SayUncle hilariously notes that the new American State Legislators for Gun Ownership Prevention (ASLGVP) won’t release the names of their members because they fear a political backlash. You’d think at least some of them would be like Dwight Evans, and serve in districts so safe they could have a campaign rally strangling a basket full of live puppies on stage, and still win re-election. And here I thought the NRA was losing, the gun control movement was on the ascendancy, and we didn’t have to worry any longer what those toothless cousin-humping rednecks thought?
Indeed, according to a recent poll from Quinnipiac University, 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales. It was widely known that the NRA was responsible for the demise of this bill, a common sense measure that was overwhelmingly supported by its own members.
The 92% number can retire into history with every other lie these people tell. Why? Because we know now that in a deep blue state, with billionaires outspending the pro-gun message 10:1, the best they could do was 59% of the vote, and it outright LOST in all the counties outside of the puget sound area (except for one eastern county). Those counties are where all the NRA members and gun owners are that supposedly support this 92%. What people tell pollsters is not necessarily what they’ll do at the voting booth, especially when it comes to opinions on guns. I also, in my response, took issue with the claim about background checks:
This is not about background checks. After Sandy Hook, we put a background check compromise on the table, lead by Senator Tom Coburn. I would have implemented Universal Background Checks in a manner that was satisfactory to gun owners and probably the NRA. Schumer laughed it out of the room, then introduced his own measure which would have criminalized handing a gun to someone else to look at, among other things. It was a trojan horse.
The problem is, the gun control groups have been trying to slip a lot by in these background check initiatives. For instance, in the Manchin-Toomey amendment, it would have stripped the safe travel provisions we fought hard for in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This was only the tip of the iceberg of garbage Schumer was trying to get passed under the guise of background checks.
Again, we saw the same deceit in Washington State, where I-594 bans mere TRANSFERS of firearms, e.g. giving a firearm to someone else to shoot anywhere that’s not an “authorized range” a term which I-594 conveniently does not define. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife had to restructure it’s hunting education program to deal with this nonsense, since as it was structured presently would be illegal under I-594. They did this by deputizing the instructors, so they would fall under the law enforcement exception, in order to be able to hand a firearm to a student to teach them. Ordinary NRA instructors don’t have this option.
This is what is defined as reasonable? They know it’s unreasonable. What they are hoping for is that no one else notices these are radical measures couched in language that trick most people into believing they support it.
Well, the NRA loves themselves a good villain, given that it’s good for fundraising letters. While I doubt anyone can top Bloomberg in the category of juicy villains, I have very little doubt that Surgeon General Murthy will not disappoint. He eked by the Senate with 51 votes. Remember that Reid had changed the rules so that confirmations don’t need to reach the 60 vote majority to overcome a filibuster.
NRA scored this vote, but with enough Democrats getting the boot this cycle, that unfortunately doesn’t carry as much weight as it would have before the election.
Everyone ready for the holidays? I’m not. Too much to do. The good news is that I’m done with my client that kept me very busy. The bad news is I have a backlog of work with my other engagements; mostly stuff I’ve been ignoring or pushing off because I didn’t have as much time to deal with. I also managed to get a hold of a newer MacBook Pro, but am disappointed it’s mysteriously rebooting every few days. It passes Memtest86, but I still suspect memory. It’s a late 2011 model, which is a step up from my older 2009 model. I won’t bore you with the details, so here’s the news:
Remember that ex marine who got busted in New York for having a gun? He took a plea deal. The article also talks about the disposition of some other notable gun possession cases in New York.
If at first you don’t succeed, fail fail again. For years the Dems were convinced gun control was a loser issue, and then the blue dog was born. Then Obama ate the blue dogs. Now gun control is cool again.
Again, the Internet has devolved into arguing with rude children. Sorry Cliff, Bloomberg and his billionaire buddies outspent us 10 to 1 in Washington State to get less than 60% of people to vote for a measure he claimed 92% of people wanted. In a deep blue state.
Good news for C&R licensees. It looks like ATF is not planning to require fingerprints and photographs.
NBS News, Like you and me, only better.
The news that more people now support gun rights is welcome, especially the shift among women and African Americans. But the fact that this only just now flipped shows how slow things can be to change, and what an uphill climb our success as a movement really has been.
Shocker: Reasoned Discourse breaks out at Media Matters. I’ve come to the conclusion over the years that the reason they don’t want debate isn’t because they are worried they’ll lose. The reason they don’t want to debate is because they are incapable of debating.
Tam: “There’s no sport in mocking Mark Morford. It’s like beating up the 60-lb. asthmatic kid with the coke-bottle glasses or hunting dairy cattle with a scoped big game rifle; he’s the bunny slope of snark targets. Still, sometimes one has to at least go through the motions for form’s sake.”
