Stabbed In The Back Again

Eight years of Obama brought no new gun control at the federal level. Three years of President Trump has brought an unconstitutional ban on bumpstocks, no Hearing Protection Act, no national reciprocity, and now a call for more gun control in the wake of the murders in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

We cannot let those killed in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, die in vain. Likewise for those so seriously wounded. We can never forget them, and those many who came before them. Republicans and Democrats must come together and get strong background checks, perhaps marrying....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2019

If he thinks that Democrats will trade gun control for funding a "the wall", he is sadly mistaken. They will do a bait and switch saying they will support "the wall" after passing red flag laws and universal background checks (and other gun control) but then do nothing about funding the wall.

Right now I don't give a big rat's ass about a wall along the border that would have marginal effectiveness. I do care about any denigration of the Second Amendment and gun rights.

By the way, all indications are that virtually every mass murderer in the last 10 years has gone through a NICS check. These bills would do nothing to have prevented them from obtaining the firearm in question.

Yes, Thank You Moms Demand Action In NC

Mike Bloomberg, billionaire, former mayor of New York City, erstwhile potential Democrat candidate for President, and funder of all things gun control put out this tweet yesterday evening.

Thank you to every @MomsDemand volunteer here in North Carolina for your leadership. State by state, we’re making progress to pass laws that will save lives, and you all deserve a lot of credit for that. pic.twitter.com/Ni0GmtFK4r

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) December 19, 2018

Yes, thank you for your continued support of a Jim Crow era law, the pistol purchase permit system, that was intended to keep African-Americans, union members, and Republicans disarmed.

Yes, thank you for your support of red flag laws that turn Due Process on its head and that will get innocent people killed.

Yes, thank you for making our schools less safe by your continued opposition to any policy that would let trained teachers and administrators carry firearms to protect the students under their care.

Yes, thank you for supporting efforts to introduce even more government interference into private affairs by demanding universal background check.

Yes, thank you for all you do to make North Carolina a less safe place for ordinary, law abiding Tar Heels and more safe for criminals who, by definition, ignore the law.

 There is plenty more for which we can thank the North Carolina contingent of Moms Demand Action but saving lives isn't one of them.

Was This Intended Or Unintended?

Where you place paragraphs in a story makes a difference and can lead to different interpretations of your argument. Today's Wall Street Journal provides an excellent example of it in a story on the flaws of the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The story is in the Southeast paper edition of the Journal but does not appear online. The only thing online is an infographic on the failures of the system.

Consider this paragraph.

And then there are private sales. Background checks aren't always required when sales are made by private sellers, those people who make only occasional guns sales from private collections.

It was immediately followed by this paragraph.

Several mass-shooters have purchased guns they shouldn't have been able to buy. 

The story by Ashby Jones then goes on to give examples of how both the Virginia Tech mass-murderer and the Sutherland Spring First Baptist mass-murderer were able to obtain their weapons, though prohibited persons, after passing a FBI NICS check. The story does detail how the Virginia court and the US Air Force had failed to submit the records for inclusion in the FBI's databases.

By placing the second paragraph immediately after the paragraph on private sales, the reader is at first led to believe that the mass-murderers obtained their firearms from a private seller which we know was not the case.

If that second paragraph had added "due to the failure to submit disqualifying records to the NICS database" or "even though they passed background checks", then it would be understood that the killers obtained their firearms due to a failure of the system and not due to the negligence or greed of a private seller.

Is this a case of unintended juxtaposition? Is it a case of tight editing for brevity in the second paragraph? Or is it, more problematically, a case of using the structure of the story to convey an argument for so-called universal background checks.

I don't know but I do know that the wrong impression is initially given by the structure of the story.

If this came from the New York Times or the Washington Post I would say it was intended to mislead. Since the Wall Street Journal tends to be more neutral on firearms issues, I could go either way. Nonetheless, this is a case of the mainstream media, intentionally or unintentionally, pushing the narrative for universal background checks which is wrong.

Loophole Here, Loophole There, Everything's A Freaking Loophole

When dealing with the enemies of freedom everything they don't approve of is a loophole.

Internet loophole? Check.

Gun show loophole? Check.

Background check loophole? Check.

Sen. Richard "I served in Vietnam (not!)" Blumenthal (D-CT) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL) have come up with a new loophole that MUST be closed. That is the ammunition sale loophole. To that end, they have introduced the Ammunition Background Check Act (S.2627 / HR 5383) The bill would require instant background checks for the purchase of ammunition.

Excerpts from their joint press release:

“Ammunition sales should be subject to the same legal requirements as firearm sales, and that includes instant background checks. The same laws that prevent dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms also prohibit them from amassing arsenals of ammunition, with one major loophole: there are no background checks for ammunition sales to enforce the law. Closing this ludicrous loophole is a common sense component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce gun violence,” said Blumenthal.

