The Establishment Has Spoken

The Wall Street Journal ran an unsigned editorial yesterday regarding background checks for firearms purchases. They noted the Florida school murderer was a known threat. He had been reported to the FBI, the local sheriff’s department had been called multiple times, and the school had a warning out asking to be notified if he showed up with a backpack.

The editorial then advocates for the passage of Sen. John Cornyn’s Fix NICS Act of 2017. They say this could be done quickly if only, in my words, those ideologues in the House would decouple national concealed carry reciprocity from their version of Fix NICS. While they are at they could throw in a Trojan Horse ban on bump fire stocks.

From the editorial:

The bill would tighten an imperfect background-check system and is supported by the National Rifle Association, police associations and the White House. The House passed the legislation last year, but it also added a provision requiring reciprocity for owners of concealed firearm permits across state lines. Democrats oppose the reciprocity provision, which can’t pass the Senate.


Republicans would be wise to let that reciprocity provision die and send a clean Fix-NICS bill to the Senate. The House can throw in a ban on so-called bump stocks, which let an AR-15 rifle fire more rapidly. That also has bipartisan support, and President Trump on Tuesday directed the Justice Department to propose a regulation banning bump stocks.


These ideas might not have stopped (killer’s name redacted), but then neither would the oft-proposed ban on AR-15s. He could as easily have bought handguns, which is how (killer’s name redacted) killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. But one consequence of Parkland should be a debate on how American society can deny the dangerous mentally ill access to guns of any kind. That will require a rethinking of privacy laws and state mental-health statutes.


Democrats keep saying they merely want “common sense” gun laws, not a ban, and the Cornyn bill is a test of their sincerity.

So let me get this straight so I can understand the thinking of the Establishment. If the Democrats “compromise” and support a bill that gives them virtually everything they want short of a ban on semi-automatic rifles and universal background checks, it is a “test of their sincerity”. However, this also implies that if the Republicans insist on fulfilling their promise to the American voters on national reciprocity they will be considered obstructionists.

What a masterful example of Establishment doublespeak!

The proper response by us gun rights demanding proles is not only no but hell no. Passing Fix NICS with a bump fire ban but no carry reciprocity is no compromise. It should be rightfully seen for what it is:  a willful surrender by spineless Republicans who only give a shit about gun rights when it comes to getting our votes at election time.

“Calling for gun control while Hitler is in the White House makes you sound suicidal”

Comedian Lou Perez has produced a YouTube video entitled, “7 Things You Should Know Before Talking About Guns”. It is something everyone who is advocating for gun control should watch before opening their mouths.

Or maybe not. I kinda prefer the enemies of my rights to sound like the blithering idiots that they are.

One correction – “assault rifle” is more than a description of how a gun looks. He confuses that – like most in the media – with “assault weapon” which is a made-up term by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center. An assault rifle is a select-fire rifle of intermediate caliber with a detachable magazine. A very early version would be something like the Sturmgewehr 44 which fired the 7.92×33 Kurz round.

H/T Legal Insurrection

Bill Introduced In Nebraska Senate That Would Ban Both Bump Stocks And Suppressors

Sen. Patty Pensing Brooks (Lincoln) introduced Legislative Bill 780 would make “the manufacturing, sale, purchase or possession of bump stocks and silencers a class IV felony, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a year of post-release supervision.” While the Nebraska legislature is officially non-partisan, Brooks is a registered Democrat.

LB 780 would not just ban suppressors and bump stocks as the language makes clear:

Multiburst trigger activator means either: (a) A device designed
or redesigned to be attached to a semiautomatic firearm which allows the
firearm to discharge two or more shots in a burst by activating the
device; or (b) a trigger-activating device, whether manual or power
driven, that is constructed and designed so that when such device is
attached to a semiautomatic firearm the rate of fire of such firearm is
increased
;

It is not clear whether belt loops and agile index fingers will also be banned as they could be considered multiburst trigger activators in the strictest sense of the word.

According to the Omaha World-Herald, both the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association and the NRA have come out against the bill.

Sen. Brooks had this to say about her bill:

The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln, said she believes that the state would be safer if it banned a device that enables mass shooters to increase their rate of fire. The Democratic senator noted that she is entering the final year of her first term.

