Sebastian made a comment while reading the Toomey language for his gun amendment that, while there are flaws, it appeared that it was written by someone with more gun knowledge than your average congressional staffer. Turns out that Alan Gottlieb is officially taking credit for having his staff help write the amendment based on this video.
I have some issues with this recording for a couple of reasons.
One, he misrepresents the ability to buy guns across state lines. At 3:03, Gottlieb says, “Another important one, you cannot now legally buy a handgun in a state that you don’t live in. If you’re not a resident of that state, you can’t buy a handgun. Under the so-called background check bill, you’ll be able to buy a handgun in all 50 states. As long as you buy from a licensed dealer, you can buy it from anywhere you want.” He adds more later, claiming that with “a gun license of any kind from any state, under the Toomey-Manchin proposal, there is no background check.”
Two, he promises that none of the 4473s on concealed carry licensees from FFLs will go to the government. Gottlieb says, “you have to fill out the 4473 form, it stays in the dealer’s file and never even gets called into the government.”
These two statements are just false. In fact, on the registry/4473 point, Dave Kopel’s initial review of the Toomey-Manchin amendment points out that the registry ban doesn’t include records from FFLs who close down and therefore must send their 4473s to the federal government for storage.
Beyond the actual policies in dispute, there’s a question of the strategy of this speech. Gottlieb asks dinner attendees to back this amendment specifically to advance their partisan agenda. I’m all for political reality and dealing with the fact that some people are willing to trade away our freedoms, but I truly do view defending the Bill of Rights as a non-partisan fight. I don’t want any party sitting comfortably thinking the Second Amendment is just something to take advantage of when it fits their agenda.
Gottlieb also tells the audience that these are all “secrets” to the bill – including a promise that a restoration of rights amendment is going to be presented and already has the votes – that he doesn’t want any gun control proponents to know about until after the amendment is official. So, then, help me understand why that would be announced in a room full of people while a video camera is going. (Clearly, this isn’t a hidden camera. It appears to be right in front of him, even if handheld.) That doesn’t seem very strategic to me. If CNN runs this video on repeat, those votes have likely disappeared.
My outrage moment, though, happened when Gottlieb told the crowd that every day, at every gun show, men who can’t speak English go in and purposefully load up with guns without showing ID and without ever undergoing background checks. Gee, thanks, Alan. As many gun shows as I have attended running a table, I have never witnessed anything like that happening. In fact, I have seen far more gun sellers refuse sales that they just don’t feel comfortable with than I have seen even a normal, ID-showing private sale.
Look, I get why some think that pro-gun folks should have been involved in the process of writing this amendment to try and keep innocent gun owners out of jail. That’s a reasonable argument to me. But, that’s very different from calling the Toomey-Manchin amendment a “Godsend” and misrepresenting what it does in order to lobby for grassroots support.
I would ask, if the Toomey-Manchin language goes through as presented, is the Second Amendment Foundation going to fund an Alan Gura defense for the first arrested gun owner who was just confused by the new rules about when processing through an FFL is required?
UPDATE: Interesting that the video is now starting to disappear from the internet. I found another copy of it. It’s the exact same video because the timing marks to my quotes line up.
I love markets. Markets generally tell us what people really want and how much they value something. For example, gun rights and fast cars.
For those of you who aren’t NASCAR fans, NRA has sponsored a race tonight, the NRA 500. As a politician opposed to freedom and fun, Chris Murphy (D-CT) stepped in and tried to use the pressure of his office to have NASCAR turn on NRA’s long planned sponsorship. That didn’t work, so Murphy turned on Fox to try and get them to yank it from the air. (Though NASCAR has pledged to review their sponsorship agreements after the race.)
Fox didn’t pull it, but fans are noticing that Fox announcers are going out of their way to avoid saying the name of the race tonight except where they are contractually obligated to do so. (I would embed the tweet on that topic here, but Cameron Gray of NRA News, who reported on the contract requirements, blocks us for some reason, so I cannot get the embed code.) I just can’t fathom how a network that really needs to attract viewers willing to spend money on sponsors and advertisers decides that it is in their best interest to piss off those people ready to spend money.
How do I know they are ready to spend money? Easy, the President of the Texas Motor Speedway tells us that the combined NRA & NASCAR fanbase is spending big, big bucks:
According to a statement by Gossage covered by ESPN earlier, objections to the NRA sponsorship are few and far between. Interestingly, they actually looked up those who complained and found that the vast majority of those few are not even customers.
