Best Comment On The NFL’s Denial Of Daniel Defense’s Super Bowl Ad

David E.  Petzal, rifle editor of Field and Stream, writing in The Gun Nut blog on F&S’s website had what I consider the best comment on the controversy over the NFL’s denial of the Daniel Defense Super Bowl Ad.

It’s possible that this is nothing more than hypocrisy. But the real reason, I think, is that the NFL is trying to protect its investments. The oversized guy who crashes his $150,000 custom SUV into a house and breaks down the door with his fists to strangle the family inside may be someone’s number one draft pick, and all those millions his team spent on him would go right down the drain if some terrified homeowner shot him in self-defense.

And we can’t have that now, can we? It’s…un-American.

That is truly snarky….and I love it!

Marty Daniels – “Maybe I Should Throw The Challenge Flag”

Marty Daniels of Daniels Defense talked with Cam Edwards yesterday about the NFL’s rejection of the Daniels Defense Superbowl ad.

Daniels discussed how they approached the Fox affiliate in Atlanta about running their ad during the Superbowl and how the NFL responded with an unequivocal no even after Daniels offered to remove the company’s log. He noted that the local NBC affiliate in Georgia ran their ad during last year’s Superbowl with some hesitancy but they ran it.

Daniels says he is a bit amazed at the response the NFL’s rejection of his company’s ad has generated. He has heard from a number of people who are outraged at the sheer hypocrisy of the NFL and wonder what happened to their country.

He concludes with a bit of humor saying maybe he ought to throw the challenge flag and ask the NFL to review the “ruling on the field”.

Lest it be forgotten, the NFL allowed ads from Mayor Bloomberg’s Illegal Mayors during the 2012 and 2013 Superbowls.

About That Arms Trade Treaty

Controlling your and my rifle is important but brake pads for those grounded Iranian F-14 Tomahawks are not. If a story published in the Philadelphia Inquirer by the lefty journalism group Propublica is correct, then that is the intent of the Obama Administration.

Starting yesterday, a number of items that previously had been controlled by the State Department through its arms control regulations will be transferred to the control of the Commerce Department which has weaker controls on exports of these items.

In the current system, every manufacturer and exporter of military equipment has to register with the State Department and get a license for each planned export. U.S. officials scrutinize each proposed deal to make sure the receiving country isn’t violating human rights and to determine the risk of the shipment winding up with terrorists or another questionable group.

Under the new system, whole categories of equipment encompassing tens of thousands of items will move to the Commerce Department, where they will be under more “flexible” controls. Final rules have been issued for six of 19 categories of equipment and more will roll out in the coming months. Some military equipment, such as fighter jets, drones, and other systems and parts, will stay under the State Department’s tighter oversight.

Commerce will do interagency human rights reviews before allowing exports, but only as a matter of policy, whereas in the State Department it is required by law.

While spare parts that will now be regulated by the Commerce Department may not be exported directly to such rogue nations as Iran and Syria, the controls on re-exports of these spare parts will have much less regulation. Spare parts are the key to keeping aging fleets of jet fighters in the air and not the ground.

The story does note that the one area in which the Obama Administration refused to switch to the Commerce Department was, you guessed it, firearms and ammunition.

In one area, the administration does appear to have temporarily backed off – firearms and ammunition. Any decision to loosen exports for firearms could have conflicted with the president’s call for enhanced domestic gun control.

According to a memo obtained by the Wall Street Journal last spring, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security both opposed draft versions of revisions to the firearms category. (The Justice Department press office is out of operation due to the government shutdown, and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment.) Shifting firearms was also likely to be a lightning rod for arms control groups. As the New York Times’ C.J. Chivers has documented, small arms trafficking has been the scourge of conflicts around the world.

Draft rules for firearms and ammunitions were ready in mid-2012, according to Lawrence Keane, general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for gun manufacturers. The Commerce Department even sent representatives to an industry export conference to preview manufacturers on the new system they might fall under.

But since the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December, no proposed rule has been published.

Keane thinks the connection is irrelevant. “This has nothing to do with domestic gun control legislation. We’re talking about exports,” he said. “Our products have not moved forward, and we’re disappointed by that.”

Read the whole article to see the hypocrisy of the Obama Administration.

In related news to the Arms Trade Treaty, a number of Senators and Congressmen have come out in opposition to the ratification of the ATT. The treaty needs 67 votes in favor for it to be ratified. So far 50 Senators have come out in opposition to it.

