Firing Back: Our Response to Lautenberg Letter
Last week Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) wrote to President Obama calling for more gun control. We offered a full transcript of the letter, and took time to debunk it. Here is our response to his letter (our response in bold):
I am writing to express my concern with the Administration’s silence on critical gun issues and to seek some leadership to better protect the American people. The issues transcend partisanship and could attract bipartisan support. Read more
Firing Back: Boycott Facebook
This week the Daily Caller reported that Facebook managers are deploying at new software upgrade that will essentially “dismantle myriad groups of like-minded political activists unless they get a special software-key from the company.”
Facebook has not disclosed which groups will get the key. However, the group “Stop Islamization of America,” which has more than 15,000 members has not received a key and all indications are that it will not.
However, liberal groups have gotten the upgrade without trouble:
“The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence got the upgrade for its 1,000-member group. ‘We changed over very smoothly,’ said David Churchill, the network-manager at the D.C.-based gun-control group. ‘We just basically clicked the upgrade button, checked it over, and we have a tremendous increase in participation.’”
Facebook is a privately owned company, and thus can make its own rules, and decide which groups get to upgrade and which will be merely archived. But we can still encourage like-minded gun owners to boycott the service.
Firing Back: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011
This week Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-New York), introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 bill into Congress. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-New York) introduced similar legislation in February.
This is an important issue, and one that law-abiding gun owners cannot let pass. If this bill becomes law it could mean that private sales of guns, all private sales, would be illegal. Every single purchase of a firearm would require a background check.
While this might seem reasonable, consider some facts. Do you ever want to give a firearm to your son or daughter? Did you ever get a gun from your parents? Ever traded rifles with a hunting buddy? Ever bought a collectible firearm just to mount on the wall?
Every one of those transactions would require a background check.
The “Fix Gun Checks Act” would mean that the government would not only have the right to know about every firearm you purchase, but it would have a national database knowing what you own. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government has this right?
The worst part is that this probably seems to the anti-gun zealots as a “good idea” to keep guns out of the hands of the mentality ill, off the streets, and keep criminals unarmed. Are they really that naïve? The truth is that a black market will emerge. Criminals will buy guns without background checks anyway.
What about those who continue to give guns to sons or daughters, and buddies who trade guns? Wouldn’t this mean they were committing felonies? But isn’t this the idea – by criminalizing private sales, the government could eventually deem large portions of the population felons and thus make it illegal for them to buy guns.
The goal of course isn’t a ban on private sales, it is really a ban on private ownership.
Firing Back: Left Leaning Bloggers Show Bias Against NRA
The blogisphere – at least in the technology and celebrity world – is made up of would-be journalists (and we do mean would-be) living in narrow minded enclaves of New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles. These people work – if you can call it that – strange hours, live like the hipsters they mock and think they know America better than the land they only fly over.
They mock what they don’t understand or worse just dislike. Because they live in traditionally anti-gun cities, they think it is proper and correct to be anti-gun. So it is no surprise that there has been a blogisphere backlash against the NRA’s efforts to keep pediatricians from asking about guns.
Media watch site Gawker offered a snide take on the issue:
“Is your pediatrician trying to take away your gun? (Probably!) You should move to Florida, where a new law would prevent pediatricians from asking about guns in the home. Thanks, NRA, for telling doctors what they can, and can’t, do.”
“An NRA-lobbied bill in Florida will prohibit doctors, especially pediatricians, from asking patients about their gun-safety. The bill is expected to be signed by Governor Rick Scott. Pediatricians routinely advise parents about seatbelts, bike helmets, etc, but this law will make it illegal for a doctor to offer advice on gun safety unless ‘it’s directly relevant to the patient’s care or the safety of others.’ Comparable legislation is under discussion in North Carolina and Alabama.”
What BoingBoing misses the point on is that many communities have laws requiring children under a certain age to wear bike helmets or sit in child seats, while seatbelts are required by law virtually everywhere!
As we previously asked, where is the line drawn? Why is the issue of guns allowed to be brought up? What is next, how many knives are in the kitchen, whether a family has a wood shop because tools can be dangerous? Perhaps commonsense questions such as “are all potentially dangerous objects locked away,” would suffice? Why is it such a proper that guns are not addressed specifically?