“We’ve had fewer than a dozen responses,” Gossage said. “Of those, only two had purchased tickets [to other TMS events]. There is no controversy or big uproar or even a tiny uproar.”
But Fox is hardly the only shortsighted business involved in tonight’s race. The same ESPN article notes that the PR directors for two drivers ordered them not to grant any interviews in the media room so that they won’t have to be pictured with the letters NRA behind them. No doubt those same PR pros have probably squashed any efforts by the driver or their teams to use the #NRA500 hashtag tonight on Twitter – you know, the hashtag that’s trending nationwide right now. We wouldn’t want those drivers to turn up for any racing fans searching that hashtag, now would we?
If I was a driver, regardless on my views of guns, I would look at the merchandise sales and the social media opportunities lost, then I would promptly fire my PR person for not knowing a damn thing about my customer base. Numbers don’t lie, but PR directors apparently do when motivated by politics instead of the best business interests of their clients.
If Gossage is interested, this former Texas Motor Speedway customer appreciates the class the Speedway has shown in the face of a hostile media and an lawmaker who forgets we’re a free society. Granted, the last event I attended was a Rolling Stones concert in high school. But I am a proven customer nonetheless!
The trade group for the nation’s leading firearm manufacturers said it will not actively oppose the expansion of background checks, which are designed to prevent guns from reaching criminals or the seriously mentally ill.
“That’s more the NRA’s issue,” Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said in an interview. “From the commercial side, we’re already there, and we’ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.”
But I thought NRA were shills of the gun industry? It’s amazing they can believe that, considering we seem to be witnessing the industry going back to its old ways of supporting gun control, as long as it’s gun control that will benefit them. It occurs to me that a ban on private transfers would put a damper on used gun sales, as well as driving more business to FFLs. But NSSF isn’t the only one here:
In Washington state last month, the head of a gun rights group offered to support mandatory background-check legislation for most firearm sales in exchange for a state commitment not to maintain gun records. It’s not clear whether the proposal will succeed but it has drawn support across the divide of the gun debate.
“This is a good compromise with real give-and-take,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
How do you have background checks without the state maintaining gun records? In Pennsylvania, we were told the PICS system wouldn’t be used to make a registry. Guess what happened?
Federal law prohibits the establishment of a national gun registry. But advocates of expanded checks say some recordkeeping is necessary because federal authorities would otherwise be unable to trace guns used in crimes.
Figuring out how to meet law enforcement needs while ensuring that the recordkeeping does not constitute a government-backed database is one question the four senators are contemplating.
Pennsylvania law prohibits the establishment of a gun registry too, but the Supreme Court decided to take an interesting view of what constitutes a registry. Every gun sold in this Commonwealth gets entered into a database. But it’s not a registry, according to our Supreme Court.
I get that we can’t win every battle, and sometimes you have to cut deals so that you get slapped around instead of beaten up. But promises from lawmakers aren’t worth spit. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. We also shouldn’t kid ourselves that’s there’s something we can concede that will make the gun control advocates go away. They won’t. They’ll be back with further demands. How do I know this? I live in a state that has banned private transfers of handguns for years. Criminals still get guns, and every year, I’m asked to give up more and more liberty. Don’t forget that there was a decade long fight for the Brady Act, and an almost near as long fight for a federal assault weapons ban, and the passage of the former gave them the momentum they needed to pass the latter, and even after that, they came back with even more demands.
UPDATE: NSSF responds here, “An article is today’s Washington Post incorrectly implies that this position puts NSSF at odds with the National Rifle Association. There is no conflict.” OK, so then the quote “That’s more the NRA’s issue,” was made up then? I rather doubt that, and I can imagine any context that came out of where the impression wouldn’t be that there’s a conflict.
Lastly, why even talk to Sari Horwitz? She’s demonstrated hostility to civilian gun ownership.
I’ve noticed something about some comments that some conservative commentators have been using to frame the new McCarthy-Launtenberg ammo sales ban/restrictions. It gets under my skin because it makes it easier for our opposition to say that we’re delusional and don’t understand their “reasonable” attempts at gun control. We don’t have to misrepresent the anti-gunners to highlight just how creepy and restrictive their proposals really are. We can just give straight up facts and people will find it bothersome!