“This common-sense legislation simply enforces existing federal law, and will make it harder for criminals to amass hundreds of rounds of ammunition without so much as sharing their first name with a gun store clerk,” Wasserman Schultz said. “Closing this absurd loophole will not by itself stop the next mass shooting tragedy. But this popular approach must be part of our larger strategy for ending gun violence. Studies show it can help keep ‘bad guys with guns’ from perpetrating another mass slaughter like the one we witnessed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in my Broward County community, or the thousands of other acts of gun violence that devastate communities across the country. It takes more than just a gun to take an innocent life. It also takes bullets. We need to do all we can to make sure neither of them ends up in the wrong hands.”

There are enough gun control buzzwords in those two paragraphs that you would be an automatic winner in buzzword bingo!

While the bill text is not yet available, their release indicates that the purchase of ammo would be through a FFL who would be required to do a NICS check or, if the seller was not licensed, then the seller would have to have a FFL conduct the NICS check. Since I don't have the bill text yet, there is no word whether or not components would be require background checks.

If components are not regulated (and they should not be), then the enemies of freedom will have multiple new loopholes to rail about: the smokeless powder loophole, the brass loophole, the primer loophole, etc., etc.

For those not old enough to remember, after the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 all ammunition sales including .22 rimfire ammo were required to be logged into a bound book. The requirement for .22 rimfire ammo sale logging was repealed in 1982. Finally, the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 finally repealed the requirement that ammo sales be logged in a bound book. The repeal of that requirement was supported by the ATF as they said it had little law enforcement value. While Bluementhal and Wasserman-Schultz quote a number of academics in support of their bill, they don't quote anyone in law enforcement which is telling.

This is a ridiculous bill brought by two ridiculous legislators. It should be relegated to the scrapheap of history just like they should.


H/T  The Captain's Journal

Big News Out Of Nevada On Question 1

One of the biggest supporters of the universal background check initiative, Question 1, in Nevada has changed his mind. Casino owner Steve Wynn had given $50,000 to Nevadans for Background Checks. This is the Bloomberg front group that was pushing the universal background check initiative in the state.

As you can hear in the video below, Wynn changed his mind after two of his executives explained all the ramifications of the law.



The NRA released this statement in response.

"This stunning reversal by Steve Wynn – a member of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advisory board -- could be a game changer,” said Robert Uithoven, Nevadans for Freedom campaign director. “Like many unsuspecting Nevadans, Mr. Wynn believed the Bloomberg campaign’s false claims that Question 1 would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make Nevadans safer. After taking a closer look at the poorly worded initiative, Mr. Wynn told Fox News he now opposes Question 1, along with Governor Sandoval, Congressman Heck, Attorney General Laxalt and 16 of the 17 elected sheriffs in Nevada. ‘I don't think anyone knows the extent of the overreach that [Question 1] would allow.’ Wynn went on to concede that the NRA Nevadans for Freedom is right when we say that this measure will criminalize the commonplace activities of Nevada’s law-abiding gun owners. The truth is Question 1 will not make Nevadans any safer. It will instead cost law-abiding citizens time, money, and freedom.”

Coming as it did just before Election Day, I am unsure of the real impact of this change of heart given the extent of early voting in Nevada.

My friend J.D. Smith of the AR-15 Podcast told me last week that he thought that despite Bloomberg's multi-million dollar ad campaign the outcome was looking better for Question 1 failing. J.D. attributed this to a strong grassroots effort. Let's keep our fingers crossed that he is correct.


UPDATE: Steve Wynn's conversion on the road to Damascus was too little and too late. Question 1 passed in Nevada by 50.45% to 49.55%. In real terms, the vote was 558,586 yes and 548,685 no.

I have real qualms about whether the SHOT Show should be continued to be held in Las Vegas. The Orange County Convention Center in Orlando is larger and the area has approximately the same number of hotel rooms.

Why Are These Official Hotels For The SHOT Show?

The SHOT Show always has a number of "official" hotels where their travel company has negotiated special rates for attendees and exhibitors. One of the pluses of staying at one of these on-the-Strip hotels is that there is shuttle bus service to the Sands Expo Center.

For those that are not aware of it, Question 1 on the ballot in Nevada is on universal background checks. It would criminalize the sale or transfer of a firearm between private individuals unless a background check was performed by a FFL. While there are limited exceptions to this, the first offense is a gross misdemeanor and the second offense is a Class C felony.

This initiative was proposed by Nevadans for Background Checks which is a front group for Michael Bloomberg and his Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors. Tara Paone is a listed as a director of this group. As Jeff Knox notes, she is also the Treasurer for Everytown and was listed as a director in Washington State's I-594 universal background check initiative.

