Constitution upside down.
Sound familiar? Those once-lawfully owned stocks suddenly making people into criminals. I don’t know offhand if Guedes or the other bumpfire cases cite Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 474–75 (2007) or Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), but they should.
Benitez addresses “legislative deference,” too. In this context, that is the deference a court would owe the lawmakers who presumably carefully study matters before crafting law (giggle if you wish; that’s the theory). He tosses that in Duncan, because this law was passed by public referendum. No deference owed.
In Guedes et al an issue is what deference courts owe unelected bureaucrats who change legislative intent. None, I think.
After dozens of pages explaining why unsourced, anecdotal “expert” witnesses, mischaracterized laws, misstated rulings, arbitrary thresholds, and nonsensical exceptions are bovine excrement, Benitez concludes
This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now.
Freedom over security. I am astonished to see that from a judge in California. The Ninth will soil their black dresses.
I expect all the Californian police-staters are going to have trouble wrapping their minds around that. To be perfectly clear:
1. Defendant Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him, and those duly sworn state peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order, or know of the existence of this injunction order, are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code section 32310.
2. Defendant Becerra shall provide, by personal service or otherwise, actual notice of this order to all law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute. The government shall file a declaration establishing proof of such notice.
Paragraph 2 is a thing of beauty. Not only is the judge tossing the law, he has made AG Becerra personally responsible for making sure every LEO is the state knows it’s the law. If this were to stand — and that alone will make the Ninth want to reverse — then anyone busted in the future for a 15-round mag by some local yokel cop, who says he didn’t know, has grounds to sue Becerra, even if charges are eventually dropped.
This is obviously a good thing, but don’t get too comfortable. This is a ruling by a District court. In the Ninth Circuit. All things considered, I expect the Circuit to reverse and remand.
Depending on plaintiff’s resources, this will most likely need to go to the Supreme Court. Given the varied magazine limits in assorted jurisdictions, SCOTUS should grant cert. Will they? The post McDonald record isn’t encouraging, especially last week’s decision to deny a stay in the bump-fire ban.
Stay tuned.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in 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!
In keeping with April First traditions of foolery, the DC Court of Appeals denied the Guedes et al appeal for a stay on the bump-fire ban.
It is 86 pages of legalese, which you may read at your leisure. Much of it addresses the legal aspects of Whitaker’s signing the rule, and administrative issues raised. The meat that I believe most TZP readers want to see boils down to this statement.
But the Rule reasonably distinguishes binary-trigger guns on the ground that they require a second act of volition with the trigger finger. The release of a trigger is a volitional motion. But merely holding the trigger finger stationary—which is what operation of a bump stock entails—is not.
Volitionally operating your finger counts. Volitionally operating your entire off hand and arm does not. Thus, inert hunks of plastic are machineguns. As is any light-trigger firearm which might be fired with an involuntary and nonvolitional muscle twitch, or sympathetic squeeze. Essentially, any unintended — nonvolitional –discharge proves your firearm to be a machinegun.
Equally infuriating, and more dangerous, is the way they dismissed all arguments against the ATF simply redefining words and changing intent. That’s peachy. Law no longer means anything whatsoever except what an unelected bureaucrat says it does, and is subject to arbitrary change. Your broken down Trabant can be a main battle tank. Better start your NFA paperwork.
There is no law.
There is no constitution.
You’ll also love the part where the lunatics in black dresses (which I hope come standard with built-in straitjackets) find that retroactively declaring bump-fire stocks to be machineguns is not a retroactive action. The Queen would be envious of their reality-denial skills.
The one glimmer of sanity is found in the dissent by Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.
“Unlike my colleagues, I believe the Bump Stock Rule does contradict the statutory definition and, respectfully, part company with them on this issue.”
And for good reasons. Sane and logical reasons. This is the first time I’ve seen a judge diagram a sentence in a ruling.
