Press "Enter" to skip to content

You know somethin’s happenin’ here but …

As depressing as these last few months have been for gun rights and freedom, there’s a hopeful “something” in the air. It doesn’t always feel like it, but there’s a subtle freedomista breeze wafting.

Those of us who’ve been around a while might be tempted to feel we’re reliving the terrible years of 1993-4. Those were the dark years when the Brady law and the ugly-gun ban clobbered us with a one-two punch and left us thinking we might never get to our feet again.

But Joe Biden is right. Oh, don’t worry, he’s right about only one thing, and actually only half of that. But the political climate around gun rights has changed.

He’s just wrong about the nature of that change — which, given that he’s a politician, I believe and hope he utterly misreads.

He and his ilk think this is the moment when they’ll finally “win” on gun control and destroy the culture of independence that firearms represent.

My prediction is that, whether they “win” in laws and regulation, this time they lose. And they don’t just loose seats in legislatures as they did last time.

They lose their country.

One sign of that shines from Ronnie Barrett’s open letter joining the boycott of those who assault liberty. Barrett is hardly a typical gun maker. Years before the present boycott, he his company refused to sell to or service the weapons of gun-banning governments. In a way, he inspired LaRue, York, Olympic, and all the others to take the tall stand they’re taking now. He just says it well.

And what he says — and what he and others are doing — wouldn’t have been said or done ca. 1993. Back then, gun makers were only too happy to sell out. Heck, Bill Ruger is infamously the father of the standard-capacity magazine ban. And most other gun makers spent time angling for ways to make the various anti-gun (anti-freedom) laws hurt the competition more than themselves.

But yes, Joe Biden, things have changed.

In 1993, do you think the biggest sports show in the U.S. would have been shut down by vendors — not producers of ugly black guns, but makers of boats, duck blinds, spices, and clothing — standing up, saying “the Second Amendment is for ALL or it’s for none,” and walking out? In 1993, do you think the NRA and the big gun makers would have followed the lead of those little guys?

How many gun or firearms equipment makers back then would have even thought about refusing to sell to police? It would have been unthinkable.

Sure, there are still plenty of compromisers. Like Armalite, that wants to have its boycott cake and eat it, too. Or the never-met-a-compromise-he-didn’t-like Alan Gottleib of the Second Amendment Foundation/CCRKBA who seriously expects Washington state gun owners to believe that having one vast gunowner database foisted upon them will be better than having one minor database that a lot of them didn’t even know about.

But condemnation of their tactics is swift, fierce, and increasingly unanimous.

I don’t know how any of this is going to come out. I’m not seeing rainbows and unicorns in our future. Whether the gun-banners “win” or get beaten back on a new ugly-gun ban or a private-sale ban, I expect chaos. But this time around, there seems to be a lot more understanding that the battle is about freedom. For all of us. And that it’s not just the possessions and privileges of one group or another that are at stake.

I also think that those powerful grassroots gun-rights groups that organized and triumphed in state after state in the last 20 years will have a lot to say about the long-term outcome.

Back in ’93-4, powerless nobodies took to the woods and played militia while leaders in the gun industry and the NRA sold them out. I’m not knocking the militia movement; it seemed like a good idea at the time and may have been the best thing for people who had damn few alternatives.

But … things are so much bigger now. It’s no longer just us “lone nuts with guns,” grumbling angrily in meeting rooms or cabins. It’s a whole culture whose members understand that everything they value, everything they are, is under attack.

And for all our fear, good citizenship, and hesitancy to act … this time I don’t think we’re going to take that politely.

How ironic. “Our” leaders obviously fear us. But they fear us for all the wrong reasons. Our guns? Ha. The guns aren’t what it’s about at all. Then, misunderstanding everything so badly, they take exactly the steps to provoke us. People, you have no freakin’ idea what you really have to fear when you aim to take away freedom.

62 Comments

  1. water lily
    water lily February 22, 2013 9:19 am

    I want to feel a bit more optimistic.

    But I think that most of the world’s population no longer desire freedom, or even think it’s important. I think they want to feel safe. I think they want a “big daddy” calling the shots and telling them what to do and what to think. They believe that they are entitled to everything they desire and they want someone to provide it for them.

    I often ponder exactly what it will take for those people change – to crave freedom and personal responsibility.