“If I’m not re-elected, I think I would walk away from here thinking, ‘You did nothing about the proliferation of guns in your community,’ ” she said Wednesday.

The other gun related bill introduced today was LB 730 by Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha. His bill would impose a 10% excise tax on ammo sales. Half the proceeds of the tax would go to wildlife conservation but the other half would go to the “violence prevention fund.” This sounds suspiciously like what was adopted in California that funds the “research” efforts of anti-gun Dr. Garen Wintemute. Sen. Wayne, in case you haven’t guess it by now, is a Democrat.

Republicans hold a 2-1 majority in the legislature but that is not a guarantee that either of these bills won’t pass. I could foresee some compromise where suppressors are left out of LB 780 but the “multiburst trigger activators” portion goes on to pass.

The Truth Or Wishful Dreaming On His Part

I saw a note that firearm company stocks were up today on rumors of a deal on gun control. What spurred it was a tweet by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) who is one of the most ardent gun prohibitionists in both houses of Congress.

This leads to the question as to what gun legislation. Will it be merely a ban on bump stocks, a bill to improve NICS, or is it something more? Therein lies the question and I just don’t have a good answer to that.

I do know that the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to hold hearings yesterday on “Firearm Accessory Regulation and Enforcing Federal and State Reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).” However, that hearing has now been postponed to December 6th.

Firearm Policy Coalition On The Demands For More Gun Control

The Firearms Policy Coalition released a statement regarding the demand for more gun control following the horrific church shooting at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas. They know that these tragedies are used as a pretext for more gun control.

It should be noted that the killer was convicted at a General Court Martial of a crime of domestic violence and had escaped from a mental institution. Both of these made the killer a prohibited person forbidden to own or purchase firearms. However, neither were reported to the FBI NICS database and he went on to buy firearms at retail and “pass” the NICS check.

From the FPC:

SACRAMENTO, CA (November 7, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has issued the following statement concerning demands for new gun control following the shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas:

We are deeply saddened by the loss of life and grieve for all those affected by the hand of an evil man in Sutherland Springs, Texas; indeed, we mourn for every man, woman, and child lost to unjust violence and unconscionable circumstance wherever and however they may fall.

In the aftermath of the horrific and illegal premeditated killing at the First Baptist Church we see once more, and quite clearly, that only virtuous people bearing arms can effectively respond to those evil or insane people who, devoid of a moral core, take deliberate actions to kill and injure others when they are at their most vulnerable. And, too, such virtuous people are not limited to those in government service; rather, they are found in abundance throughout our great nation, standing as sheepdogs, vigilant for the cause of peace but prepared to defend life if needed, perhaps even at the cost of their own.

In response to tragedy, some predatory politicians and others like them in the billionaire-backed gun control lobby have demanded, disingenuously, that those who advocate for individual freedoms must participate in some “conversation,” as if they are empowered to unilaterally compel their fellow citizens to do as they wish. But as the observant among us know all too well, their latent—and sometimes patent—desire is for no more dialogue to be had at all, simply that the Second Amendment’s core guarantees against government infringement be reduced unto a dead letter.

We believe the only “conversation” that is genuinely pertinent to their efforts is set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution, which provides the process for lawfully changing the supreme document of our social contract. All other proposals turn on legislation wrought from the tyranny of the majority; administrative rules and regulations to expand their preferred bureaucracy; and lawless rule by now-fashionable ‘pen-and-phone’ executive fiat. As a reminder to all who promote such dangerous instruments to achieve their gun control goals: Any rule crafted to impinge on Second Amendment rights can just as easily be reframed to limit the rights you hold dear; any offense you might employ against individual freedom today will, at some point, become someone else’s incursion on another liberty tomorrow.

If gun control proponents were honest—and they are by no means honest—they would admit what they really want when they demand a dialogue: for freedom advocacy organizations like FPC, and our law-abiding supporters, to concede ground to them on their terms, and with no reciprocation, so that they may more easily red-line fundamental, individual constitutional rights they do not like. We refuse to participate in their squalid process. We have no moral obligation to aid and abet our opposition, whether physical or philosophical, and we will not do so here.

Law-abiding gun owners are not responsible for evil or insane killers who use firearms, just as peaceable Muslims are not responsible for radical Islamic terrorists flying planes into our buildings and killing thousands, slaying hundreds in bomb blasts, or even running over dozens with vehicles. As we have said before, we reject the notion that good people and our basic rights must suffer for the crimes of the wicked.