Stories I’m hearing of Black Friday sales being interrupted by outages at NICS, PICS, and other state POC systems raises the question of whether we could do better. Can we think up systems that work better, overall, than the NICS/POC system? I should note that I absolutely agree that background checks are a feel-good measure, and we’d be better off without them. See Clayton Cramer’s research that shows they are essentially useless. But for the foreseeable future, we’re stuck with them.
I’ve argued previously that I think there are issues with BIDS system, because it offers counter arguments to our opponents when trying to argue with lawmakers that we ought to modernize the system. But I think BIDS is an interesting system that I’m going to use as a basis for one of two ideas about how to make a less intrusive and more reliable system.
The chief problem with the BIDS system, as it is explained, is that in order to be able to uniquely identify a person, you generally need a least the person’s name and date of birth. If you have a common name, often that will not be enough, so you might need other data, such as a driver’s license number, or social security number as well. The problem is the more data you distribute, the more opportunity you give to identity thieves. Encryption is no solution, since if the BIDS client can decrypt the database, the key for decrypting it is in that system somewhere, and someone will find it. If everyone who was in the system was an axe murderer, maybe that wouldn’t be too much of a concern. But as we all know, there are plenty of people who end up prohibited for technical and often petty offenses.
The solution is not encryption, but hashing. Hashing allows you to go one way, but not back. If you had the NCIC, for every prohibited person, generate two hashes, one of first name, last name, date of birth, and the other the same plus a DL/ID number, you would effectively eliminate the identity theft problem. You wouldn’t even need to encrypt the data because there would be no way to take the hashes back to personalized data. This would solve the privacy issue with BIDS.
But BIDS, being a distributed system, still has a lot of other potential faults that are hard to counter. Here are arguable points opponents of this will use when trying to persuade lawmakers:
- The government doesn’t know who is buying guns, but they also don’t know when prohibited people are buying guns in order to prosecute them. You and I both know this never happens, but it will likely persuade lawmakers, especially the tough on crime, law and order types.
- There is no means by which to certify the dealer actually ran the check. You could propose a certification program, which would allow certified BIDS apps to give unique verification, but the distributed nature of the system would make this problematic, since you’d also be distributing the means by which to forge certifications.
- The nature of the distributed system creates a lot more potential for false negatives, meaning people passing a check when they shouldn’t. You can do a lot technologically to mitigate this, but much of what you’d need to do would make the system frustrating for dealers. The distributed nature of the system would mean more points of failure. That can’t be argued against.
- Right now all dealers need to run checks is a functioning telephone, copies of ATF Form 4473, and a working pen. With BIDS, they will also need a functioning PC and a reliable and constant connection to the Internet. Also consider that for ever 10 million prohibited persons, you’re talking about a database that is about 2.5 gigabytes. Today this is a lot easier than it was when people thought up the BIDS system, but this would be a problem for rural FFLs.
One possible solution is to maintain the call in system for dealers that have to use it. You could have certified call centers, run by private parties, that process a call in using BIDS data on their end.
Modified Hashing NICS
An alternative to a distributed system like BIDS is to have a the NCIC generate the same hashes, except only distribute them to NICS. In this case NICS public facing interface would accept only hashes, would check those hashes against its database, and would clear or deny a person. If the person is cleared, the system would return back a cryptographically signed response. The FBI would publish API code for running background checks, and certify applications that are permitted to act as a front end for NICS. Basically if you can pass FBI’s unit testing, you can get a certification. All the API code and unit tests would be open source, so you can be sure there isn’t any funny business going on. You could build background checks into any FFL software, or Smart Phone App. You could have certified third parties that run call centers for rural FFLs, and mail them the certificates for people who clear for the dealer’s records.
Because the FBI never sees anything except a hash, they have no idea who’s buying guns, unless the person who is buying matches a hash in the prohibited list. This would preserve the possibility of prosecution for felons who try to buy guns, which would be a key argument our opponents would use against BIDS. While it’s true that a hash doesn’t allow you to go backwards, NCIC could still identify the person who’s data matches the hash.
Here’s how it would work in a sale. I believe it’s important to preserve the ability for an uninitiated person to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a purchase. So dealers can run a background check on a person right there, and print them a check certificate, to be ultimately retained by the seller. Alternatively, you could use a certified app to run your own check and print out a cryptographically signed certificate, which can be presented to and authenticated by the dealer when you go to buy, or can be presented and authenticated by anyone who has access to an certified app by which to authenticate your certificate.
You make the certificate valid for a period, say 30 days, after which it will no longer verify. It’s possible to revoke cryptographic signatures, so if the hash comes into the system, it would be possible to revoke the signature on an outstanding hash do it won’t authenticate when the seller checks it.