From the NRA on the letter from 50 Senators and 181 Congressmen to President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry opposing the ATT:

Fairfax, Va. – Today, a bipartisan group of 50 members of the U.S. Senate and 181 members of the U.S. House sent a clear message to President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and the United Nations that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty will not be ratified. Earlier this year, the U.N. adopted and President Obama directed Secretary Kerry to sign this treaty, which does not exclude civilian arms from its scope and therefore directly threatens the Second Amendment.

“The Obama administration has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “On behalf of our 5 million members, the NRA would like to thank those who signed these letters for their principled stand in defending the Second Amendment freedoms of all law-abiding Americans.”

The Senate effort in opposition to the ATT was led by Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Joe Manchin (D-WV). Their letter, signed by 50 senators, states clearly that “as members of the Senate, we pledge to oppose the ratification of this treaty, and we give notice that we do not regard the U.S. as bound to uphold its object and purpose.”

A bipartisan group of 181 members of the U.S. House sent a separate letter of opposition. That effort was led by Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN).

“The NRA will continue to fight against ratification of the U.N. ATT, which undermines the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans,” concluded Cox. “With 67 votes in the U.S. Senate being necessary for ratification, these letters send a clear message to President Obama and Secretary Kerry that this attempt to undermine our Right to Keep and Bear Arms will be met with strong opposition.”

North Carolina Democrats Seek To Use Passage Of Omnibus Gun Bill For Fundraising

The North Carolina House Democratic Caucus is trying to use passage of HB 937 which amended a number of North Carolina’s firearms law as a fundraising tool. Not surprisingly, they misstate much of what was in their amendments.

Those “common sense gun safety” amendments included background checks for all private sales – not just at gun shows. That amendment also used terminology straight out of Mayor Bloomberg’s playbook especially in how they defined transfers. The other amendments that they offered would have restricted magazines to 10 rounds, mandated a safe storage law,  banned the storage of firearms in locked cars on university and community college campuses, and increased the penalty for consuming alcohol while carrying concealed. It is already against the law to consume alcohol while carrying. The intent of this last amendment was clearly to give the Democrats a campaign tool.

I find it amusing that Rep. Darren Jackson (D-Wake) would say that the Republicans voted in lockstep on each and every amendment. There were 12 amendments proposed to HB 937. 11 of these amendments had a recorded vote. Examining the votes on each amendment, I see only two – Amendment 6 and Amendment 11 – where even one Democrat voted in the affirmative to the tabling motion. By contrast, on every amendment, you have one or more Republicans voting against tabling the amendment. Indeed, on Amendment 6, you have 11 Republicans voting the same way as the Democrats. Let me put it bluntly – Rep. Jackson is a hypocrite.

If Rep. Jackson wants to hold the Republicans responsible for their votes, I say fine but it works both ways. If you are a North Carolinian and you have a Democrat who says he or she is pro-gun as your state representative, call them out on it. Pro-gun representatives don’t vote for draconian magazine bans like each and every Democrat in the NC House did on Monday and Tuesday. A pro-gun representative would not have voted to criminalize private sales and transfers of firearms unless they had a NICS background check. A pro-gun representative would not have used the language provided by Mayor Bloomberg and his Illegal Mayors.

It is not enough to just vote against these hypocrites come 2014. They must be called out now in letters to the editors, posts on forums, and with calls and letters to their offices. Put them on notice that we have seen how they treat gun rights.

 
 
Dear Friend,
 
Do you want a person sitting next to you and your family in a restaurant to be drinking and handling a firearm?
 
I believe most people would agree the
common sense answer to that question is ‘no,’ but common sense was the
last thing on House Republicans’ minds last night when they pushed
through House Bill 937.  This bill will allow guns in bars and concealed
weapons on university and community college campuses.  Republicans
loosened our gun laws and endangered public safety.  Stand with the
House Democrats on gun legislation today by contributing $50, $25, $10
$5 or whatever you can afford.
 
While Republicans tout the Second
Amendment as justification for this bill, we know it is not a Second
Amendment bill but rather a policy issue.  I am not anti-gun and I am
not anti-Second Amendment.  I grew up with firearms and I own firearms,
but I know that alcohol and firearms don’t mix just as alcohol and
driving don’t mix.  
 