We know that modern theories of gun control rely on the existence of three essential components to achieve, through force and attrition, the ultimate goal of a disarmed society: registration of people and property in persistent databases (through background checks and sale or transfer records); ever-expanding categories of prohibited people and items; and responsive confiscation of arms through law enforcement efforts. See, for example, California’s firearm regulatory scheme and associated APPS confiscation program or the New York SAFE Act.

In the final analysis, all roads lead to confiscatory laws with criminal consequences. And those who advocate for gun control would see other peoples’ sons and daughters carry the personal risk of their unchained desire to re-create America into the authoritarian utopia they seek.

To be sure, all constitutional rights have social costs, and the Second Amendment is not unique from other fundamental rights in that respect. But those considerations were weighed and the social interests balanced when we ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 and, perhaps more importantly, upon re-affirming our commitment to those principles for all people in 1868 when we enshrined the Fourteenth Amendment and ensured their application to states and local governments.

Because of inalienable human rights like the individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment, the news media is free to report on uncomfortable or embarrassing matters of national security; editorialists are free to discuss, even encourage, the removal of a sitting president; and those who promote gun control, even in opposition to the ruling party, have the freedom to advocate for those views.

The right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech and the right to due process, is a bright line rule that separates the people from servitude. Our nation’s founders wisely took great pains to protect fundamental rights like those contained in the First and Second Amendments in the very textual threads of our social fabric—not because they are benign, but because they are inherently dangerous and necessary to an enduring free Republic.

We recognize that gun control is one growing front of a still-cold but increasingly bitter war between those who desire a powerful government that has the ability to control its people and those who value freedom and individual liberty. But an armed and prepared citizenry—indeed, the unorganized militia—is the first, and perhaps last, line of defense against the deranged, evil, and tyrannical.

Accordingly, FPC believes that Congress should immediately work to remedy or repeal previously-enacted unconstitutional laws and expand statutory protections for those who would safely and responsibly exercise their right to keep and bear arms inside and outside their homes. Dozens of such bills exist today, and they should be passed and signed into law without further delay.

Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The NFL Must Really Hate Their Base

First it was kneeling during the National Anthem. In that case the NFL decided to give the middle finger to middle America and support the kneeling players. No matter that no one else in America is usually allowed to engage in political demonstrations at work. The end result is that support for the league is plummeting, TV ratings are down, the stadiums are half full, and revenues are way down.

You will remember the protests started with the San Francisco 49ers and their then-backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Now it is as if the Niners’ owners are saying, “Here, hold my beer. You ain’t seen nothing yet!”

Now, they’re trying to set the league’s moral compass once again, announcing Thursday that they are partnering with big-city police unions to back gun-control measures, particularly to outlaw the “bump stocks” that significantly boosted the killing power of the shooter in the Las Vegas massacre earlier this month.


“It seems insane to me that a citizen can buy something like that,” team CEO Jed York said at a news conference. “I’m not anti-Second Amendment, this is something that is common sense.”

The news conference was ostensibly to announce the 49ers partnership with various (mostly) California police unions to mitigate the acrimony between the police and some parts of the community. However, the majority of that news conference, according to the San Jose Mercury News, was devoted to gun control measures.

But much of the news conference at Levi’s Stadium on Thursday focused on rallying behind proposed federal legislation to ban the bump stocks, and advocating to outlaw armor-piercing bullets and gun silencers the unions contend are a significant threat to law enforcement.

Robert Harris, secretary of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, stressed that his colleagues were not trying to obstruct gun rights.

“We are unwavering in our support of the Second Amendment. We also believe that common sense laws should be put into place to protect law-enforcement officers and the citizens they serve,” Harris said. “If as a country we hope to make any progress, it will take all of us to leave our comfort zones.”

Pardon me Mr. Harris if I raise the bullshit flag over your “unwavering” support of the Second Amendment. Those armor-piercing bullets are nothing but normal rifle bullets used in your average deer rifle. As to silencers being a significant threat, I guess it is okay for your “only ones” on the LA SWAT teams to use them to protect their hearing. However, bearing in mind that they only reduce the sound signature of a firearm by 25-30 decibels to about the level of a jackhammer, if the rest of us unwashed who pay your salaries and for whom you work want one to protect our hearing, then you have a sick idea of what constitutes a “significant threat”.