  2. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal February 22, 2013 9:23 am

    I hope you are right. I have no intention of ever obeying another anti-gun “law”. I may even start disobeying some I have previously obeyed (just because they forbade something I wasn’t interested in having/doing). In fact, I don’t care what the “law” is, so I won’t even know when I am disobeying it. The notion of me- a grown person- “obeying” anything is ridiculous anyway. I’ll do my best to not violate the ZAP, nor to steal or trespass on private property, regardless of what any “law” may say on the matter. It is my hope that there are enough others living the same way that I am a little fish in a massive shoal. I’d prefer not attracting too much attention. I guess it’s too late for that, though.
    Whatever. I’m through letting myself be treated as someone’s slave.

  3. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 22, 2013 9:31 am

    Compromise is the most vile four letter word I know.

  4. D. Majewski
    D. Majewski February 22, 2013 9:45 am

    It would be nice if we could get the ammo manufacturers to refuse to sell to governments that believe in victim disarmament. Could you image what would happen in New York, Chicago or San Fransisco if their police forces were unable to buy ammunition?

  5. Matt, another
    Matt, another February 22, 2013 10:24 am

    I’m not so sure the the rest of the world has given up on freedom anymore than we have here in the U.S. Media in foriegn countries is no more freindly to freedom than our media is. Plenty of Tibetans, Afghans, Chechens, Chinese, N. Koreans etc long for freedom. I know plenty of Philipinos working towards more freedom in their own country and gearing up for a potential conflict with China. Freedom might not be on the march, but it hasn’t disappeared either. Many people just don’t understand how truly unfree they really are.

  6. Kyle MacLachlan
    Kyle MacLachlan February 22, 2013 10:33 am

    My comments on this post can be summed up in five words:

    “Exactly Right!!!”

    “Well said, Claire!!!!”

  7. Kyle MacLachlan
    Kyle MacLachlan February 22, 2013 10:35 am

    Oh, I forgot something to add on after your last paragraph; another three words, if you don’t mind, Claire:

    “Lock and Load!”

  8. Pre-press veteran
    Pre-press veteran February 22, 2013 10:47 am

    Lemme see if I can get this to work…

    This is an ad from the NRA that might further warm cockles & all that. My original reaction was “OH S—!” because if it gets airplay – it’s not hard to see what’s next. I hope it airs a lot, everywhere.

  9. Sam
    Sam February 22, 2013 11:03 am

    I suspect the gun grab, this time, is far more important to the gov than the AWB of 1993-4. This time around the gov knows they cannot prop up the economy much longer. When the dollar goes south and they cannot feed the greed of the sick, lame and lazy any more… when they stop the gov checks for welfare, Social Security, etc… there will be a revolt of some kind. By pushing us too far with this gun grab the gov expects us to revolt. When that happens they can blame the economic chaos on gun owners rather than themselves. When that happens, the press will (of course) support the gov and blame the economic collapse on gun owners. The the gov, happy as can be, and will watch while the 50% [sick, lame, lazy] attack everyone with a gun.

    Take it from there freedomistas. SWAT teams, jack booted thugs, all those armed gov freedom wreckers will become heroes to gov depending scum.

  10. Bear
    Bear February 22, 2013 11:22 am

    Sorry, Claire, but I only wish that I could be so optimistic. Nothing has changed the thoughts I’ve expressed in prior pessimistic posts. Unless for the worse. I wrote those before the Dorner fiasco. Before the LET NMH targets. Before Gottlieb decided to [expletive deleted] gun owners across the country. Before…

    Sam’s right. The b/e/s/t/ slightly less horrible case scenario now is something resembling a revolution (probably solo actors, much less likely organized resistance) that is unlikely in the extreme to end in anything a freedomista will like much more than where we’re headed now.

    Yeah, as I’ve said before, the abyss is staring back.

  11. Jake MacGregor
    Jake MacGregor February 22, 2013 11:27 am

    1994 gun ban a decade later now feels like (historically) 1850 compromise; 1932 invasion of manchuria by Japanese; Reichstag burning; Boston Massacre — Pivot Points.

    In the 20/20 lens of History/Hindsight seem like these moments in time, aka ‘warning shots’ announcing a sea-change coming that would cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives.

    I find it useful to ‘plot’ all of these events in recent history (Patriot Act, Drone usage, , etc) on paper using 1″ for a year. If you do so and chronicle past 20 years it is easy to see the trend – despotism and ruin of individual freedoms.

    So too could reasonable people see similar events playing out in the transition from Weimar to Nazi Germany while living through it. BUT most did nothing because it happened by the inch.

    It is so DAMN difficult, in the moment, to get a strong sense of a coming apocalypse because we are so trapped in our day to day. Cognitive dissonance leads us to pin-ball from deep fears to mild optimism.