For the reasons detailed supra, I believe the Bump Stock Rule expands the statutory definition of “machinegun” and is therefore ultra vires. In my view, the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge and I would grant them preliminary injunctive relief.
Sadly, every other judge who has ruled on a bump-fire stock case to date believes otherwise. Even the majority (possibly unanimous, as no dissent was listed) of the Supreme Court saw no need to stay the ban. I am not optimistic as to the final outcome.
Of the case(s), or the country.
I fear the oathbreaking majority idiots have moved us another day closer to Open Season.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Today, Chief Justice Roberts denied a motion to stay the bump-fire ban rule pending a final ruling by the courts. If you possess a bump stock, you are now a felon.
When Trump announced his intent to ban bump-fire stocks, Kool-Aid swigging idiots laughed it off. Nah; he’s posturing for the press.
When he sent his memo directing DOJ to begin crafting the rule, it was, Nah, they’ll ‘research’ it and ‘decide’ it isn’t called for.
When the ATF published the ANPRM, morons said, Nah; it’s a trick. They’ll take comments and ‘decide’ it’s unjustified, but Trump still gets to pretend he tried.
When the NPRM came out… rinse, lather, repeat.
When the final rule was published, the sandy-eyed ostriches declared, Don’t worry. Trump is a four-dimensional chess master; he knows the courts will overturn it. He’s gaming the system.
As the ban deadline approached without a favorable ruling from any court, the bird-brains nervously added, Um… the courts will temporarily stay the ban. Right?
When stays were issued on appeal, for the named plaintiffs ONLY, some folks optimisticallythought that was a blanket stay, and sighed in relief. It wasn’t.
When Guedes et al was appealed to the Supreme Court, the Pollyannas were sure they’d issue the stay, or at least remand back to the lower court to do so.
So here we are. I was never terribly hopeful about this because I lost faith in the courts a long time ago.
But… we are screwed.
The lawsuits challenging the ban continue. I’m sure people in denial are sure reality will win out. Look again: the lower courts have stated will every denial of a stay that the plaintiff are unlikley to succeed. That is, they are signalling that the ban will be upheld and they are going through the motions (no pun intended) merely for the sake of appearances.
And today, by refusing a stay, Roberts just said exactly the same thing: “You lose.” We lose bump-fire stocks. And remember my warnings about those semi-autos “easily converted” to machineguns with bump-fire stocks.
And anything and everything else that some bureaucrat decides he doesn’t like. Because all this hinged on a single point: Can unelected bureaucrats redefine common language to create law all by themselves?
Now we know the answer is yes, and the ATF declared hundreds of thousands of people to be felons. And that was a signal to every other bureaucrat in every other federal agency and department: Do whatever you want.
Today, Trabants became M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks, on the whim of a bureaucrat, on the suggestion of a man with no respect for the Constitution and rule of what used to pass for law.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
If you can’t read that (the rubber bands interfered with scanner focus):
To whom it may concern,
Please find enclosed 1 “baker’s dozen” (representing the 13 colonies which rose up in armed rebellion in response to an attempted confiscation) potential bump-stock-type devices (BSTD).
While I realize that you have argued that rubber bands are not BSTDs, I choose not to take the chance, since rubber bands can provide the same spring effect of an Akins Accelerator-type device, and the ATF has a history of pseudo-random changes of mind (shoelaces coming to mind).
Please be assured that I am not in possession of any device you do consider to be a BSTD “machinegun,” unless you change your mind about belt loops which can operate in the same fashion as a springless BSTD.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs (too late; I’m selling the truck) and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in 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!
“Imagine the deaths if the shooter [Las Vegas] had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get. Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.”
“Durn tootin’, great shootin’. Cool dude sertin’ he’s 2nd Mendment rahts. Hell yeah! Every country has its psychopaths. In US they have guns.” [Mocking misspellings in the original].2
Richard Dawkins, author and famous atheist.