The big downside to this system is that the feds have the information to make a hash on everyone if they wanted to. Using a hashing system would raise the bar to keeping tabs on everyone buying guns, but it would not make it impossible. Storing the needed SHA512 hashes for everyone in the US would only be about 75 gigabytes, which is hardly big data by today’s standards. I’ve always thought this was something that could be dealt with by publishing NICS source code, and doing third party auditing of the NICS system to ensure there’s no funny business going on.
There are certainly better systems one can think up than what we have now, and one could imagine hybrids of the two systems I mentioned. The trick would be convincing lawmakers, who don’t understand any of this stuff, that it would work as well, and actually far better than the current system.
You would also need to deal with the state Point of Contact (POC) systems to integrate with the federal system, or do an outright preemption of state laws to eliminate the Point of Contact system entirely. In the new system, POCs would be the certified apps, which any non-governmental party could create. The biggest problem you’re going to have in any technically sophisticated system is that you’re dealing with implementation needing to be done by a government that can’t even get a website working. I also wouldn’t be surprised to find NCIC computers and the software that runs them were essentially silicon fossils. A regularly scheduled rehashing of up to 10 million names in the system might be far more than it can handle. Maybe you can’t bring in a DL/ID number with criminal records. Nonetheless, it wouldn’t be hard for volunteers to come up with an API specification that would allow a system like this to function. Technically, this is not complicated, but conceptually, it might be a bit hard for non-technical people to understand.
We’ll have another state ballot initiative for Bloomberg’s universal transfer ban, floating under the guise of “Universal Background Checks.” We have until the 2016 election to get ready for this.
Miller’s move served as an answer to a gun-rights political action committee, Nevadans for State Gun Rights, that filed a letter last week demanding Miller throw out the petition. The group said it found irregularities in petition filings in Storey County.
Since then, Don Turner, head of effort, said investigators identified “substantial compliance problems” in signatures filed in Lander County. Turner said a review of Washoe County signatures was just beginning. The state has 17 counties.
“There’s plenty of time to challenge the certification,” Turner said Monday. “We’re probably going to end up in court.”
So the challenge isn’t over, which is good. It’s going to be an uphill climb. The real problem we face is that Bloomberg has the money to keep making the hill higher and higher as we do. I don’t like being fatalistic, and I don’t like to lose. But the kind of money Bloomberg can throw at this movement can make a huge difference. I wish that weren’t the case, but it is. Most initiative laws have a germaneness requirement, and thank God, because if that were not the case he could float much worse hidden agendas under the guise of “background checks” than he is currently capable of doing.
Meanwhile, in Washington, Miguel notes that the Department of Licensing are essentially telling dealers they are on their own when it comes to interpreting I-594, but the Washington Department of Revenue has been quick to remind people that they still owe use tax on the value of the transfer. All these
unintended consequences gun owners don’t think about need to be spread far and wide so that in the next state, maybe we have a chance to take Bloomberg’s margins down, with the aim to eventually educate enough gun owners to beat him. If not in Nevada, in another state.
According to Doylestown Borough Council President Det Ansinn, the new enhanced preemption bill recently signed into law by Governor Corbett is “state sanction terrorism.” There’s something to be said for upsetting the right people. CeaseFirePA is similarly incensed, given how hard they worked to convince municipalities to pass these illegal ordinances in the first place. Mr. Ansinn notes in his own comments:
It’s no secret that I own firearms. I also have a concealed carry permit. I grew up with guns.
With that understanding, a law that removes local control and empowers outsiders to litigate, at the cost of the local taxpayers, is batshit crazy.
HB80/Act 192 is offensive pandering to a single industry. It’s going to make lawyers rich and strips your communities of the right to make their own decisions.
The old, “I’m a gun owner, but” line. We accept plenty of context where local governments have no control, especially where Constitutional Rights are concerned. For instance, local governments can’t close down abortion clinics. They can’t limit freedom of speech only to residents. They have to issue permits for public demonstrations in a manner that’s compatible with federal court rulings. They can’t prohibit licensed drivers in Pennsylvania from driving on their own roads, or impose requirements that are incompatible with state law on the matter.
It’s exceedingly difficult to have discussions where your opponents lack an understanding of how the law already works, and are unable to draw on other contexts to support their arguments. The fact is that Doylestown never had any ability to ban guns in parks. Those ordinances are already illegal, and have been from the moment Pennsylvania passed preemption (some time ago, if I recall). If Doylestown chose to try to enforce their ordinances, if the person charged fought the charge in court, they would win. But they would be on the hook to pay their attorneys fees to have the charges dismissed. HB80 changes that, and gives standing to challenge the law without having to first be charged under it. It is a fundamentally just law.
If it hadn’t been for local communities flouting the existing law, HB80 would have been entirely unnecessary.
I-594 is in full force in Washington State now, and is already attracting enterprising scofflaws. The media in Seattle are sad pandas that we aren’t just holding our nose and swallowing their snake oil.
