Sebastian – Page 275 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Why We Could Lose Private Transfers

Because we have plenty of groups out there who seem to be fine with it. First, NSSF:

The trade group for the nationâ€™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.

â€œThatâ€™s more the NRAâ€™s issue,â€ Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), said in an interview. â€œFrom the commercial side, weâ€™re already there, and weâ€™ve been there, and we were the ones that have been the strongest proponents of an effective, complete background check.â€

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. Itâ€™s not clear whether the proposal will succeed but it has drawn support across the divide of the gun debate.

â€œThis is a good compromise with real give-and-take,â€ 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.

I’m tired of arguing over whether they get half my cake or a quarter of my cake. That’s not compromise. So if that’s the game being played, screw them, we fight them on everything.

UPDATE: NSSF responds here, “An article is todayâ€™s Washington PostÂ incorrectly implies that this position puts NSSF at odds with the National Rifle Association. There is no conflict.” OK, so then the quote “Thatâ€™s more the NRAâ€™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.

Interview with a Liberal Gun Owner

Over in the Atlantic. I can relate to some of it, but his reasons for carrying a gun are pretty different than mine. But he covers a lot of topics, including open carry:

When you carried your gun into a Whole Foods in Boulder, Colorado, no one reacted. But when you went into a Mexican grocery, everyone was on guard. Why do you think that was?

I honestly think the people in Whole Foods — their eyes saw it and their brain didn’t. They may have thought I was some kind of cop, even though I really don’t look like it. But in the Mexican store, they didn’t know what to expect. In Mexico, no one gets to carry a gun. Which is kind of crazy, given what’s going on down there. That’s a good example — you’ve got innocents being slaughtered down there, but they can’t defend themselves. It’s always the people who live in nice neighborhoods who want gun control.

Read the whole thing. Even people on the other side should be reading it. While there are a few things here I would argue with (I think gun ownership is far more diverse than he postulates) overall I think it’s pretty good, and a genuine attempt to understand the gun culture.

UPDATE: His response to what Democrats should know about gun guys is something I want to talk about a bit:

I think they should know how much self-esteem gun guys derive from their guns, how patriotic they feel. And lawmakers need to stop thinking that the NRA represents gun owners, because only 4 percent of gun owners belong to the NRA. They need to think of gun owners as rational responsible people who genuinely care about gun violence and would like to be helpful.

I don’t really feel like I derive any self-esteem from guns. This is where I think he’s a bit off track. I could sell all my guns tomorrow and lead a perfectly happy life. The reason I get very defensive about this issue is because I don’t like people sticking their noses into my business, and if I’m not doing anything that hurts anyone, it’s my business. My self-esteem is derived from personal autonomy, and freedom to pursue my own happiness. Guns are just a symbol of that. Screw anyone who says they know what’s best for me.

It’s About Time

The ACLU would seem to be getting concerned about the increasing militarization of our police forces. I’m glad groups on the left are starting to notice what libertarian minded people have been worried about for years.

But personally, I’m OK with the police having cool toys to play with, as long as I can have the same toys myself to play with. If the military has all this surplus they want to get rid of, why not auction it off at bargain basement prices? Why should we reserve tanks to the 1%?

The need argument …

… apparently only applies to us, not government agencies.

War on Women

Via Cam and Company, which now airs from 2-5PM at NRANews.com:

Project Much?

A Florida lawmaker, Audrey Gibson (D), is proposing no one be permitted to buy ammunition unless they can prove they have gone through an anger management course. Somehow I don’t think we’re the ones who need that. How about requiring that before holding public office. Hey, it’s common sense.

Colorado Firemission

Chris has something you can do about the Colorado bills. We’re a vote away from defeating this crap.

The Shape of Things to Come

What the Obama machine is morphine into:

Obama veterans are building a wide network of deep-pocketed groups and consulting firms independent of government, the Democratic Party and traditional liberal groups, a sweeping â€” if not unprecedented â€” effort outside the White House gates aimed at promoting the president’s agenda and shaping his legacy.

From campaign strategists to online gurus and policy hands to press agents, Obama loyalists â€” including many who discovered that a second term yields fewer administration job vacancies â€” are slicing his agenda into smaller parts and launching highly targeted efforts on subjects including health care, job creation and electoral politics.

Obama’s opponents really don’t have an answer to this, and that is the problem. This group will no doubt aim to rob the American people blind, rob future generations blind, in addition to removing fundamental constitutional rights of Americans. The problem on the center-right is that many of the “deep-pocketed groups and consulting firms independent of government,” are more concerned with exploiting our issues to feather their own nests than they are actually fighting for the cause.

Campus Ban Passes Senate Committee

SCCC notes that the Senate Committee in Colorado has advanced the campus carry ban to the floor.

Committee Chairwoman, Senator Angela Giron cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the proposed campus carry ban exclaiming in tears that â€œthe testimony tonight has been very compelling, but I made a promise [to vote yes]!â€

Colorado has allowed licensed concealed carry on college campuses for nearly a decade, but lawmakers in the Centennial State reacting to recent mass shootings last year seek to reverse that provision despite no ill effects, a drop in both overall crime rates generally and sexual assault rates specifically after carry on campus was permitted, and no permitted student ever causing a disruption with a firearm on campus.

Who was it she made that promise to? Joe Biden? Do we run Colorado out of Washington these days? That seems to be the Democrats’ plan. Clayton Cramer has more here.

UPDATE: I guess not too surprising when they have this kind of contempt.

Joe Manchin and Gun Control

He doesn’t want to talk about it. You know, Joe, we don’t have to vote on this stuff. I’m sure Harry Reid would prefer not to as well. Why not just tell the White House to piss off? There was a time, before the 2010 cycle, when no Democrat wanted to be seen with him. It kind of makes you wonder what the Administration is threatening these Dems with if they don’t toe the line.