It also brings up another facet of this… would parents be held liable if they lied about the guns even if something tragic never occurs? There is doctor/patient confidentiality but why do doctors have to right to know if patients have firearms? And if doctors are allowed, should your tax preparer know as well?
Firing Back: What is in a Name? A Rose Would Smell as Sweet, a Gun Would Shoot as Straight
This week our friends at Ammoland noted that IMI, also known as Israel Military Industries, had been purchased by Sami Katsav in 2005 and renamed Israel Weapon Industries (IWI). So the I’s have it and remain, yet the M becomes a W. Companies are bought and sold all the time, and with it names change.
No big deal. As a business reporter I see this happen a lot.
But as Ammoland and CalGunLaws.com notes, “That small change may make a big difference for California residents interested in self-defense firearms.”
CalGunLaws.com explains:
“Under the California law, specifically the Roberti-Roos ‘Assault Weapon Control Act’ of 1989 (AWCA) and accompanying regulations enacted in 2000, certain semiautomatic firearms were designated as ‘assault weapons’ by their make and model. These make and model firearms must be listed in the ‘Assault Weapons Identification Guide’ (AWIG) published by the California Department of Justice. If a named firearm was not registered by March 31, 1992, it is generally illegal to possess in California. Under the AWCA, it doesn’t matter what the gun looks like or how it functions.”
So what this means is that the IWI Uzi firearms are not listed in the statute and thus cannot be an assault weapon based on its make and model designation, yet as CalGunLaws.com notes it could be considered a Category 3 “assault weapon” based on the characteristics.
What this really means is that it adds confusion to the market. We’ve seen this before, and will likely see it again. This is why these blanket laws are bad and confusing. By naming specific products, or even characteristics, the anti-gun crowd and anti-gun legislators think they can tackle a problem.
The truth is that these characteristics don’t accurately define firearms. These are not true “military” weapons but rather “military style.” There is a difference.
And banning products by name, well what is in name as some writer once asked.
Firing Back: More on the Numbers From Mexican Drug War
We’ve noted since launching FirearmsTruth.com in May or 2009 that many numbers are thrown around by the mainstream media on the topic of guns. The most common numbers are 80, 85 and even 90 – as in percent of guns seized in Mexico that can be traced to the United States. As we’ve long reported, the problem is that these numbers are actually inaccurate. But yet the media continues to report on these time and time again.
Yet, last week in reporting of the meetings of heads of states of the United States and Mexico, CNN offered a far more chilling number: 2 percent. Even if 100 percent of guns used by Mexican cartels actually came from the United States, it probably wouldn’t matter because of this 2 percent. Here is why, according to CNN:
“(A) cable quoted U.S. officials talking about “widespread corruption” in Mexican security agencies and ‘a dysfunctionally low level of collaboration.’ The cable, dated January 29, 2010, also described the Mexican army as ‘slow’ and ‘risk averse’ and concluded that only 2% of people arrested in Ciudad Juarez — the most violent city in Mexico, wracked by drug-cartel-related killings — were charged with a crime.”
If only 2 percent of people arrested are ever charged with a crime how can Mexico ever expect to win the drug war? Instead the blame of American guns will continue, when if this cable is to be believed – apparently released from Wikileaks – the problem is that those committing the crimes are never actually punished.
Firing Back: Illinois Attorney General Calls for Release of FOID Card List
Among gun owners there has been a long standing debate that one worry over gun registration would be that the government or other officials could use it to keep tabs on who has a gun and who doesn’t. The worst fear is that this list could even be used to seize guns from law-abiding citizens.
Are these fears warranted? Consider this fact, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan determined that Illinois State Police must disclose the names of people authorized to own guns in the state, reports The Chicago Tribune. Currently it is the state police who determine who gets a Firearm Owners Identification card.
Isn’t owning a gun a right guaranteed by the Constitution? Yes, many licenses and ownership of businesses, property and other assets is made public record. But wouldn’t this potentially endanger those with and without guns? Couldn’t criminals target those with large, and potentially expensive, gun collections – or worse prey on those NOT listed as owning a gun?