    All of us can now shout at those at risk in ’30s Germany GET OUT! Yet at that their time they had other issues blotting out that urgency – Grandma was ill; Jr. was in College; 6 more years until retirement, etc. In the end they walked to the Ovens.

    I wonder what people are shouting back at us 80 years hence?

  12. Joel
    Joel February 22, 2013 11:29 am

    I don’t know whether to be optimistic about it or not. I am noticing a lot more strong talk than I remember from the mid-’90’s, but I don’t know how significant that’ll turn out to be. The thing with the big show was encouraging, I concede.

    But in the end I don’t know what other people will do. All I can say is “I know not what course others may take. But as for me, the answer is no. What was the question?”

  13. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 22, 2013 11:49 am

    “I have no intention of ever obeying another anti-gun “law”. I may even start disobeying some I have previously obeyed…”

    That’s the upside of gun control Kent. When the law has turned you into a felon, you might as well be a felon for 10 “violations” as for one. 😉

    “I think that most of the world’s population no longer desire freedom, or even think it’s important. I think they want to feel safe.”

    Nah, I don’t buy it. This is generalization on a massive scale. People are individuals. Some want safety, some want freedom, and everything in between. And some even realize the best way to have safety is to have freedom. Don’t get your opinion of people from the Ministry of Propaganda.

    Actually, to be fair to Gottlieb, there is no database in his proposal. The question is, what is he going to do if he does not get everything he wants in his proposed modifications of the bill. Will he compromise? We shall see.

    Personally I think our real future is not in making deals (even advantageous ones) in the legislature, but in widespread refusal to obey laws. But I’m not about to whip Gottlieb – yet.

  14. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal February 22, 2013 12:01 pm

    Jake: “I wonder what people are shouting back at us 80 years hence?
    That’s what I was pondering when I wrote Go back in time- Kill Hitler

  15. bumperwack
    bumperwack February 22, 2013 12:15 pm

    Well, one can be somewhat optimistic(?) about the fact that more people are finally starting to GET IT….

  16. Howard
    Howard February 22, 2013 12:40 pm

    If the dollar “goes south” which it probably will and hyper inflation makes my social security check worthless I have taken steps to provide for my extended family and TO DEFEND THE MEANS TO DO SO. However I do not think social security should be lumped with other entitlement programs. I paid my share of “tax” and my employer paid his plus I paid both halves the years I was self employed. The government put “I owe you’s” in the trust fund so yes, it is affecting the deficit now. I’m betting many seniors will be just as supportive of freedom movements as any other group. Yes, the government is using gun control, immigration and climate change to distract us from the economy. So pay attention to things that matter.

  17. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 22, 2013 1:09 pm

    FYI you always paid all Socialist Security and your employer paid none of it, despite the “smoke and mirrors” accounting that made it look otherwise. An analysis of the cost of employing you would show you that.

    As to the rest of it, thinking govt owes you money because it stole from you earlier, is like finding your car has been stolen, and going out and stealing one from an innocent third party to compensate. The money you sent to the federal government under Socialist Security is like all other money you sent to them: already pissed away. Any Socialist Security is funded largely if not completely by current taxes on a shrinking population, and by inflation which is another form of tax on everyone. It is the dole, plain and simple. As to government promises, they are worth exactly nothing, otherwise the Constitution would be followed (since all congresscritters and the president promise to follow it in their oath of office).

    Sorry for all the bad news.

  18. Bear
    Bear February 22, 2013 3:31 pm

    @Mike: “I’m still unsure of how I feel re: Gottlieb’s grand compromise, but I certainly think it’s worlds better than what’s been proposed…and maybe better than where we are now.”

    People FRICKIN’ HATE and OPPOSE preemptively-prove-your-innocence checks, as indicated by the backlash when Gottlieb announced he’d be willing to trade a fiearms registry for a firearms owner registry*. So if the option he was ‘avoinding’ was worlds worse…

    Then just maybe it could have been defeated without Gottlieb offering to trade vaginal rape for anal rape.

    And that’s just in WA. His proposed ‘compromise’ won’t do a [expletive deleted] thing for me, but it will be used as a ‘but gunnies LIKE background checks’ precedent by the antis in my state legislature (who started the legislative session by ordering all constituents disarmed near the State House).

    —–
    * No matter what some claim, the only way to prove a private sale went through a PPYI check is by record keeping. The only way to avoid PPYI in Gottlieb’s compromise is to register the owner first.