I am firmly of the belief that if this initiative passes that the SHOT Show, Safari Club International, and other firearms related organizations should forever move their trade shows and conventions out of that state. You don't reward states that don't respect your civil rights. The LGBTQ community is very good at this.

That got me to questioning who was financially supporting the initiative and who was funding the opposition. Here is where it gets interesting. There was the big money (over $100,000) donations from Everytown and from Seattle billionaire Nick Hanauer. Hanauer spent over $1 million in a successful effort to pass Washington's I-594 initiative. These type of donations were expected. What I would not have expected were substantial donations from a number of the casino and hotel companies.

• MGM Resorts International - $25,000 - 1/22/2016
• Caesar's Enterprise Services LLC - $25,000 - 12/29/2015
• Wynn Resorts Ltd. - $50,000 - 9/29/2015

There is nothing like biting the hand that feeds you. Just so you are aware, let's see what hotels and casinos belong to each of these groups. I've noted whether it was an official hotel or not as well.

MGM Resorts International 

• ARIA
• Bellagio - Yes
• Vdara
• MGM Grand - Yes
• Skylofts at MGM Grand
• The Signature at MGM Grand
• Mandalay Bay
• Delano Las Vegas
• The Mirage - Yes
• Monte Carlo - Yes
• New York - New York - Yes
• Luxor - Yes
• Excalibur -Yes
• Circus Circus - Yes

Caesar's Enterprise Services LLC*

• Anthology Suites & Villas
• Bally's - Yes
• Caesars Palace - Yes
• The Cromwell
• Flamingo - Yes
• Harrah's - Yes
• The LINQ - Yes
• Paris - Yes
• Planet Hollywood - Yes
• Rio

*Caesar's Enterprise Services LLC is a spin-off from Caesars Entertainment. It was set up in 2014 to protect the company in case they had to declare bankruptcy.

Wynn Resorts Ltd.

• Wynn Las Vegas
• Encore

So what does this leave in the way of official hotels whose owners have not donated to Bloomberg's universal background check initiative?

• The Ventian - owned by Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Sands
• The Palazzo - owned by Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas Sands
• Elara - owned by Hilton
• Hilton Grand Vacations - owned by Hilton
• SLS Las Vegas - owned by Sam Nazarian's SBE Corp.
• Stratosphere - owned by American Casino & Entertainment Properties LLC
• The Cosmopolitan - owned by Blackstone Group (investment bankers)
• Treasure Island - privately owned by Phil Ruffin
• Tropicana - owned by Hilton
• Trump Las Vegas - owned by you know who
• Westin - owned by Marriott International

If you are staying in one of these hotels, you have a decent assumption that you are not subsidizing the anti-gun forces. It makes me glad we finally settled on the Westin instead of Bally's.

There are plenty of other hotels, motels, and casino properties where you can stay in Las Vegas that are not part of the cabal trying to steal your rights. You might want to go here to check on alternatives.

This leaves the opposition to the initiative. The NRA-ILA has been very active from what I have read but Bloomberg has bought most of the air time. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the NRA Nevadans for Freedom has spent about $140,000 on ads. This contrasts with the $800,000 spent by the Bloomberg group. I have read that the NSSF's #GunVote is doing some work against the initiative but I'm not sure what. I do have a question on various Nevada shooting forums asking about it.

"Don't NYC My Maine Gun Rights"

My late father lived in Maine for many years after he retired from the Army. Even though he was a born and bred Tar Heel he was accepted by the locals. He lived in Medomak which is on Muscongus Bay.

I spent my (first) honeymoon in the Rangeley Region at a camp on Mooselookmeguntic Lake. Rosanne and I gave serious consideration to moving to Maine. We joined the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine and took a local paper. We never did make the move but I still love the State of Maine. I guess that is why I am so afraid for them with Bloomberg's money trying to buy gun control there.

Ginny Simone does a good job of showing how Bloomberg and his money is trying to buy the election. I'm glad that there are organizations like the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. politicians like Gov. Paul LePage, and others like my friend Genie Jennings who will be speaking at GRPC fighting this tooth and nail.

Bloomberg's Minions Win In Oregon

With apologies to all my good friends in California, Oregon, and Washington State but the Pacific Coast is not also called the Sinister Coast for nothing. Yesterday, the Oregon House of Representatives voted 32 to 28 to concur on SB 941. This follows the 17-13 vote on April 14th by the Oregon Senate to pass the bill.

Governor Kate Brown (D-OR) indicated through her spokesperson that she would be signing the bill. According to The Oregonian, she is a gun control supporter of long standing. Brown assumed the Oregon governorship when ex-Gov. John Kitzhaber (D-OR) resigned the office under a cloud of scandal. 

Senate Bill 941, according to its summary, would:

Requires private person to complete transfer of firearm by appearing with transferee before gun dealer to request criminal background check or shipping or delivering firearm to gun dealer in certain circumstances. Specifies exceptions for family members, law enforcement, inherited firearms and certain temporary transfers. Punishes violation by maximum of one year’s imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both, or maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both, for second or subsequent offense.