Take, for example, this tweet from Tim Graham that Cam from NRA News retweeted:
Do Liberals Think Gold Medalist Skeet Shooter Kim Rhode Has No Business Using 1,000 Rounds/Day? ow.ly/cBVGa@camedwards
Without having been in NYC to watch the press conference live, I have not read anything that indicates McCarthy, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, or any of the other speakers said Olympic & world record holder Kim Rhode should not be practicing with 1,000 rounds a day – except the post written Tim Graham’s group that tries to make that leap. I hate that they do that. You know why? Because it’s so damn easy for the anti-gun groups to say that they said nothing on that order. In fact, Sen. Lautenberg actually congratulated Matt Emmons and recognized him as an Olympic shooter this week. Now you want to say that he was out attacking Olympic shooters? Yeah, it doesn’t stick and it’s so easy to tear down as an argument.
You know what isn’t so easy to defeat? Telling people what the bill actually does.
Instead of saying that Lautenberg & McCarthy don’t want Rhode to practice as much as she has to in order to compete at the Olympic level, why not emphasize the fact that Senator Lautenberg and Representative McCarthy want Kim Rhode to be reported to law enforcement authorities every single week for the rest of her career?
Most gun owners and non-gun owners alike would find that creepy as hell and consider it a case of government overstepping its bounds. The anti-gunners can’t argue with it. If she’s shooting that many rounds a week, her name and information will be passed on to authorities every single time she stocks up on her practice ammunition. They will be put into the corner of having to defend why our Olympic athletes should be treated like “pre-”criminals. And it’s all factual. No need to make up statements or claim more than what is really in the bill.
Emily Miller reported on Facebook that the bill targets those who buy more than 1,000 rounds at one time. That is factually true. However, even many gun owners wouldn’t buy more than 1,000 rounds at a time. (Let’s face it, many gun owners don’t actively shoot that often.) It’s not unheard of by any means since just a couple of bricks of .22 and even one extra box of anything else would put you over the limit, but it’s not something that’s done all that commonly by many folks. For those who don’t shoot at all, 1,000 rounds seems like a ton of ammunition regardless of the fact that it’s really not.
However, you know what message will really hit home with far more folks – gun owners or not? The mass of paperwork and bureaucratic headaches this reporting requirement will cause for small businesses.
Because, while Emily’s claim is true, it actually leaves out that businesses selling ammunition will have to track every single round you buy since the 1,000+ round reporting requirement actually spans every five business days. That means that JoeBob’s Gun Shop will have to take down your information when you buy that first brick of .22 for your son’s Boy Scout shooting event on Saturday. Then, should you pop in on Tuesday to pick up the boxes of shotgun shells for your club’s Women on Target event, JoeBob will need to write down everything you purchased, find the record for your Saturday sale, and add the two up. If you cross that 1,000 round limit, he has to report you to the authorities. That means at the end of every business day, these licensed ammunition retailers will have to read through all of their paperwork of the previous week to figure out if anyone crossed over the limit.
On top of all this, without having a bill to actually read, we don’t know what happens with chain stores like Dick’s, Cabela’s, Bass Pro, or Wal-Mart. Will they have to calculate the list of buyers and ammunition purchase totals across their entire network or stores, or will the reporting requirement only kick in for each location? Regardless, at high-volume businesses like that, they will likely have to cut workers from other areas to monitor these sales and pay thousands of dollars for new software to track such specific information or just give up and get out of the ammunition sales business altogether. Even gun owners whose rifles have sat in their cases collecting dust for half a decade will understand why that kind of reporting burden is too onerous.
Once again, the point is that we have plenty of ammunition (pun intended) to attack this bill for the incredible burden government wants to put on businesses. It’s not like that hasn’t been a theme of the Obama administration or anything…
My advice to gun owners who oppose this bill is not to put words in the mouths of the sponsors that could set off people’s BS detectors, nor should you simplify the talking points down to something that can give a perception of not impacting many people. Focus on the facts. Connect this bill to feelings of unease about government overreach and attacks on business that people already feel and identify with, and you’ll have more success in highlighting why this bill is not the solution.
“We will attempt to teach you all the necessary information you need to obtain your [Concealed Handgun License],” the ad says. Then towards the end, it adds: “If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law.”
And then: “If you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class with no shame; I am Crockett Keller, thank you, and God bless America.”
I’m not of the opinion that Second Amendment rights are limited to Christians or Republicans, and if you’re licensed by the state to administer a concealed carry class, you should do it without regards to race, religion or national origin. I agree that this man has a right to be a bigot, but he doesn’t have a right to be a government certified bigot. To treat every non-Christian Arab or muslim as a potential cold blooded killer is exactly the same kind of bigotry that’s perpetrated against many law-abiding gun owners by the folks who hate gun ownership. It’s not going to help us, and it’s definitely an example of how not to win.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on how vegan bakeries that hide their status see their business increase.