And couldn’t this turn law-abiding citizens into criminals out of the above fear? State Senator Kirk Dillard reportedly told the paper that some people might not their names to be made public and might not comply with the laws. This makes for a dangerous situation where otherwise law-abiding citizens break the law, and could thus lose their guns.
But maybe that is exactly what Lisa Madigan has in mind all along.
Firing Back: National Gun Day Show Recap – What Loophole?
This past weekend saw one of the largest gun shows in the world take place in Louisville, Kentucky. Known as the National Gun Day Show – or just as often The Great Eastern – visitors were greeted to more than 2100 tables with dealers from around the country in attendance. This event of course coincides with Show of Shows – or SOS – the largest military collectibles show in the world with more than 1600 tables.
What is interesting, and usually not noted in the media, is the attention to safety. Every gun going into the show, or set up on tables was required to be zip tied so that the gun could not be cocked and thus fired. Of course it was stressed that all the firearms were unloaded as well. As expected there were no problems with accidents.
But more interesting was the fact that the large dealers actually set aside table space for instant background checks, and out of state handgun sales required that items be sent to a dealer or shop holder with an FFL (Federal Firearms License). There were private sales between individuals that didn’t require the background check – but it was hardly the nefarious “gun show loophole” that is often spoken of by anti-gun zealots.
During this reporters attendance at the show questions were asked, “Can you legally own this firearm,” and I personally saw one dealer actually say, “I really can’t sell you this gun,” to a pair of youths that we’ll just say stood out. For the most part the shows were attended by collectors, those with an interest and respect in firearms, as well as those with an interest in sport shooting and hunting.
What the National Gun Day Show was not was a black markets arms fair for gang bangers, gangsters and criminals. It was an event for law-abiding citizens who know and respect the law. I can hardly wait for next year’s shows.
Firing Back: What Makes a Gun an Assault Weapon?
Last week it was reported by LongIslandPress.com that “four gun shop owners and five of their employees have been accused of illegally selling assault weapons to civilians.”
The story doesn’t state what types of guns were sold during the reported 10-month investigation, but Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice was quoted as saying, “make no mistake, these are combat-specific weapons and not intended for hunting.”
The article later offers this closer:
“Under state law, only police officers, peace officers, and authorized military personnel are legally permitted to possess assault weapons.”
This brings us back to our Media Misinformation: Assault Weapons. So when exactly is an firearm an “assault weapon.” Ms. Rice suggests that these guns are “combat-specific,” but are these merely the commercial versions, which as it happens are banned in New York City and the surrounding counties. The ban actually relates to the large capacity magazines as well, not the guns themselves.
In other words, we’re not saying that the gun shops did break the law. They may have broken the county laws, but the paper maybe incorrect in quoting “state law,” as the counties near New York City have different laws than those in other parts of the state.
We also don’t like that Ms. Rice seems to suggest she knows what the intended purpose of these firearms too. There are many guns that are also not intended for hunting, but that doesn’t make every non-hunting rifle an assault weapon. Finally, we think the folks at LongIslandPress.com should check their facts on “New York State” gun laws.
Firing Back: Bloomberg Blames Congress – Where Does New York City End?
Where does New York City end? Isn’t the border on the Hudson River? Apparently, the honorable Mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to think he knows what is best for the rest of the country. Not only did he send a team out to Arizona gun shows, post videos (heavily edited mind you) online and even draft a post for the Huffington Post, but he is even blaming Congress for gun sale loophole.
In an article for the good old Huff and Puff, Bloomberg’s actions were described:
“Citing findings from a recent investigation of Arizona gun-show sales, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a harsh indictment Monday of Congress’ failure to close gun-control loopholes that allow individuals to buy weapons from private sellers without a background check.”
“Gun control loopholes” – could that be a new statement we hear? We’re also seeing “gun sale loopholes.” In other words, Bloomberg isn’t looking to just close the nefarious “gun show loophole,” but we think he’ll aim at all private sales of firearms – something that could prove difficult.
But what is so bothersome is that Bloomberg is over reaching his authority. He’s mayor of a city, albeit the nation’s largest, and that’s it. He’s not in Congress and he doesn’t even represent the people of the State of New York, just the people of the City of New York. And yet, he’d like to change the laws not only for the 20 million in the New York area but for the 350 million throughout the country. So where does he think New York ends? More importantly, where does he think his power ends?