House Democrats tried to speak up for the
majority of our state and offer common sense gun safety legislation.
 We offered five amendments to the bill that would require background
checks for firearms at gun shows, disallow firearms on our college
campuses and strengthen the penalties for carrying a firearm while
consuming alcohol.  
 
Republicans voted in lockstep five
different times to have our common sense amendments lie upon the table,
cutting them off without debate.  This was nothing more than a cheap,
procedural trick on the part of House Republicans, but tricks will not
save their members from taking a position on these issues.  Their votes
last night made their positions clear and put them on the record.  House
Democrats will hold them responsible for those votes.  Help us show the
House Republicans that voters are smart enough to see through
procedural tricks by contributing $50, $25, $10, $5 or whatever you can
afford today. 
 
As my colleague Rep. Deborah Ross pointed
out last night, “This is not something that makes our state a better
place.”   While our efforts were foiled yesterday, we will continue to
hold Republicans accountable for their actions and stand up for
legislation that best represents the hard-working citizens of this
state.
 
Sincerely,
Representative Darren Jackson

A Load Of Bovine Excrement

I just read Mayor Bloomberg’s response to the defeat of Manchin-Toomey. If you need some organic fertilizer for your garden, there is a lot of it here.

“Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special
interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather
turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support
comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist
wing of the gun lobby. Democrats – who are so quick to blame Republicans
for our broken gun laws – could not stand united. And Republicans – who
are so quick to blame Democrats for not being tough enough on crime –
handed criminals a huge victory, by preserving their ability to buy guns
illegally at gun shows and online and keeping the illegal trafficking
market well-fed. Senators Manchin and Toomey – as well as Majority
Leader Reid and Senators Schumer, Kirk, Collins, McCain and others –
deserve real credit for coming together around a compromise bill that
struck a fair balance, and President Obama and Vice-President Biden
deserve credit for their leadership since the Sandy Hook massacre. But
even with some bi-partisan support, a common-sense public safety reform
died in the U.S. Senate at the hands of those who are more interested in
attempting to protect their own political careers – or some false sense
of ideological purity – than protecting the lives of innocent
Americans. The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to
stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding
coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t
forget.”

At least he blames both Democrats and Republicans alike for the failure of the bill. I’ll give him that.

What I find interesting is his ideological blindness bordering on hypocrisy. If you rewrote the first two sentences and substituted Colorado for Washington and US, you’d have exactly what just happened in Colorado. To say that most Coloradans were in favor of those gun control bills would be a lie. Moreover, the Democrats in the Colorado House and Senate were told by their leaders (and Bloomberg’s lobbyists) to ignore what their constituents were saying. If that isn’t turning their back on Coloradans, what is?

A Special Kind Of Arrogance

I can’t say anything more about Connecticut’s infamous Bill No. 1160 which was rammed through the General Assembly as emergency legislation than has already been said. 

That said, it takes a special kind of arrogance still to proclaim this on the State of Connecticut’s official “About Connecticut” webpage:

Connecticut is often described as the “Arsenal of the Nation.” It gained this reputation as early as the American Revolution. Early in the 19th century, Eli Whitney and Simeon North began making Connecticut firearms with interchangeable parts. This is generally recognized as the beginning of modern mass production.

Then there is there that other thing Connecticut likes to call itself – The Constitution State.

Only in their (lost) dreams.

If This Guy Tries To Sell You An AR, It’s A Trap!

If a kinda short balding guy with a wispy moustache who looks like the guy in the picture below tries to sell you a used Sig M400 for a good price and you aren’t a resident of Arizona, you might want to ask for some identification. If the name is Mark Kelly, you better run because it is a set-up.

As has been reported many times and many places, Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords and born again gun control advocate, recently purchased a used Sig M400 AR-15 clone from a Tucson gun shop. He bought it when he didn’t think anyone was looking. Once held up to public scrutiny, his alibi became he bought it to show how easy it was to purchase and that he was going to turn it in to the Tucson Police Department.