[Requires] Authorizes Department of State Police to notify [local] appropriate law enforcement agency when, during criminal background check performed prior to transfer of firearm, department determines that recipient is prohibited from possessing firearm.

Authorizes court to prohibit person ordered to participate in assisted outpatient treatment from purchasing or possessing firearm during period of treatment if certain criteria are met.

Declares emergency, effective on passage.

Unlike the I-594 which passed in Washington State, SB 941 is a bit more clear about what is a transfer and what isn't. The bill says a transfer is a sale, gift, loan, or lease of a firearm with certain exceptions made for "temporary transfers".  Among the exceptions are when at a range whether for just target practice or a class; when hunting; when sent to a gunsmith or someone who customizes firearms; and when loaned to prevent "imminent death or serious physical injury" but only as long as needed to prevent death or injury. I will say that last exception is a bit vague. How do you determine when the threat begins or ends?

The vote for this bill was along party lines. In the Senate, 17 out of 18 Democrats voted for the bill while all 12 Republicans plus St. Sen. Betsy Johnson (D-Scappoose) voted no. Meanwhile in the House, 32 out of 35 Democrats voted for the the bill while all 25 Republicans voted no along with Democrat Representatives Jeff Barker (D-Aloha), Caddy McKeown (D-Coos Bay), and Brad Witt (D-Clatskanie).

Excuse this tangent but what I found so striking about both houses of the Oregon Legislature is that they are so overwhelmingly white. I don't mean just predominantly white - I mean lily white or, as Procol Harum sang, a whiter shade of pale. The only minority in the State Senate is a Republican woman - Sen. Jackie Winters (R-Salem). In the House, it is barely better. Rep. Lew Frederick (D-Portland) is the only African-American while Representatives Jessica Vega Pederson (D-Portland) and Joe Gallegos (D-Hillsboro) appear to be the only Hispanics in the legislature. According to US Census figures, Oregon is 77.5% white, 2% black, 4% Asian, and 12% Hispanic which includes "white Hispanics".

If Oregon was either a Southern or conservative state or both, the Justice Department under both Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch would have been all over them demanding answers. Since it isn't, all is well.

Back on topic, I think the politicians who voted to preserve the Second Amendment rights of Oregonians should be recognized.

In the Senate: Senators Baertschiger, Boquist, Ferrioli, Girod,Hansell, Johnson, Knopp, Kruse, Olsen, Thatcher, Thomsen, Whitsett, and Winters.

In the House: Representatives McLane, Barker, Barreto, Bentz, Buehler, Davis, Esquivel, Gilliam, Hack, Hayden, Heard, Huffman, Johnson, Kennemer, Krieger, McKeown, Nearman, Olson, Parrish, Post, Smith, Sprenger, Stark, Weidner, Whisnant, Whitsett, Wilson, and Witt.

 (The Democrats are in italic)

Joe Manchin Said He Supported The Second Amendment, Too

Democrats running for the US Senate from red states love to say they are for the Second Amendment.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he was for gun rights, boasted he was endorsed by the NRA, and even showed himself shooting a rifle at the "cap and trade" bill. That was in 2010. In 2013, he introduced a bill that would "only add gun checks to online sales and gun shows." That was a myth among many other problems.

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) said she supported the Second Amendment in 2008 when she won against a lackluster Liddy Dole in the Obama landslide. That didn't stop her from voting for Manchin-
Toomey in 2013 along with gun prohibitionists like Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

Now comes Kentucky Sec. of State Alison Lundergan Grimes who is running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). She said she disagrees with Obama on guns, coal, and the EPA. She even ran an ad showing herself at the skeet range. She even chides McConnell's waving a Kentucky long rifle a'la Charlton Heston at the 2014 NRA Annual Meeting saying, "That's not the way you hold a gun."



Then she was a guest on the Kentucky Sports Radio show in which she said was for the Second Amendment but supported closing the mythical "gun show loophole."




I'm sorry but if you say you support closing the non-existent "gun show loophole" (sic) then that means you support universal background checks. Answering a question about whether you'd support banning any guns by saying "I support the Second Amendment" is nothing more than obfuscation. You want to appear gun friendly but you are supporting exactly the same thing as Bloomberg, Watts, and the rest.

Mitch McConnell is not my favorite Republican. I think what he's done to undercut the non-establishment wing of the Republican Party is stupid politics. However, I vote the Second Amendment and he supports gun rights. I am also well aware that we are but one Supreme Court justice away from seeing Heller and McDonald overturned. The only way to ensure Obama doesn't get a chance to seat another Kagan or Sotomayor on the Supreme Court is with a Republican-majority Senate. If Grimes wins, that isn't going to happen.