“The NRA, a vile organization with a sinister, deadly grip on America’s lawmakers, bought Trump’s silence when they backed him during the election campaign.”3
Piers Morgan
“After Sandy Hook and Las Vegas, what is the rationale for any civilian owning an assault rifle and high capacity magazine?”4
Barbara Streisand
“How long do we let gun violence tear families apart? Enough. Congress & the WH should act now to save lives. There’s no excuse for inaction.”5
Joe Biden, former Vice President
“I’m not an ordained minister; I’m not a theologian, but these guys [NRA] are going to hell.”6
Lily Eskelsen Garcia, sixth grade teacher, Utah, and Vice President National Education Association [NEA] the nation’s largest teacher’s union.
Television news reporters often refer to semiautomatic rifles as “assault weapons,” say guns “go off accidentally,” infer AR15s are capable of full-automatic fire, employ the phrase “gun violence,” and display background screen icons (Browning High Power for example) in reports on violent assaults even when the weapon used was a knife. If journalists are going to bang on authoritatively about something, shouldn’t they know what they’re talking about? Considering network news is for many people their sole source of information, isn’t it important for journalists use proper terminology? Improper use of terms can confuse and mislead the public with respect to laws, regulations, and the types of firearms owned by citizens. I’ve dropped notes to journalists apprising them of proper terms when they used them incorrectly and all responses were cordial. Scott Goldberg of ABC News who incorrectly claimed bump stocks turned semiautomatic rifles into machine guns, refused to respond. Chris, a reporter in the Kansas City news market, agreed that news reports employ biased terminology. He revealed when discussing firearms, incorrect terms are actually provided through press releases issued by Police Public Information Officers relative to a crime under investigation and in scripts written by producers. Journalists are also guided by playbooks listing approved vocabulary that reflect political bias. For example abortion supporters are called “Pro-Choice” even though the choice promoted is abortion and opponents, who call themselves Pro-Life, are instead labeled “Anti-Abortion” or “Anti-Choice” hardly neutral or objective. Chris revealed he was chastised by his boss for saying “illegal alien” instead of the approved term “undocumented immigrant.” Job security enforces compliance.7
Perhaps at no time in American history has the meaning of words mattered more. Consider how for the past 50+ years the Left’s agenda driven political ideology has shaped America. Their control over public education is monolithic, they own pop-culture, the movie, music, and entertainment industries, dominate print and broadcast journalism, influence Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish denominations, and have invaded professional sports. In public education, they write the narrative and point of view allowed to be taught to such a degree, classrooms are little more than indoctrination centers. As a teacher I came up against the Liberal’s hegemonic sway over what kids are taught and their ‘Edstapo’ goons on constant prowl for heretics and dissenters (especially true in SocialIST studies departments). There are ways of being burned at the stake without using fire. Spoon feeding a biased curriculum to an unknowing gullible captive audience is bad enough but perhaps worse is what they leave out. Political Correctness, invented by Stalin,8 dictates what kids are taught on every issue from global warming, immigration, economics, the Constitution, and gender bending, to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Not taught the other side? They don’t even know one exists!
For years I’ve warned regardless of how many 2nd Amendment victories are won, America is always a mass shooting and Supreme Court appointments away from losing everything. Fewer Americans than ever today grow up exposed to firearms whether through hunting, target practice, or competition. Their source for information on firearms comes from pop-culture, news and social media, and public education all dominated by liberals hostile to the 2nd Amendment. At some point in their life, an individual is responsible for searching out the truth on any issue. But it doesn’t work that way. Americans are too intellectually lazy to bother. Rather than the rebuke so richly deserved for indolent self-inflicted ignorance, with patience and perseverance the great-unwashed must be educated. Hence this primer. Based on statements in the news and social media, to some degree non-gun owners seem to believe anyone can walk into a gun store, hand over cash, and walk out a few minutes later with a firearm. Is this true?