Some vegan bakeries don’t flaunt their identity for fear of scaring off customers. That stirs up proud vegans who believe every delicious pastry should help promote a world in which no animal is used for the sake of a snickerdoodle. …
Covertly vegan bakeries are “counterproductive,” Ms. Konya says. “If you’re not making people aware of food choices, you’re not going to change the world around you.”
Sarah Kramer, co-author of a cookbook called “How it All Vegan,” says bakeries that play down their veganism are a “bummer.” She, like some other passionate vegans, was frustrated last year when former president Bill Clinton gave interviews about eschewing meat, milk and eggs as part of his recovery from heart disease, but calling his “a plant-based diet.”
I think it’s interesting that members of the vegan community are so hostile to those who don’t shove it in people’s faces. That’s a big reason why many average Americans who do enjoy a well-rounded diet won’t venture into declared vegan territory. (Also worth noting in regards to the woman pissed about Bill Clinton – he’s not a vegan. His spokesman explained that he doesn’t make sure his meals he eats out are vegan and he does eat fish. So, even if he did use the term vegan, they would crucify him for not being strict enough.)
I find this interesting enough to share because it makes me think of gun shops and how we expect at least some level of political-related material around. Of course, while there might be some level of pressure to join NRA, the intent behind it is so that we’ll be left alone – not to force people into a way of life that makes them uncomfortable and possibly miserable. I think that key difference is why gun shops get away with the entry into the political sphere.
Unlike the vegan community illustrated here, we can still celebrate someone who takes a newbie shooting without getting all up in their face about the politics of the issue. While we would like that person to become an advocate for our cause, we don’t berate an instructor for simply teaching someone how to shoot safely and enjoy the shooting sports. We recognize that even that subtle exposure can lead to more favorable actions or even outright political support among those new shooters. With the critics in the article, nothing good is coming of a meat eater who manages to enjoy a vegan cupcake if it doesn’t come with a side of lectures on how much they suck for eating meat. They cannot even concede that even if it’s just one snack that’s “cruelty-free,” it’s one tiny victory for the animals.
Whenever someone in the gun-owning community mistakenly calls an AR-platform rifle an assault rifle or an automatic rifle, they are assisting anti-gun organizations and lawmakers who are eager to introduce legislation to restrict ownership of these and potentially other semiautomatic firearms. (By the way, the AR stands for ArmaLite, the company that developed the rifle in the 1950s, and not assault rifle or automatic rifle. See other MSR facts.)
NSSF is absolutely correct about this. For gun bloggers who apparently don’t know better, “assault rifle” is a well defined term for a rifle capable of selective fire, which chambers an cartridge of intermediate, and has a detachable magazine. If any of these things aren’t true, it’s not an assault rifle by definition. The federal ban on “assault weapons” had nothing to do with “assault rifles,” which were banned in 1986. The term “assault weapon” is a legal fiction concocted by our opponents. It serves no purpose other than to scare people into thinking they are supporting banning something unusual and dangerous.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the term MSR is unnecessary. An AR-15 is just a rifle, and like most everything else, advances in technology have brought us advances in rifle design, just as it has with pistols and shotguns. But most of those advances have been ergonomic and cosmetic. The fundamental principle that drives the AR-15 or semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 isn’t really remarkably different than the Remington Model 8, which was designed in 1900. There were even variants of the Model 8 that were arguably early precursors to today’s so-called “assault weapons.” It’s even easy to note the resemblance between the safety on the Model 8 and the Safety/Selector on the AK-47. What makes the modern sporting rifle modern is the fact that the furniture is synthetic, and the rifle has more ergonomic features that make it easy and comfortable to shoot and operate. Other than that, there’s not much truly new that’s happened in firearms design in 100 years.
The National Association for Gun Rights are worried about federal intervention into the issue of concealed carry, going so far as to adopt the utterly ridiculous moniker for this bill, “National CCW Registration Act.” Understand that I don’t belittle anyone who has concerns about the feds getting involved in traditionally state issue of concealed carry. Those concerns are completely legitimate, and prior to McDonald and Heller I shared them. Nonetheless, many of NAGR’s points are ridiculous, and I’ll take on some them to explain my opinion on the matter.
While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.
Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.