UPDATE: Alison Lundergan Grimes' support for closing the non-existent gun show loophole gets a "hallelujah" from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (sic).

Can we get a "hallelujah"? Thank you Alison Lundergan Grimes, for good old fashioned common sense.

We were told growing up that we are known by our friends. If these are her friends, well.....

Dingy Harry Is Right - Billionaires Are Trying To Buy Democracy

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech yesterday on the floor of the Senate. It was his first floor speech since the end of the August recess. As The Hill reports it, he said, in part,

“We have had in this country a flood of very, very dark money coming into this nation’s political system,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “Radical billionaires are attempting to buy our democracy.”

Reid is correct in his statement - just not in the billionaires to whom he referred. He, of course, was continuing his jihad against the libertarian Koch brothers.

However, if one were to examine the backers of the universal background check initiative in Washington State, I-594, you would come to the conclusion that a gaggle of billionaires was indeed trying to buy "our democracy."

Examining the public reports from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission, one finds that a full 72% of the funding for the anti-gun Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility has come from five billionaires (including spouses) plus one very wealthy woman from an "old Seattle family". In dollar terms, these six have donated $5,171,600 out of the $7,175,542 donated to the anti-gun organization. Small contributions to this gun control ballot initiative total only $63,009 or less than 1% of the total.

So who are these billionaires (or near billionaires), how much have they given individually, what is their estimated net worth, and where do they stand on the Forbes 400 list of richest people in America. Here is the list in order of contributions:

1. Nick Hanauer, $1,485,000; net worth $1 billion, venture capitalist, Second Avenue Investing


2. Bill and Melinda Gates, $1,050,000; net worth $72 billion, No. 1 Forbes 400, co-founder Microsoft


3. Michael Bloomberg*, $1,030,000; net worth $31 billion, No. 10 Forbes 400, founder Bloomberg LP


4. Connie and Steve Ballmer, $830,000; net worth $18 billion, No. 21 Forbes 400, former CEO Microsoft, owner LA Clippers


5. Paul Allen, $500,000; net worth $15.8 billion, No 26 Forbes 400, co-founder Microsoft, owner Seattle Seahawks and Portland Trail Blazers


6. Ann Pigott Wyckoff, $276,600; net worth est. multi-millions, heiress and daughter of the late Paccar Corporation president Paul Pigott. Paccar manufactures Peterbilt, Kenworth, and Leyland trucks.

To put these contributions into perspective, let's look at the campaign committee for I-591 which is the other ballot initiative which opposes universal background checks. Protect Our Gun Rights is the campaign committee formed to support I-591. The largest individual (non-organizational) contribution was $1,500 by a Boeing engineer. The primary contributors to Protect Our Gun Rights are the Washington State-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Washington Arms Collectors. This committee has raised a total of $1,121,535 at last report.

As Dave Workman, the Seattle Gun Rights Examiner, put it, this is a billionaire bombardment and he is correct. So when Dingy Harry speaks of "radical billionaires attempting to buy our democracy", he just has the wrong set of billionaires in mind. It isn't the Koch brothers, it is the Hanauers, the Gates, the Allens, the Ballmers, and the Bloombergs who plan to dominate the TV airwaves with their appeals to low information voters in an effort to impose their will on the people of Washington State.

*Bloomberg's contribution was funneled through MAIG and Everytown for Gun Safety (sic).

Quote Of The Day

The quote of the day comes from US National Rifle Team member and gun blogger Anette Wachter who is also known as 30CalGal. She was one of the people who had testified before a Washington State legislative committee about Initiatives 591 and 594. Initiative 594 is the gun prohibitionists' "background check" initiative which would criminalize transfers without a state background check while Initiative 591 is the Protect Our Gun Rights Act.

Describing how one opponent of gun rights had said she was afraid of guns, Anette said we must work on those in the middle.

But as I listened to Wa St. Senator Jeannie Darneille from Tacoma state she is deathly afraid of guns period, I knew that there was to be no convincing people like her to back off of gun control measures. They hate guns period. Our work to be done is to make those on the fence see the light. Those on the fence are the ones that only hunt, or only have a pistol, or only go to the range once in a while or who’s dad used to shoot, that all aspects of the 2nd Amendment need to be protected. Just because you don’t shoot an AR and it does not affect you does not mean you should vote against the right to own them. Do you want me to vote against one side of your First Amendment because I don’t like your choice of social media but as long as my social media choice is not affected that is it ok? It is all or nothing.

She is dead on with that observation and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts. It is what military strategists call the concentration of force.

90% Support Universal Background Checks?

You know how all we've heard for the past year is that 90% of Americans support universal background checks? Well, not so fast.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has released a poll today that shows only 40% of Americans want universal background checks at gun shows. The difference in the poll results is because contextual detail was added to the question. Instead of asking do you want to close the "gun show loophole" or other such nonsense, the poll points out that most sales at gun shows are conducted with background checks and are by FFLs.