 The 49ers will be donating $500,000 towards “public service” ads and will be encouraging other teams to donate to the effort. How much of that content will be on gun control and how much on improving police-community relations remains to be seen.

The one voice of sanity seems to be Pastor Jason Reynolds of San Francisco’s Emmanuel Baptist Church. He is rightly concerned that the addition of gun control to the equation will diminish the larger issue of the relations between minority communities and the police.

“I’m concerned because technically, gun control was not our issue. I don’t want us to lose the larger narrative. Our concern was for communities of color who have dealt with issues with law enforcement, and how we overcome that.”

 I think David Burge – Iowahawk – nails it with this tweet about what is happening.

Adopting support for gun control by the NFL will be the final straw. I suppose some of Mayor Bloomberg’s Demanding Mommies are football fans but I doubt there are enough to make up for those that will be lost by supporting gun control.

If the 49ers and, by extension, the NFL, think gun rights organizations aren’t paying attention to this move, they are sadly mistaken. The Illinois State Rifle Association sent out both email and Facebook notices this afternoon.

The 2018 California Senate Race Will Be Interesting

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), age 84 and the oldest person currently in the US Senate, has announced she plans to run for re-election in 2018. Despite her pro-Obamacare, pro-abortion, pro-climate change, gun-grabbiness nature, she is considered a moderate and “too bipartisan” for California. A number of potential candidates who might have run for the seat if she had announced her retirement have opted out of the race which may cost $50-100 million.

State Senate President Kevin “Ghost Gun” de Leon (D-LA) has announced he plans to challenge her from the Left.

Kevin de León announced Sunday morning that he would challenge veteran US Sen. Dianne Feinstein, saying he’ll stand for a wing of the party that feels she no longer represents the progressive makeup of the state’s Democratic Party and has not aggressively challenged the policies of President Donald Trump.

The bold move by de León, the State Senate president pro tempore who is termed out next year, set up an internecine battle within the Democratic Party that some fear could draw attention and resources away from the seven competitive House races that could flip control of the US House of Representatives to the Democrats.

But de León represents the younger generation of California Democrats who have been frustrated by Feinstein’s mild criticism of Trump and the lack of opportunity for higher office because of the lengthy tenure of figures like Feinstein, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Jerry Brown and former Sen. Barbara Boxer (who retired and was replaced by Sen. Kamala Harris last year). Feinstein will be 85 at the time of next year’s election.

In a video statement released Sunday morning, de León said that in his three years as the State Senate leader he had worked to infuse “progressive California values in important policy efforts like immigration, women’s rights, quality education, civil rights, job creation and fighting climate change.”

“We now stand at the front lines of a historic struggle for the very soul of America, against a President without one,” de León, who is 50, said in his video statement, taking aim at Trump. “Every day, his administration wages war on our people and our progress. He disregards our voices. Demonizes our diversity. Attacks our civil rights, our clean air, our health access and our public safety. We can lead the fight against his administration, but only if we jump into the arena together.

Given that California has a modified open primary system, the top two candidates regardless of party will move on to the general election. Thus, it is quite probable that the top two will end up being Feinstein and de Leon. I can imagine the anti-gun rhetoric along with misinformation coming out of their mouths. There will be a lot of eye-rolling going on.

Thus, gun prohibitionists can rejoice. No matter who wins, the rest of free America loses.

NRA Opposes Both Feinstein’s S.1916 And Curbelo’s HR 3999

The NRA announced yesterday that it opposed both Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S.1916 and Rep. Carlos Curbelo’s HR 3999. These bills would ban any part that could increase the rate of fire of a semi-automatic fire.

The opposition was announced via an interview with the Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski.

“We are opposed to the Feinstein and Curbelo legislation,” Jennifer Baker, a spokesperson for the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon.

The text for Sen. Feinstein’s S.1916 can be found here while the text of  Rep. Curbelo’s HR 3999 can be found here. The Trojan Horse in both bills is this language.

any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi- automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

As I noted in earlier blog posts on the issue, this could be anything from a replacement trigger reset spring to a Geissele trigger to a lightweight AR bolt carrier to a heavier AR buffer. In other words, the BATFE Technology Division could use this to ban anything and everything related to a semi-automatic rifle short of the gritty mil-spec trigger.