A super soaker shotgun. Crap like that can get innocent people killed.
Bloomberg targeting twelve more states. Money quote from Andrew Arulanandam, “We have $38 billion reasons to take Mike Bloomberg seriously” He’s not even though his 50 million yet. In its history, gun control has never seen this kind of money at its disposal. Also, Washington state groups are preparing for more. Any victory gives them momentum. More gun owners need to be aware of this.
Key data withheld in California lead ammo ban. Turns out that lead levels in Condors haven’t dropped, which would suggest the contamination is from a different source. Of course, rather than apologizing for calling us all science deniers, the response is going to be we just need to spread the ban to other states, and double down on it in California. Colorado fortunately decided not to go down this path (for now).
Like baseball, there should be no crying in policing.
Dave Hardy finds one of the worst arguments against preemption I have ever seen, courtesy of one of the local (to me) cat box liners. He also points to some research in the area of whether people answer gun ownership surveys truthfully. Answer? Many don’t.
Doylestown, Pennsylvania is now also looking at getting rid of it’s illegal gun ordinances, now that our preemption law actually has some teeth.
Miguel notes the media trying to drive a false narrative. This isn’t the only place I’ve seen there. There have been a few cases of the media portraying drivers who get surrounded and then push through the crowd as monsters, even though the police clear them after questioning. Personally, I view blocking busy roads as a form of kidnapping. I think the law should reflect that.
You’d think the police near Ferguson would be pleased that there are shops they don’t have to worry about. Nope! Fortunately, ignoring the police seems to be doing the trick. Charles C.W. Cooke pens a defense of ‘Antigovernment Militias.’
Maryland Governor Elect to Gun Owners: Thanks for all those votes guys, but I got more important things to do than worry about your constitutional rights. Still, it was useful to punish O’Malley’s hand picked successor, and to spoil any presidential ambitions he might have.
Austin Police Chief: Please tell us about gun enthusiasts you might know, so we can ‘vet’ them.
I used to be a hiker, but I hate the hiker culture, mostly because of crap like this. On a related note, can you believe that Ars Technica is doing positive stories about silencers? Not long ago I would have said getting silencers deregulated was a pipe dream. I think it’s getting a lot closer to possible.
USA Today manages to do an article on the AR-15 market going soft without being patently hysterical. Also from the article, Josh Sugarmann is a sad panda, but he really has been for some time now.
I had hoped that Mark Kessler’s 15 minutes were over, but apparently not. Apparently this has disappointed a lot of his supporters. I was disappointed 15 minutes into hearing him talk for the first time.
Stun gun rights in Massachusetts? I don’t see any reason the 2nd Amendment should be limited to firearms. It should apply to any personal weapon useful for self-defense.
Doctors keep prying into people’s gun ownership despite law. And they wonder why we think this law was needed in the first place.
Are the Tories in Canada actually following up on liberalizing some of Canada’s gun laws? I kind of figured they’d pull a “We got rid of the long gun registry for you, which you should be grateful for,” like you’d expect Republicans to do here.
WDFW is the “State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife”. The volunteer instructors to WDFW are considered “law enforcement” or else they would not receive the the exemption described above. And notice that students are not allowed to transfer the guns between themselves. They must transfer the gun to an instructor who then transfers it to another student.
Private instructors, such as myself, would not have an exemption unless we were at an “authorized range” (“authorized” is undefined). We cannot do classroom work than involves gun handling at any other location than an “authorized” range. Even then it is in doubt unless we are using the guns that are “kept at all times” at the range.
When you make a bunch of narrow exemptions, it essentially implies the prohibition against “transfer” is a general one. Bloomberg’s lackeys know damned well how to write legislation. It would have been trivially easy to write a bill that only covered change of title or exempted temporary transfers for a period of time (for instance the 30 days California’s law allows), or exempting transfers between permit holders, as our law allows.
What they did instead was slip in a provision that would help make it difficult and risky to spread the gun culture, under a guise they believed people would ignorantly support. They knew exactly what they were doing. This was not bad drafting.
Our similar law for handguns here in PA is not generally enforced. It’s not even really enforced against criminals, let alone otherwise law abiding people. These laws are put in place to make people feel good. They don’t serve much other useful purpose. There’s likely to be very little risk for a Washingtonian to carry on as you would have before I-594.
A local gun rights group in Nevada is moving to get signatures invalidated. This is a great effort, but Bloomberg hired people to gather nearly 3x more than the state requires to get an initiative on the ballot. This is an uphill climb of Sisyphean proportions, but I’m glad someone is looking into it.
Never give the enemy a freebee. If you can make them pay for every signature, do it. I would imagine that in Nevada, Clark County is probably the primary source of signatures for Bloomberg’s petition. But how many of those people may not have been residents? Lots of people you run into in Las Vegas don’t live there.