The poll goes further. Only 39% of respondents thought that requiring a background check for transferring a firearm between friends or family members would reduce violent crime. That's a long way from 90% in my calculations.

The poll was conducted in November for NSSF by McKeon and Associates. The poll sample included over 1,200 respondents and contained a margin of error of +/- 4.1%.

The release on the poll results with more details is below:

Americans Don't Think 'Universal Background Checks' Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed, National Poll Finds

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Only four out of ten Americans support so-called "universal background checks" at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law. The poll results stand in contrast to the vague claim often reported in the media and attributed to gun control proponents without important contextual detail that 90 percent of Americans surveyed support "universal background checks.

 "These findings were the among the results of a national scientific poll of more than 1,200 Americans conducted in November by McKeon & Associates and released today by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. The McKeon poll found that only 40 percent of respondents said that extension of "universal background checks" to private transactions at gun shows are necessary, while 53 percent said they are not necessary and 7% said they did not know.

The Americans polled also said by a combined 74 percent margin that conducting background checks against an incomplete database was not effective at all or not very effective while 54 percent said that requiring background checks for transferring guns between friends and family members was not at effective at all or not very effective in reducing violent crime.

The poll also discovered that 92 percent of Americans agree that the states should submit all records of persons federally prohibited from owning a firearm to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems (NICS), passing legislation if needed.

Some 70 percent of the survey sample also said that did not believe that government should mandate that all firearms produced incorporate “smart gun” technology should it become commercially available. Only 17 percent approved of a mandate, while 13 percent didn’t know.

"We commissioned this poll to help determine where Americans stood on the various aspects of how the NICS system actually works today," said Larry G. Keane, NSSF senior vice president and general counsel. "When properly informed of relevant details, it turns out that only four out of ten, not nine out of ten Americans support so-called 'universal background checks' at gun shows or for firearms transfers. The poll also found that Americans want a National Instant Criminal Background Check System with a dependable and accurate database, which supports the goal of the FixNICS initiative we launched in 2013 and will continue in 2014."

The poll conducted Nov. 6-7 has a margin of error of +/- 4.1 percent. Respondents self-identified as 33 percent Democrat, 26 percent Republican and 41 percent independent. As to ethnicity, 62 percent of respondents said they were Caucasian, 18 percent African-American, 11 percent Hispanic; and 9 percent, other. As to age, 20 percent of respondents said they were 18-30; 36 percent, 31-45; 23 percent 46-60; and 21 percent, 60 or older.

No, She Isn't

The Maine Sunday Telegram had an editorial in today's edition speculating that the visit of Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly "could shake up gun stalemate."

They made this statement in the editorial.

We have just come through a legislative session in which no progress was made in the effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Giffords is a national symbol of the consequences of doing nothing. Her career in Congress was cut short when a deranged man armed with a semiautomatic handgun and high-capacity magazines opened fire on her in a crowd of constituents, killing six people and wounding Giffords and 12 others.

If by doing nothing the editors of the Sunday Telegram mean implementing universal background checks, Ms. Giffords is NOT a national symbol of "the consequences of doing nothing." The shooter did not purchase his firearm through a private transaction, at a gun show, or in an otherwise prohibited transaction. The shooter and killer purchased his Glock 19 from a licensed dealer in Arizona and passed the requisite NICS background check conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

If Ms. Giffords is any sort of national symbol of the consequences of doing nothing, the fault lies at the foot of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik and his Pima County Sheriffs Department as well at the foot of officials at Pima Community College. Despite his run-ins with law enforcement and his suspension from Pima Community College for what appears to be mental illness, this information never went any further. Any database is only as good as the information in it and inaction by Dupnik and Pima Community College kept potentially disqualifying information out of the NICS database.

Universal background checks of private sales would not have stopped the shooter in Tucson nor at Virginia Tech nor in Aurora, Colorado and it is time to stop pretending that it would have. They all passed Federal NICS background checks.

Background Check Veto Upheld In Maine

The Maine State Legislature passed a universal background checks bill on June 19th in what was considered a surprise vote. The bill had been defeated twice before in the State Senate.

In a surprise vote Wednesday, the Maine Senate passed a bill that creates civil penalties for those who sell guns in private sales to people who are prohibited from having them.

The legislation imposes a civil fine of $500 if a gun seller does not perform a background check and the buyer is later discovered to be a prohibited person.

The bill, LD 1240, was first watered down by the Senate, but on Tuesday, the House of Representatives sent the original measure back to the Senate. The Senate approved the bill on a 18-17 vote, with two rural Democrats joining Republicans in the minority on the measure.

Fortunately for Maine gun owners, Gov. Paul LePage (R-ME) was true to his word and vetoed the bill. He said the bill only impacted honest gun owners and for that reason he vetoed the bill.