Now it seems, if his comments in the video below are to be believed, he is going to try to sell the AR-15 to someone across state lines in a private sale. However, that would be illegal under 18 USC Section 922(a)(5). That section of the law which is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 states that it is unlawful:

(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to
transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to
any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the
transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not
reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business
entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in
which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall
not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a
firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an
acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who
is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of
the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a
firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting
purposes;

In other words, unless you are a dealer you can’t sell a firearm to someone who resides in another state. To be legal, the sale has to go through an FFL who will log the firearm into his bound book, a Form 4473 is filled out, the NICS check is run, and then and only then, can the firearm be transferred. The statutory maximum for violating 18 USC 922(a)(5) is 5 years.

Moreover, willful receipt of a firearm from an unlicensed person such as Mr. Kelly from out of state is a violation of 18 USC 922(a)(3) which also carries up to 5 years of imprisonment.

So the bottom line is if you are not a resident of Arizona and Mark Kelly tries to sell you any firearm, run! It’s a trap and TV cameras will be nearby.

All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others

Now more than ever we live in an Orwellian world. 

Thanks to Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned for pointing out a story on TMZ regarding BATFE intervention on behalf of David Gregory and his illegal in DC 30-round magazine. It seems officials in Comrade Napolean’s, err, I mean President Obama’s ATF contacted the Metro PD on behalf of NBC and were told Gregory could “display” the magazine.

Well-placed law enforcement sources tell TMZ … a staffer from “Meet
the Press” called ATF before the show aired to inquire about the
legality of David holding the empty magazine during a segment on gun
control.  We’re told the ATF person contacted the D.C. police to find
out if the District of Columbia — the place where the show is broadcast
— had a law prohibiting such a display. 

Our sources say the
D.C. police official informed ATF David could legally show the magazine,
provided it was empty.  An ATF official then called the staffer from
“Meet the Press” to inform them they could use the magazine.

From a reader comment that Glenn Reynolds posted on Instapundit along with his response:

Reader Stephen Johnson emails: “ATF approval simply makes no sense.
The ATF has no jurisdiction over DC gun laws. And if, in fact, NBC news
called the ATF to ask ‘permission’ this just reinforces how stupid they
are about gun laws and jurisdiction. This story smells…. bad.” Hmm.
If D.C. were a state I’d be sure this was correct. But since it’s a
federal enclave I’m not sure.

Insofar as comments go regarding this matter, I do like the one from rickn8or at Say Uncle:

So if we get caught with anything illegal in DC, all we gotta do is tell the cop we want a “David Gregory”?

Unfortunately, I think one has to be a member of the national propaganda corps aka the mainstream media to be able to get a “David Gregory”. 

Hey David! About That 30 Round Mag…

As has been reported many places on the Internet, David Gregory broke District of Columbia law regarding the possession of magazines with greater than 10 round capacity.

It seems that NBC asked the Metropolitan Police Department if they could use that 30 round magazine in the Meet the Press segment. They were told it was not permissible before the show.

A post on Arfcom has an email the Metropolitian Police Department has been sending out in response to people who have asked about the legality of Gregory’s actions.

“From: “DC Police (imailagent)”

Subject: Email from DC Police (Intranet Quorum IMA00519327)

Date: December 24, 2012 4:13:12 PM EST

To: (OODA_Loop)



The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail
regarding David Gregory segment on “Meet the Press.” MPD has received
numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD
inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their
segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines
is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is
currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring
this matter to our attention.


Customer Service – Metropolitan Police Department”

 Now it remains to be seen whether the DC police has the spine to charge Gregory with violating the law. I’m not going to hold my breath over that.

UPDATE: This story and the news of the active investigation by the MPD has expanded outside the gun blogosphere. Breitbart had a story on it this morning and reported that Chief Cathy Lanier has confirmed there is an active investigation. 

The legal blogs Legal Insurrection and Althouse have both picked up the story. Professor Althouse asks what is there to investigate as Gregory asserted on camera that it was a 30 round magazine. She continues:

Either he violated the criminal law or he lied. He certainly expected us
to believe he held in his hand what he said he held. What made him
think he could do that (or appear to do that)? He must think the law
doesn’t apply to him, or he wouldn’t even pretend to break it.

I think we can all agree that David Gregory doesn’t think the law applies to him. Thus, the importance of continuing to push this. As a comment to an earlier post on Legal Insurrection which called for investigating the investigators and inquiring of the inquisitors pointed out:

Exactly so, Professor … and that kind of thing is actually an
application of Alinsky’s Rule(s) for Radicals Number Four, which states:

“Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. ‘You can kill
them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the
Christian church can live up to Christianity.’ ”