  19. jed
    jed February 22, 2013 3:43 pm

    Yes, this a lot different from GCA68, AWB, etc. Much more highly visible, and in a climate where a lot more people are looking at it, in combination with a seriously expanded federal “security” apparatus, along with more globalism, socialism, financial shennanigans, etc.

    All y’all don’t forget the Day of Resistance tomorrow.

  20. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit
    The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit February 22, 2013 4:43 pm

    Oh yeah. Here’s change:

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf

    Summary:

    Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.
    Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.
    Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
    Directs Department of State Police to conduct background checks and maintain registry of as-
    sault weapons and large capacity magazines.
    Declares emergency, effective on passage.

  21. water lily
    water lily February 22, 2013 6:01 pm

    I suspect that the average person who isn’t awake and aware talks a good talk about 2nd amendment and freedom, but let a disaster strike their town or another “terrorist” attack happen, and they’d be screaming for the government to take care of them.

    Yeah, I think some people still want freedom, but the majority of the world likes the concept – until they are hungry and in danger.

    It really does come down to whether they understand the consequence of freedom – it’s dangerous. People are terrified of getting the flu or not having medical insurance. Sadly, they’d give up their freedom in a heartbeat if someone else would guarantee them health and “happiness.”

  22. akaGaGa
    akaGaGa February 22, 2013 8:32 pm

    I’m a life-long libertarian and have been outraged at the pace of the attacks on our civil liberties since 9/11. That said, I don’t think optimism is the right word to apply to what is coming. We’re talking about war, folks, and in war people die. We’d each better thoughtfully decide where we’re going to take our stand, because the consequences are forever.

  23. leonard
    leonard February 23, 2013 12:51 am

    “It’s a whole culture whose members understand that everything they value, everything they are, is under attack. ”

    Works for me and I’ve already thought about the “consequences”.

  24. Pre-press veteran
    Pre-press veteran February 23, 2013 4:16 am

    If the ProPPressives weren’t so active and vocal about their evangelizing – imposing their ideas of “how things should be” and their version of moral superiority through the media –

    would the people known as sheep, then begin to think and do for themselves?

    It almost makes a person wish that the grid would go down, just to shut up the constant propaganda… and force those wishing to know what’s going on to actually read a physical newspaper or book.

  25. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 23, 2013 6:46 am

    “No matter what some claim, the only way to prove a private sale went through a PPYI check is by record keeping. The only way to avoid PPYI in Gottlieb’s compromise is to register the owner first.”

    Not quite sure what you mean by PPYI, but I don’t think there is any need to register owners. Say the government kept a list of prohibited persons, and distributed the list over the internet to gun sellers. You come in to buy a gun, the gun owner looks at the list of prohibited persons, finds you are not in it, and sells you the gun. There is no record you have it or that you are even a gun owner.

    So it’s theoretically possible. Whether it is politically possible is another thing entirely. I also don’t know if this is the method Gottlieb is proposing, or how much compromising he will do.

    Another problem is that even ex-felons have a right to life and therefore have a right to the tools to defend that life, so even the notion of prohibited persons seems immoral to me.

  26. Mr Galt
    Mr Galt February 23, 2013 7:10 am

    Here’s something you all might find interesting. I took a short weekend trip to Ontario and wandered into a sporting good store to checkout their ammo situation.

    What I found were well-stocked shells of a variety of calibres, including CCI 22LR Mini-Mags for $8 per 100 round box! (yah!)

    Interesting that everything is well-short in the U.S. in the munitions department, with the exception of 12 gauge and a box or two of each of the larger hunting calibres like 30-06. Certainly “fear hoarding” is one factor – but how much of that is by design?

  27. KenK
    KenK February 23, 2013 7:53 am

    I have heard it said that ammo control is the very best quick means of defanging us peons. I saw the postings of an ex-fed LEO on a gun control site say that at any given time the American people collectively hold a 2-3 year supply of ammo/components for ammo. Shut off the ammo supply, he says, and we’re effectively disarmed whatever guns we have buried or hidden away. (“What do you call an AK rifle w/50-shot drum magazine, but no ammo?: A club! Heh. Heh.” [Quoted from memory from that post].) As I wrote over at STR (paraphrase) I’d rather have a crusty old bolt-action rifle or revolver, but with PLENTY OF AMMO, than a brand new modern AR with only a box or two to shot with it, if things get really, really, bad. Deprive us of ammo and we’re disarmed no matter what we have stashed.
    http://www.strike-the-root.com/bottom-line-its-not-dark-yet-but-its-getting-there

  28. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 8:58 am

    @ Paul Bonneau: “Not quite sure what you mean by PPYI”

    First paragraph: “preemptively-prove-your-innocence”; what the antis like to call “background checks” when they chucked presumed innocence out the window. Prove a negative: prove you didn’t commit a “crime”.