Yesterday, the Maine State House voted to uphold the governor's veto in a 77-71 vote. The gun prohibitionists in the State House are now threatening to go to a referendum to pass the measure and cite the misleading poll number from an anti-gun push poll.

The background-check bill, L.D. 1240, sponsored by Rep. Mark Dion, D-Portland, would have created a civil violation for selling a gun to a person prohibited from owning a gun, such as a convicted felon.

It originally was a sweeping bill that would have mandated background checks before all gun purchases. His bill passed narrowly in the Legislature earlier this month, and the House upheld the veto in a 77-71 vote on Wednesday.

In his veto message, LePage said the bill was focused "on those who would choose to obey the law, and for that reason I believe it misses the target."

"This is an issue that may need to go straight to our citizens," Dion said in a statement after the vote. "The governor described my bill as 'well-meaning,' but public policy requires more than intentions, it requires action."

Dion was referring to a potential referendum on the matter: J. Thomas Franklin, president of Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence, a pro-gun control group, said last week that it is considering bringing a citizens' initiative to ask Maine voters to decide on mandatory background checks in 2014.

Searching the Maine register of lobbyists, I cannot find any that represent Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors nor any that represent other gun prohibitionist group. I am going to assume that Bloomberg didn't employ his full court press like he did in Colorado and Nevada.

Still that a state like Maine with a long tradition of protecting gun rights would have even considered such a bill - much less passed one - is disappointing. Maine, like the rest of northern New England, is changing and, in my opinion, not for the better.

Bloomberg Loses In Nevada

While Bloomberg's billions were enough to "persuade" both houses of the Nevada Legislature to pass SB 221, it wasn't enough to "convince" Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) not to veto the bill. SB 221 provided for universal background checks on all transfers in Nevada.

Bloomberg had blanketed Nevada with his lobbyists and spent a lot of money on ads pushing Sandoval to sign SB 221. However, Gov. Sandoval, who had pledged to veto the bill even before it passed, seems to have listened to callers to his office instead.

It is a significant defeat for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group, Mayor's Against Illegal Guns, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars working to get the bill passed.

The group bought numerous ads on social media sites, news websites and television, in addition to mailing out materials attacking select lawmakers who voted against the bill during the session. Video ads pressuring Sandoval to sign the bill surfaced immediately following the Assembly nod of approval.

But an automated system set up to field the flood of calls to the governor's office about the bill showed an overwhelming majority of calls wanted Sandoval to veto the bill. The system did not record names, so it was possible for callers to call multiple times and distort the numbers.

 The gun prohibitionists are still clinging to their mythical 86% of Nevadans in favor of the bill and are castigating the governor for ignoring their push poll.

Repeating an oft-cited result of a poll showing 86 percent of Nevadans favor background checks for private party gun sales, critics said Sandoval has made an unpopular decision.

"Clearly Gov. Sandoval is going against the will of the people," said Brian Fadie, executive director of ProgressNow Nevada, a group that favored the bill's passage. "He is standing with extremists who are mostly filled with paranoid fears of the government taking away their guns."

 Gov. Sandoval, in his veto message found here, said that the bill's measure on the reporting of mental health issues were very good. However, he goes on to say that that bill's background check provisions "constitute an erosion of Nevadans' Second Amendment rights under the United States Constitution and may subject otherwise law-abiding citizens to criminal prosecution." He adds that the bill would also alter the burden of proof for illegal sales of firearms under Nevada.

I congratulate Gov. Sandoval for vetoing the bill and for recognizing the "flypaper" nature of this bill written by Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors. These transfer provisions were never meant to stop crime but are intended to create a new class of inadvertent criminals ultimately leading to the loss of their rights under the Second Amendment.

Has Bloomberg Bought Another Western State?

Yesterday, the Nevada State Assembly passed universal background checks by a vote of 23 yea to 19 nay and sent it to Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-NV) for his signature or veto. The text of the bill as enrolled can be found here.

One of the most contentious bills of the day was Senate Bill 221, sponsored by Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas, to require background checks on private gun sales.

The bill appeared dead early Monday, but in an unexpected move, the Assembly Judiciary Committee approved it on a 7-5 vote.

The full Assembly then voted 23-19 to send it to Sandoval despite his promise to veto the measure. Four Democrats joined with all 15 Republicans in opposing the measure.

The bill previously passed the Senate on an 11-10 party-line vote with Democrats in support.

Multiple reports indicate that Gov. Sandoval will veto this bill. That has not stopped Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors from running ads asking people to call the governor and asking him to sign it. Moreover, they are saying that "86% of Nevada voters" support the bill.

The other day I wrote about how certain legislators were expecting substantial campaign contributions as a result of pushing Bloomberg's bill.