Only those legally eligible can purchase firearms and only in the state of their residence. Age requirements apply; 18 for rifles and shotguns, 21 for handguns, and they must present a valid drivers’ license. If expired, suspended, revoked, or they moved without updating the address on their license, purchase is denied. Everything is in order, can they now buy a gun? No. They must complete federal form 4473 providing identifying information; name; date and place of birth, social security number, and so forth. Next they’re required to answer a series of questions including who is the actual purchaser of the firearm. Buying it for someone else, a “straw-purchase,” is prohibited. Additional questions include; are they a convicted felon, under felony indictment, a fugitive from justice, drug user, dishonorably discharged from the military, renounced their citizenship, in the country illegally, not a U.S. citizen, subject to a restraining order, or if they have been convicted of domestic violence, misdemeanor or not. A yes answer to these questions means they cannot buy a firearm. An untruthful answer is a felony punishable by federal prison, fines, and loss of the right to own firearms, vote, and hold state or federal jobs…forever. Suppose they lie?
Once form 4473 is completed and signed by a customer, gun stores must call the F.B.I.’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Police agencies and the military are required by law to provide information on prohibited individuals to the F.B.I. who, in turn, enter it into a centralized data base. Upon receiving a request for authorization to sell a gun from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder, the F.B.I. searches its data base determining if the intended purchaser is not legally prohibited. It’s the F.B.I. who authorizes or denies sales. Suppose a buyer has no criminal record but is mentally unstable? Information on those adjudicated through a legal process as “mentally defective” or having been institutionalized, is also entered into the F.B.I.’s data base and they will be denied purchase. Can’t an FFL just skip all this?
Commercial gun sales can only be made by FFLs. Information on each firearm they receive through purchase, trade, and so forth, must be entered into a logbook along with information as to whom it is ultimately sold. Logbooks are subject to random inspection by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, and Firearms [BATF]. Whether storefront or homebased, FFLs must be able to account for every gun taken in and or sold. Data entry discrepancies may lead to revocation of the FFL and felony prosecution. If the business is sold or closes, logbooks and all 4473 forms are transferred to the BATF, a form of registration. If denied purchase at a gun store, can’t prohibited persons buy firearms at gun shows through some kind of “loophole?”
Gun show promoters lease venues for their events in turn renting space to FFLs, often gun stores. All laws and requirements with respect to buying and selling guns apply at gun shows. Private sales may occur but typically comprise hunting rifles, shotguns and relics. Police officers and AFT Agents are often on hand supervising compliance. Only a miniscule number of criminals purchase firearms at gun shows. Typically they obtain them through burglary and theft. But what about these machine guns we keep hearing about. Can’t anyone walk in and out of a gun store with machine guns?
In 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act [NFA] regulating various firearms and devices commonly known as “silencers,” but its main focus was submachine guns, those capable of firing continuously with one pull of the trigger. Submachine guns were not banned. Instead, owners paid a $200 stamp tax and registered the firearm with the federal government.9 The Gun Control Act [GCA] of 1968 was interpreted by the BATF to prohibit the importation of fully automatic firearms by civilians. In 1986, the GCA was amended by the Hughes Amendment (Representative Charles Hughes, Democrat New Jersey) prohibiting civilian possession of full-automatic firearms manufactured after 19 May, 1986. To sell and or purchase firearms covered by the GCA, individuals apply for and obtain a special license from and register the firearm with the federal government paying required fees.10 Title I FFL’s pay a Special Occupation Tax to sell full-automatic firearms. This elevates them to title III hence the common but inaccurate term “class III license.” GCA applicants must meet all legal requirements for ownership, submit to a 6 to 12 month BATF criminal background investigation, provide finger print cards and passport sized photos, pay a $200 stamp tax, and register the firearm with the BATF. Because no full-automatic guns produced after May of 1986 may be sold to civilians, their pool is extremely limited translating into stratospheric prices.11 The idea, as my son says, that “some edgy teenager” can afford one is preposterous. Although not an edgy teenager, add me to the preposterous list.