    “but I don’t think there is any need to register owners. Say the government kept a list of prohibited persons, and distributed the list over the internet to gun sellers. You come in to buy a gun, the gun owner looks at the list of prohibited persons, finds you are not in it, and sells you the gun. There is no record you have it or that you are even a gun owner.”

    Great. Now prove you checked, or were checked. In a slightly less insane world, if found with a gun you could be run through a database and your “eligibility” established. But Gottlieb just endorsed a requirement that it be done preemptively. NOTE: With checks required, if you sold to person, who is legally allowed to purchase and posses a firearm, without checking, you will still have committed a crime. Prove you did it without record keeping. And once you’ve done that, eliminate state driver licensing record keeping since there’s no reason to “prove” your DL isn’t a fake.

    “Another problem is that even ex-felons have a right to life and therefore have a right to the tools to defend that life, so even the notion of prohibited persons seems immoral to me.”

    Absolutely. I’ve long thought that anyone who can be trusted on the street without a keeper should be trusted with defensive tools (even before I heard Codrea formalize it). If they can’t be trusted… they can’t be trusted. And should be out there. So Gottlieb is also endorsing a permanent lower class of disarmed serfs.

  29. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 9:03 am

    Ack. “And shouldn’t be out there.”

  30. Shel
    Shel February 23, 2013 10:45 am

    I also am impressed by how many people seem to realize the stakes here. That gives us some hope, slim as it may be. I know I’ve “come out of the woodwork” on this issue, as I believe failing to do so is certain suicide. FDR famously said nothing ever happens by chance. We are looking at, I believe, the next step or two in a long term plan; I really don’t want to think about the subsequent ones.

    One speculated time line for martial law is this summer. http://theallegiant.com/invasion-dhs-source-tells-why-military-exercises-in-u-s-cities/ With the way things are accelerating, I can’t disagree with it. If martial law is a near certainty, and as Chairman Mao said (and Obama obviously agrees), power comes out of the barrel of a gun, all our talk may be meaningless – though I still intend to do what I can in that vein. It does make me think, however, of the news report that the South Vietnamese legislature was debating the proper course of action while NVA tanks were rolling down the road from Long Binh.

    I cannot begin to describe it any better than Patrick Henry, who in his famous speech said, “it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

    Anguish of spirit. Yes, that’s it exactly.

  31. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 23, 2013 2:21 pm

    “Great. Now prove you checked, or were checked.”

    Clearly the onus is on the seller only, not the buyer. It is easy to prove.

    Say Joe Blow comes to buy a gun from me. I download today’s version of the “prohibited person” database and check his driver’s license against it. I scan his driver’s license, along with a signed statement of him saying he bought the gun on this date. Then I archive today’s database, the image of his driver’s license and the signed statement, and encrypt it.

    99.999% of the time I will never be asked to prove anything. In the unlikely event that the gun was found at the scene of the crime, and traced to me, I can always back up that I sold it by showing my proof. I can’t see how any other circumstance would lead to my having to prove it.

    Of course if the buyer does not want evidence of the trade even in my computer, encrypted, he can go somewhere else to buy a gun. Note that it would be the seller’s choice how careful he is in creating and keeping such proof. As a practical matter I probably wouldn’t bother because I think the probability of needing proof is about on the level of probability being struck by lightning. But some more paranoid sellers might do it. At any rate the records of transfers, if they exist at all, are scattered completely across America. A far better picture than what happens with 4473’s.

    By the way, with this decentralized, universal background check, why should there be 4473’s at all? Not only should Washington state’s database go away, but also the 4473’s. Not that that will happen, but still, the point can be made…

  32. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 23, 2013 2:26 pm

    Actually, now that I think of it, both sides of the transaction could record and store the information in an encrypted file, if they were paranoid about it.

  33. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 3:07 pm

    Both parties would have to keep a copy, since it’s a crime for a prohibited party to purchase a firearm, not merely for a seller to sell it.

    Of course, if the would-be buyer fails the check, you’ll be obligated to report him, or risk conspiracy charges in his “unlawful” attempt to purchase a firearm (and if anyone out there thinks that can’t happen, google “Reese gun dealer Deming”. Or Red’s Trading Post. Or…).

