Moms Demand Claiming Fake Victories?

John Richardson notes that Bloomberg’s Moms Demand Action has been claiming victories that probably aren’t. A lot of FFLs, especially big box retailers, have traditionally refused sales under default proceeds. We had talked about this even before Bloomberg’s people latched onto the issue, in the context of getting rid of POC states. I could totally see Watts calling up these outfits, which have never done default proceeds, and after confirming they didn’t, declare victory to her supporters. This is also likely part of the plan to energize her supporters to put pressure on Cabela’s, which apparently will do default proceeds. Hopefully Cabela’s is wise and smart enough to know who butters their bread, and it’s not Shannon Watts or any of her foaming-at-the-mouth supporters. They will no doubt remember gun owners nearly killing Smith & Wesson for conspiring with the enemy, and will be wise enough to completely ignore this Bloomberg funded non-issue.

The reason default proceeds exist, and need to exist, is because without them, all the a petulant Administration would have to do to shut down gun sales entirely is take the NICS system offline.

5 Responses to “Moms Demand Claiming Fake Victories?”

  1. The_Jack says:

    This would not be the first time they claimed victory for something a company was already doing.

    If you’ll recall quite a few of the OC bans that stores had were already in corporate policy when Watts et al. claimed that it was their efforts that did it.

  2. Jim Jones says:

    Thomas Milner was with various Remington outfits prior to joining Cabelas. Given that I doubt that northeastern city folks spend a lot of money in Cabelas stores, I am not worried about this one. It will go as far as Kroeger’s push did.

  3. HoosierMom says:

    Interesting that they’re targeting Cabela’s right when there’s a brand new store about to open just a few miles from Shannon Watts’ house.

  4. dwb says:

    ok, I had a comment that was marked as spam because I edited it and added two links to sources. any way to get it back?

    • dwb says:

      Here is the comment:
      Good luck to Mom’s Demand. Maryland has a waiting period for handguns. The state has many times through the years tried to prevent release of the guns before the background check was done. In 2013, there was a backlog of as much as 180 days (I cannot remember the exact #) due to the volume. The 100% anti gun progressive liberal court said… no, dealers can release in after 7 days. The state must do the paperwork on time, or go confiscate the gun if it turns out the buyer is denied. If the buyer does NOT have a gun, the wait is a substantial burden on self defense. If they DO have a gun, the wait is not even rationally related to the point of the waiting period. It’s a lose-lose for the open-ended waiting period crowd.

      After some litigation, and some epic fail in the attorney generals office trying to prevent FFLs from releasing guns, the net result was that almost all dealers released after the 7 day wait, regardless of whether the paperwork came back in time. The “paperwork” by the way is a little fax that says so-and-so is not disapproved.

      Point is, waiting periods (especially open ended ones) are having trouble even in liberal court systems (see here for the lawsuit in CA

      … I had edited it to add a link for the MD lawsuit in case people were interested.


  1. More fake victories claimed by Mom's Demand - […] willing (as the law allows) to do a default-proceed after a NICS delay response runs out the clock.Shall Not…