It is obvious from the lists below, that Bloomberg saturated Carson City with lobbyists. There are a total of 63 legislators in both houses of the Nevada Legislature. Examining the list of lobbyists below for Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors, I see a total of 13 paid lobbyists or one lobbyist for every 4.85 legislators. An asterisk after the lobbyist name indicates that he or she is a paid lobbyist. Bloomberg had no volunteer lobbyists.

By contrast, you have three paid lobbyists and three volunteer lobbyists for the pro-rights side. Besides the NRA, you had the Nevada Firearms Coalition and the Stillwater Firearms Association. The Nevada Firearms Association is the state affiliate of the NRA. As they themselves note, they relied on the NRA-ILA to handle things in the legislature until recently. The Stillwater Firearms Association is a non-profit that puts on classes, organizes shooting competitions, and manages a shooting range in Fallon, NV.

From an outsider's perspective, it appears that Mayor Bloomberg overwhelmed the grassroots organizations with money, ads, and paid lobbyists just like he did in Colorado. Unlike Colorado, having a Republican governor may be enough to stop this in its tracks. A veto of the bill cannot be overriden by either house of the Nevada Legislature.

While it is past time to have made your voice heard, we still have a chance with Gov. Sandoval. I'd emphasize that this measure won't stop crime and would not have prevented the Newtown shootings. Moreover, if you are not a state resident but have visited Reno, Las Vegas, or other gambling locations, make that known along with your determination not to spend your money in a state that doesn't believe in your civil rights.

Contact information for Gov. Sandoval is located here.

One final reminder: be firm but respectful.

Open Letter From The NRA-ILA To The US Senate

Chris Cox of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action released an open letter to the Senate. In it he states that the NRA is "unequivocally opposed" to S. 649. He states that the NRA will oppose any and all attempts to extend background checks, to limit firearms and magazines, or to criminalize private transfers and/or sales. He specifically includes the proposals from Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey issued today.

Dear Senator,

I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.

S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Should you have any questions on these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 651-2560.

Sincerely,


Chris W. Cox

CCRKBA Calls For Background Checks .... On Poiliticians

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has weighed in on universal background checks. Given the higher incidence of crime by mayors associated with MAIG than that of lawful gun owners, Alan Gottlieb makes the suggestion that we should be doing background checks on politicians instead of gun owners.

BELLEVUE, WA – “If politicians want universal background checks, we should start with them,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

He pointed to recent political scandals in the New York Legislature, which just passed a new restrictive gun control law, where a state senator and state assemblyman were arrested last week, as “one small example.”

“But look at politics in recent years,” Gottlieb observed. “From state and federal scandals, to arrests involving several members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, we have had example after embarrassing example of public officials being charged with violating various laws. Does anyone think former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who had to quit his post over a lewd e-mail scandal, should clear a mental health screening to buy a gun?

“If you compare percentages,” he continued, “the rate of criminal activity by politicians is probably far higher than the rate of crimes committed by the general public.

“What this underscores,” he said, “is the reason gun laws don’t work and never will. People who make the laws we have to live under break them anyway, just like criminals routinely disobey gun laws. Based on their own experience, politicians should know that the gun laws they pass will not prevent crime.”

Gottlieb pointed to crooks like former Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson, sent to prison after authorities found $90,000 in his freezer during an investigation. He cited former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now in prison for racketeering and extortion.

“It is both sad and disgraceful that the list goes on and on,” Gottlieb said. “There are politicians with domestic violence problems, others who accepted bribes, some who stole money or were involved in other criminal acts.

“No wonder citizens are disgusted with politicians and don’t trust them,” he concluded, adding tongue-in-cheek, “And these people want to know why there’s a run on guns and ammunition?”

Toomey, Manchin, And The Politics Of "Doing Something"

I, for one, do not understand just what the hell that Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) thought he'd gain by entering backroom discussions on gun control with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV). Gun control legislation was dying in the Senate because red-state Democrats up for re-election in 2014 were mortally afraid of it. Toomey's move gives them more than a bit of cover.




I'll be in client meetings when Toomey and Manchin have their press conference at 11 am this morning. However, Sebastian and Bitter have been doing a great job of reporting on Toomey's efforts. I suggest going there to read some more background and to keep up with the latest details.

Sen. Jeff Flake - "A Bridge Too Far"

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) was a guest on NBC's Meet The Press along with the odious Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Among the questions they discussed with Chuck Todd of NBC was gun control. Schumer gave the usual answers but as you can see in the video below, Flake called universal background checks "a bridge too far".

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sen. Flake is one of the senators that is being targeted by Mayor Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors in their $12 million ad campaign. MAIG was out front about hoping to influence Flake's vote on gun control issues. That he has come out saying that universal background checks are a no-go for him is good news.

He is one of the co-sponsor's of S. 480 - NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013. This bill aims to clarify the mental health exclusions to firearms ownership.