    In fact, the central no-fly database maintained by the feds works rather like you describe, with the airlines checking passengers to make sure they aren’t unapproved. So there’s plenty of experience with this kind of thing. It’ll work perfectly with no bugs at all. Let’s do it.

  34. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 3:19 pm

    Of course, there’s an existing NCIC system used by FFLs, which I suppose we could get the feds to open up to private sales (riiight, like they’ll pass on the chance to get another 4473 on a gun). It works well. Why, the Brady’s claim it blocks well over a hundred thousand illegal sales every year.

    Funny that we don’t see well over a hundred thousand matching criminal indictments and trials for illegal sales every year.

    But however they do it, it’ll be great fun for every private citizen to have access to a centralized database of “criminals” and otherwise prohibited persons. It’s not like your nosy neighbor is going to pretend he’s selling a gun to you just so he can run a check on you. And I’m sure no script kiddie would even think about hacking the database just to get his grade school teacher fired for an undisclosed criminal record. Can’t be any worse than nameless bureaucrats adding names without due process, oversight, or the chance to get one’s name off the list. (Heck, how are we going to tell the difference between the scripties and the feds? Maybe script kiddies actually put that octogenarian nun on the no-fly list.)

  35. Claire
    Claire February 23, 2013 3:56 pm

    “By the way, with this decentralized, universal background check, why should there be 4473′s at all? Not only should Washington state’s database go away, but also the 4473′s. Not that that will happen, but still, the point can be made…”

    I’m not sure what got you guys talking about a decentralized database. There will be no such thing. Every plan I know of re ending private sales/requiring universal background checks requires sellers and buyers to conduct their business through either an FFL or a police department.

    For a fee. And so far with no guarantee of any promptness (though in WA, a guarantee of promptness is one of the things the compromising alleged pro-gun people are asking for, as though that somehow would make the ban on private sales just hunky dory).

  36. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 23, 2013 5:03 pm

    “And so far with no guarantee of any promptness (though in WA, a guarantee of promptness is one of the things the compromising alleged pro-gun people are asking for, as though that somehow would make the ban on private sales just hunky dory).”

    I have a feeling the DIY method of making your own guns is going to take off if it makes it harder for people to obtain professional made guns. 80% receivers anyone? But even KT Ordnance is busy.

    I also think the Archery business will soon be doing brisk business, if they haven’t already.

  37. Woody
    Woody February 23, 2013 5:43 pm

    Jim,
    Google “scratch built ar-15” You don’t need no stinking forging to build your own lower receiver. There seems to be more and more in this vein turning up on the net everyday. Is a new Renaissance in gun making starting to emerge?

  38. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 5:53 pm

    Claire: “By the way, with this decentralized, universal background check, why should there be 4473?s at all?”

    Because they’re a federal requirement for FFLs sales, not a WA requirement. So Gottlieb’s “compromise” wouldn’t junk them either.

    “I’m not sure what got you guys talking about a decentralized database.”

    Ask Paul. He was the one dreaming up ways to make begging the state for permission somehow acceptable. I hope my responses properly conveyed what I thought of that.

    “There will be no such thing. Every plan I know of re ending private sales/requiring universal background checks requires sellers and buyers to conduct their business through either an FFL or a police department.<"

    Yep, in every jurisdiction I know of that imposed universal PPYI, that’s how it’s been done. Because record keeping is the point, and they can’t do that with voluntary, unregistered, decentralized “checks”. And it’s still begging for permission. And running them through the FFLs (and in some areas, the bound book)” 4473s again.

    “For a fee.”

    I stand corrected: Buying permission.

    Irony: In private email with Gottlieb, he justified himself by claiming to have armed Tennessee blacks for defense against the KKK in the ’60s. I asked him if he got the state’s and local sheriffs’ permission to give them guns. He didn’t answer. But I haven’t heard of him disavowing this PPYI permission slip scam, so I guess he did beg permission back then. Knowing Tennessee back then, I’m sure he paid plenty in bribes.

  39. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 6:15 pm

    Gee, it’s looking like Gottlieb gave up his cherry inWA state for nothing.

    Senators near a deal on background checks for most private gun sales
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-near-a-deal-on-background-checks-for-most-private-gun-sales/2013/02/23/d55e5f4a-7d0c-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html

    “A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions”

    Bipartisan: screwed back and front

    “Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides.”

    Paging Paul Bonneau…

    “Republicans, however, believe that records of private sales could put an undue burden on gun owners or could be perceived by gun rights advocates as a precursor to a national gun registry.”