This won’t use a federal bureaucracy. There won’t be any Department of Reciprocity Enforcement. It’s just that the federal law offers a defense in court if a state chooses to arrest someone with a firearm, who is licensed by any state to carry it in a state other than their state of residence. NAGR’s concern seems to be that Congress will come along later and set federal standards.
But the devil is truly in the details… and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.
This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
There are no details. The bill is remarkably simple. If you have a license from any state, you can carry in any other state that issues concealed carry licenses under the same standard for an unrestricted license in that state. The only exception is your state of residence, or states that prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons. For people who live in Vermont, they can go next door to NH and get a non-resident permit, which would allow them to carry in every state except Illinois (which prohibits concealed weapons entirely).
Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything … and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”
That’s an excuse for never passing any pro-gun law. Congress can always turn around and screw us. There’s never any time when that’s not the case. The “Obamacrats” in the Department of Justice don’t have any power to draw up “regulations” that Congress doesn’t give them. HR822 does not grant bureaucrats any rule making authority.
I believe I should be able to carry concealed — without a permit — in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.
That’s wonderful. I agree. But the world we live in is one in which only four states allow carry without a permit. All but one still have a permit option. We might be able to grow that by a few states in a few years, but it’s not going away any time soon. In addition, I view that the courts are highly unlikely to invalidate the requirement of a concealed carry license, provided the licenses aren’t issued in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Because it doesn’t measure up to your ideal is not an excuse for not improving our current reality.
Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.
No one is allowing “Obamacrats” to mandate anything. The only thing this bill mandates is reciprocity. It establishes no federal standard. Understand that the main source of Congressional power to pass this bill is the 14th Amendment. Court precedent does not allow Congress to take the legislation farther than the courts have been willing to go. The Courts were pretty clear there’s a right to carry, but have been vague about how the bounds of that right are defined. That’s the reason this bill does very little. Establishing federal standards for reciprocity would be a considerably more dubious exercise of the 14th Amendment power. So would creating federal standards by which states issue permits, which it seems NAGR is more concerned about. That would be gun control. Congress can always pass gun control. This bill is not anywhere close to gun control. It would also be a highly dubious exercise of federal power to impose licensing standards on states even under the commerce clause.
Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
That is absolute nonsense. It’s just not true at all. This bill only covers reciprocity. Arizona, Alaska, and Wyoming still issue permits for reciprocity purposes, even if they do not require it to carry in that state. Vermont does not issue permits, but New Hampshire will issue to residents of Vermont on a shall-issue basis. A Vermonter with a NH permit can carry in every state someone with a Texas permit can under HR822.
It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms — much less use them for self defense.
They can always do this. This is like arguing that we shouldn’t build a missile defense system because the Russians might decide to nuke New York. Congress can always pass gun control. The reason they haven’t is because they fear us.
They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections — state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.
The worst that could happen down the line is that an anti-gun Congress tinkers with the requirements for reciprocity to be enforced. You can bet that every gun rights group will oppose that. At worst, you fall back on state reciprocity, since the feds wouldn’t mandate reciprocal licensing for all but the most strict states. Everything else going through Dudley Brown’s active imagination would amount to a new gun control bill that does not involve the subject of reciprocity. Congress could pass a bill forbidding states from allowing concealed carry any time it wanted. That’s not an excuse for doing nothing.
That’s why you and I have to make noise, now!
Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 (send an email, too; you can get that link here) and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government’s hands off the state-run CCW permit system.
<sarcasm>I think I can speak for gun owners everywhere in sincerely thanking Dudley Brown for giving some of our weak kneed critters the “pro-gun” cover they need to vote against a bill many of them would rather not vote for in the first place.</sarcasm> We are truly our own worst enemies. Who needs the Brady Campaign, VPC, and CSGV when you have NAGR?
It’s just not right if I find myself agreeing with Mayor Mike. But I do so from a completely different position, so I guess that’s okay. Bloomberg is decidedly not getting on board with the NY Post in their call for the NYPD to boycott Glock in the wake of the Arizona shooting. To his credit, Bloomberg gives a good reason why that’s a bad idea if the paper actually wants to hurt the company:
“One of our newspapers has a campaign going to try to get the police department to ban the use of — one particular manufacturer’s guns,” Bloomberg said. “We think all that would do would be to get people to focus and buy more of that manufacturer’s guns.”
That’s already happening, but it is true that if a known gun control supporter starts using his office to institute some kind of boycott or ban, sales will continue to rise. At least Bloomberg paid attention to the Great Obama Gun Rush.