HR 3999 – The “Bipartisan” Answer To S.1916 Is A Trojan Horse

You knew it was only a matter of time before some spineless Republican – but I repeat myself – introduced a bill that mimicked Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and Rep. Seth Moulton (R-MA) introduced the bill yesterday and it has 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans as co-sponsors.

Reading the wording of the bill, it is actually worse for the firearms community than avowedly anti-gun Feinstein’s bill. Her bill at least makes mention of bump fire stocks and trigger cranks. The operative wording on this bill says:

(a) PROHIBITION.—Section 922 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—
‘‘(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or
‘‘(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any
such part or combination of parts that have been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.’’.

I call this bill a Trojan Horse because it can mean anything and everything that the regulators at the BATFE and DOJ want it to mean. Improved triggers, springs, and heavier buffers than stock could all be included under the wording of this bill.

Here are the Republicans that have signed on as co-sponsors. Some are the usual suspects like Peter King; some should know better. I have put their NRA-PVF grade for 2016 after their names. Rep. Curbelo, the bill’s sponsor, was rated a B+ by the NRA_PVF.

Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2]* F
Rep. Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7]* A Endorsed
Rep. Meehan, Patrick [R-PA-7]* B-
Rep. Royce, Edward R. [R-CA-39]* A Endorsed
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]* C+
Rep. Paulsen, Erik [R-MN-3]* A Endorsed
Rep. Costello, Ryan A. [R-PA-6]* A Endorsed
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27]* A Endorsed
Rep. Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15]* A Endorsed
Rep. Stefanik, Elise M. [R-NY-21]* A Endorsed

It disgusts me to see that seven out of the 10 Republican co-sponsors were “A Endorsed” candidates in 2016. While the NRA meant for their statement of bump fire stocks to be a delaying device, it has also become cover for these Republicans. The average voter isn’t going to go into the exact wording of the NRA’s statement. They are just going to say, “The NRA says bump fire stocks should be banned and this is what these Republicans are doing.” You know and I know that the NRA called for greater regulation which is much different than a ban.

With regard to the Democrat co-sponsors, they are all rated F with the exception of Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) who got a B-.

This bill needs to be stopped and stopped now. The Republicans supporting this bill need calls from their constituents and donors.

Feinstein’s S.1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act

This past Wednesday, October 4th, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced S.1916 – Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act – in response to the Las Vegas mass casualty event. As of today, the bill has 38 co-sponsors. All the co-sponsors are Democrats with the exception of Bernie Sanders who is still listed as an Independent.

The operative part of the bill reads:

(v)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), on and
after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment
of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any person to
import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank,
a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts,
component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-
automatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle
into a machinegun
.

The prohibition would not apply to any agency or department of the United States or to those of any state or local government. The full text of the bill is here.

As I’ve said many a time when it comes to legislation, the devil is in the details. More importantly, it will be in how the courts and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives choose to interpret any part, etc. that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semi-auto rifle.

I foresee that items like the Franklin Armory binary trigger systems would be banned under this bill even though not explicitly named. Where I think it will get dicey is with springs and drop-in triggers. Will a stronger trigger return spring or a lighter hammer spring be considered items that function to accelerate the rate of fire? Would anything that makes for a smoother and/or lighter trigger pull fall under the rubric of this bill?

Indeed, would using a rubber band from an office supply store (or that your mail is banded with by the USPS) be prohibited by this bill? SayUncle has a number of examples of bump firing without using any of the explicitly banned items.

I attended the local gun show yesterday. In my 3 hours there, I saw only one person with a Slide-Fire stock. I don’t know if he had just bought it or had it with him to sell.

Bump fire stocks are novelty items in my opinion. I don’t have a need for one nor do I intend to buy one. That said, I think this bill needs to be killed. No bill introduced within days of a serious tragedy is meant to address the problems behind the tragedy. They are strictly to make political hay. This bill in particular is meant to stick it to the gun culture. The all encompassing weasel words after trigger crank and bump-fire device are so open for interpretation that you won’t know what is legal and what is not. That is just not good legislation.

H/T Tiffany Johnson for the link to the bill’s text.