    Could be? No sh!t. Yo, Repugnican-branch of the One Big Party: See preceding sentences about the Dem branch wanting exactly that.

    This “bipartisan” group is Schumer (D-NY), whom we all know and loath; Coburn (R-OK, NRA A rated), who only opposes universal PPYI if it includes permanent record-keeping; Manchin (D-WVA NRA A rated), who was one of the first to propose PPYI this time around (see http://www.bussjaeger.org/Senator-Joe-Wusschin-III.jpg); and Kirk (R-IL), who was only ever pro-RKBA just long enough to get endorsed by the Bational Reublican Association.

  40. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 23, 2013 6:57 pm

    Woody-

    Different people have different abilities and some will only have info on some of the gun building, not all. All you need to see about that by the Californians trying to take some guns back to their home as reported by someone else here. If they didn’t know about having to go through an FFL, what else would they not know.

    As for the other:

    “-as a precursor to a national gun registry”

    Or as a precursor to a gun confiscation. Which is very unlikely to be peaceful, and they know it.

  41. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 23, 2013 7:06 pm

    Oops, my mistake. The info about the Californians wasn’t from above. It was actually from here, inputted by Bear himself.

  42. Claire
    Claire February 23, 2013 7:10 pm

    “-as a precursor to a national gun registry”

    “Precursor” my Aunt Fanny.

    Amazing how many morons — even morons who’ve been alleged gun-rights activists for decades — have willed themselves to believe that transaction records actually aren’t kept. “But the law requires them to be destroyed!”

    Yeah, but the law only applies to us little people …

  43. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 8:13 pm

    Jim B.: “inputted by Bear himself.”

    -blink-

    Oh. For the record (grin), that’s a different — California-type — Bear. I’m more the New Hampster type. Don’t know if that’s just his nym, but “Bear” also happens to be my realspace nickname, and has been for many years. I used to be on TMM; I used either my real name or “Another_Bear” while I was there.

    Claire, yep. The ATF copied so many 4473s that Congress passed a law specifically against it… which the ATF dutifully ignored. And still ignores, as has been documented many times. NCIC records? Yeah, those were supposed to be destroyed, too. I think everyone here knows how that turned out.

  44. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 23, 2013 8:52 pm

    Like my Mom says, “They got the records somewhere”, meaning they may not have them where they’re supposed to, but they have them somewhere. Of course she was talking about medical records, but I’ve figured that this is even more true about gun records.

    A Bear here and a Bear there, as long as a Grizzly doesn’t get in my face, everything’s cool. Oh, for your info, the other Bear now lives in Nevada, he was commenting on Californians coming to Nevada to take guns back home, not realizing that the guns have to go through the FFLs back home. The problem is the severe lack of FFLs in California.

  45. Bear
    Bear February 23, 2013 9:12 pm

    I used to have a Grizzly. Never had call to get it in anyone’s face. [grin]

    Bears. Could be worse. I remember one work shift when everyone in the entire building was named either “Carl” or “Mike”. Strange night.

  46. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember February 23, 2013 11:26 pm

    Meanwhile, the worm turns:

    “The monthly premium for him and his wife was about $400, but when he received his first bill in January of this year it was for $1,200. He hasn’t been to a doctor in years, his wife has only gone for minor care.

    Apparently there is some clause in the Affordable Healthcare Act that results in health insurance firms using a new method to calculate premiums.” …

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/first-obamacare-horror-story.html

    Transpose that story on top of the bit I saw about how only 50% of property owners are paying thier property taxes in Detroit,… faster and faster the worm turns.

  47. Jim B.
    Jim B. February 24, 2013 12:33 am

    Insurance premium or property taxes, for many it’ll be one or the other. This will be another issue that will “contribute” to the “conflict” the people will have with the government. Which shouldn’t bear saying.

  48. MamaLiberty
    MamaLiberty February 24, 2013 5:07 am

    At least so far, nobody keeps a data base or requires permission slips to buy matches, screwdrivers, kitchen knives or most of the many thousands of objects that can and often do get used to harm other people… sometimes lots of them.

    So, why would anyone who believes they have a right to self defense even consider any such data collection or permission for guns as legitimate? Why is a gun different? (Rhetorical question, of course. Guns are different exactly because they the most effective means of self defense… against all kinds of criminals.)

    And nothing relevant is gained by knowing who sold an object used in a crime. It certainly doesn’t do anything to prevent the crime.

    I would, personally, not be willing to sell a gun, a knife, a box of matches or anything else to someone who I thought might use them to harm others, but I completely reject any legitimacy for “prohibited persons” lists, or gov. mandated records of sales.