Yes, the sear portion of an AR, and other semiautomatic rifles, can be cut and modified to allow for full automatic fire. But, there will be no selective fire option. It can now be fired only fully automatic. Anyone caught with such a modified weapon faces 10 years+ in a federal prison, loss of the right to ever be in possession, let alone own, firearms, loss of the right to vote, and hundreds of thousands in fines. May I make a recommendation to anyone considering this modification? Don’t. You will get caught. It’s possible to modify or buy an already modified sear. It’s a small piece of metal and, as long as it’s not installed in a rifle, no problem, right? Wrong. Mere possession of a sear, modified to allow fully automatic fire, is considered the same as possessing a fully automatic rifle with all the same penalties. You will get caught. Once again, don’t do it. If you must fire one, patronize a gun range that rents these rifles. They’re fun but you’ll probably leave realizing how impractical they are for self-defense. Sustained controlled accurate fire? Yeah, sure.
Not every gun owner in America supports let alone belongs to a pro-2nd Amendment organization or gun club, not even close. Nevertheless, when the Left attacks and besmirches these organizations, they serve for liberals as surrogates for all gun-owners and that means you. The Left works off an old and well established ideology and doctrine; the will of the individual must be bent to and subordinated to will of the state. Private ownership of firearms has no place in such a world view and neither do inalienable rights. It’s our job to educate family, friends, and neighbors about the truth because it will not happen in tax payer financed public schools and universities.
22 Emily Zanotti, 2 October 2017, “Insane: The Worst Twitter Responses To The Tragedy in Las Vegas,” The Daily Wire, at www.dailywire.com/news/21/02/10/2017.
55 Alexander Kacala, “From Lady Gaga to Taylor Swift, Celebrities Respond to Yesterday’s Las Vegas Attack,” at http://hornetapp.com/stories/las-vegas-attack/amp/
66 Todd Woodward, Editor, “Downrange: “Teacher, Leave Gun Guys Alone,” Gun Tests 8 (August, 2013), 2. Lily Eskelsen Garcia is the vice president of the National Education Association, America’s largest teacher’s union which is also a major donor and supporter of the Democrat Party. She was speaking before a Netroots Nation Conference attended by 3,000 “progressive activists” leaders in the drive to forge a Leftwing consensus in public education curriculum in the classroom and political activism without.
77 Email from Chris, “AK-47 ‘Assault Rifle,” KCTV 5 News, 6 December, 2007 to the author.
88 Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The VENONA Secrets (Washington, D.C., Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000), 58.
99 David Higginbotham, “Gun Laws 101: Nations Firearms Act of 1934,” Guns.com at ww.guns.com/2013/01/03,
The suit announced Friday alleges that U.S. Patriot Armory violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud laws when it advertised and sold gun parts to an undercover investigator last month.
The investigator bought parts for an AR-15 assault rifle.
New Jersey bans purchases of gun parts for use in making firearms with no serial numbers, called “ghost guns.” It’s also a crime to possess an unregistered assault firearm in the state.
First off, a nonfirearm transaction in California is subject to New Jersey law? I don’t think so.
There are a couple more problems. Let’s take a look at the law. The relevant section is this:
Purchasing firearm parts to manufacture untraceable firearm. In addition to any other penalty imposed under current law, a person who purchases separately or as a kit any combination of parts from which a firearm may be readily assembled with the purpose to manufacture an untraceable firearm is guilty of a crime of the third degree. Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:1-8 or any other law, a conviction under this subsection shall not merge with a conviction for any other criminal offense and the court shall impose separate sentences upon a violation of this subsection and any other criminal offense.
Fine; it’s unlawful for someone in New Jersey to purchase the parts. Sort of. It says nothing about the seller.
But the intent counts, too. The intent of the purchaser must be to assemble an assault firearm. Was it the intent of the undercover investigator to assemble such a firearm? Please say, “Yes,” because for once they didn’t include a law enforcement exemption. The investigator should be charged.
Ah, but what if the purchaser of parts lawfully own a firearm, and he wants to stock replacement parts for repairs? At least in this law, that’s perfectly lawful. Intent matters; mens rea.
For this to fly at all, the investigator would have had to specifically tell U.S. Patriot Armory that he was buying the parts with the intent of violating New Jersey law, making it a co-conspirator. Otherwise, for all the company knows, it was selling to a licensed individual building a lawful serialized gun, or repairing one.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Obviously the only possible reason to oppose control is because we hate people. It couldn’t possibly be that we want the ability to defend our families and ourselves. Neat trick; demonizing gun owners as unfeeling bastards who don’t value life, while virtue-signalling his own “concern.” Qasim Rashid is a human/civil rights-violating piece of… work, who tries to steer the argument by taking his — entirely unfounded —assumption as fact.
And oh-so-well informed.
I still remember when my older brother wrote to us from US Marine Corps bootcamp to tell us that he’d earned the expert rifleman badge for his firearm. It was the highest possible award that the Marines offered.
The Marines might disagree with that, unless he was attempting to say — rather poorly — that it is the highest rifle marksmanship award.
Rashid also appears fond of another common gunpeople control tactic: The strawman argument.
Those who oppose responsible gun legislation claim that gun laws won’t work because criminals will still find a way to get guns. By such logic we shouldn’t have any laws at all because, after all, criminals will break them.
That’s comparatively clever, because uses part of the truth, to tell a lie of omission. In fact, we note that criminals will still get guns because the laws his slimy ilk propose always target honest gun owners, not the actual criminals. That last part is rather important. It’s particularly important for victim disarmers to ignore: Never once has any anti-gun legislator (or wannabe like Rashid) ever even attempted to answer the question of how [insert dumbass infringement imposed on honest people] will adversely impact criminals who already obtain arms through unlawful channels.
That question is always guaranteed to result in silence.
More strawmen.
Who can honestly claim that domestic abusers and violent felons deserve easy access to firearms?
Is Rashid proposing that? Because I don’t know any pro-Second Amendment people arguing to arm violent criminals.
Half-truths are another standby for scumbags like Rashid. Let’s see what else he trots out.
After the 1987 Hungerford mass shooting left 16 dead, England enacted meaningful gun reform. England has experienced one mass shooting since.
And 89 dead in vehicle, bomb, and knife attacks. And there were zero mass shootings in the 20th century prior to the Hungerford incident. Based on the fact that the next came after those “meaningful” reforms, you could as easily argue the reforms contributed to the second 20th century occurrence.
But we have to disarm the people, because only government agents can be trusted… Uh oh.
If we go back to 19th century England, all the mass shootings were committed by the government. 18th century: all by government. 17th: government forces again.
After the 1995 Port Arther [sic] mass shooting left 35 dead, Australia enacted responsible gun legislation. Australia has experienced zero mass shootings since.
Wrong. At least 8, since Port Arthur,and sixteen more massacres by other means, accounting for more deaths than the shootings.
Here’s a meaningless “factoid” that sounds impressive, if you don’t actually know a damned thing about the topic.
And after the 2009 Winnendon school shooting left 16 dead, Germany enacted responsible gun legislation. Germany has experienced only one mass shooting since.
Let’s examine that. In post-reunification Germany, there have been 5 mass shootings. From unification to Winnenden, there was an average of 5.6 years between those, with the longest gap being 9.5 years. From Winnenden to the 2016 Munich shooting was 7 years. I really don’t think there’s a trend supporting his alleged point, since the greatest period between shootings was before his “responsible” laws. As with the English “example,” a pedant could easily argue that the changes in German laws made mass shootings more common, on average.
Gaming the assumptions, lies, half-truths, and strawman arguments. It’s as if Rashid were trying to create the ultimate victim disarmament fable. All he left out was bogus “research” with synthetic control groups.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