  49. Old Printer
    Old Printer February 24, 2013 10:38 am

    Laws passed in California sometimes become blueprints for other states, especially Oregon and Washington. The following is a proposed law, which will undoubtedly pass with Democrats controlling 2/3 of the state legislature, which has hidden implications. It’s a foreboding of what is ahead:

    Introduced by Assembly Member Alejo

    February 21, 2013

    An act to amend Sections 16730 and 29805 of the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

    AB 740, as introduced, Alejo. Firearms.
    Existing law provides that certain prohibitions on the transfer of firearms do not apply if the transfer is among other things, infrequent. Existing law defines “infrequent” for these purposes as less than 6 transactions per calendar year for handguns, and occasional and without regularity for firearms other than handguns. Existing law defines “transaction” for these purposes as a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of handguns.
    This bill would define “infrequent” for purposes of these provisions as less than 5 firearms transactions per calendar year. The bill would revise the definition of “transaction” for these purposes to mean a single sale, lease, or transfer of any number of firearms.
    By expanding the definitions of the underlying crimes affected by the definition of infrequent, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
    Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess, or have under his or her custody or control, any firearm. Violation of this prohibition is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.
    This bill would add to the list of misdemeanors, the conviction for which is subject to those prohibitions, a violation of the above-described 10-year prohibition, as well as the misdemeanor offenses of interfering with a public official, peace officer, or emergency technician interfering with transmissions over a public safety radio frequency; a violation of the provision requiring a person to be a licensed firearms dealer in order to sell, lease, or transfer firearms; possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from possessing firearms; supplying, delivering, selling, or giving possession or control of ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing firearms; and carrying ammunition on school grounds, as specified.
    By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

    Digest Key
    Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

    Note that merely selling ammunition to someone who has been convicted of the misdemeanor of “interfering with a peace office” will become a crime punishable by a 10 year ban on owning firearms.
    There are currently 19 bills in the California State Assembly dealing with gun control, far worse than New York.

  50. Water Lily
    Water Lily February 24, 2013 8:09 pm

    When my hubby buys pipe cleaners at Walmart (he uses them to clean his paint spray gun) he has to show ID. When he buys more than 1 gallon of acetone at a time (he uses it as a cleaning solvent) he has to show ID at Walmart.

    Fun times!

    Not.

  51. IndividualAudienceMember
    IndividualAudienceMember February 24, 2013 10:39 pm

    “There are currently 19 bills in the California State Assembly dealing with gun control”

    “When my hubby buys pipe cleaners at Walmart … he has to show ID.
    When he buys more than 1 gallon of acetone at a time …he has to show ID.”

    Wow.

    Seriously, I woke up one day and I found myself in Bizzaro World.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizarro

    ” a figure that carried a shadow”

    Where far too many people wear The Mask

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mask

    “In the original comic stories, characters who wore the Mask would become dangerous and cruel antiheroes with ultraviolent tendencies, even if this was not the wearer’s original intention.”

    “It” happened a long time ago, didn’t it?

  52. Terri
    Terri February 25, 2013 3:37 am

    The insanity of the times reminds me of what happened in germany when the jews were called to ”register”. not their guns,but themselves and their families. once registration was complete came the confiscation of all they owned and finally extermination.

    i once thought leaving wouldn’t solve anything. that this evil would simply follow. i believe now i was wrong. if a person can get out before the ‘purge’ begins are they wrong for doing so? or smart! i would have to say smart with all that is happening now.

    watching some video’s of stalin and what he did to 23 million people i see obama is the same man reincarnated or perhaps just following the exact same play book. surrounding himself with ‘the children’. secret lists of people who must die. Stalin had a list just like it. secret police, torture and kidnappings.

    for my own part. if i could get out and save my life and my childrens rather then submit to being put into the state run prison system for gun owners who refuse to submit on their knees i would do so. Stalin and Hitler had prison systems as well where countless millions slaved and died

    The usa has a system greater then any other in the world. those inside it are abused and forced to work for pennies to enrich the corporation for the crime of owning a plant not approved by their masters. how long before they turn into death camps as well as prison camps?

    the great purge didn’t die with stalin. The nazi’s ideals moved across the ocean. The two merged into something unspeakable. it is coming! like a storm.

  53. Blake
    Blake February 25, 2013 4:49 am

    “for my own part. if i could get out and save my life and my childrens rather then submit to being put into the state run prison system for gun owners who refuse to submit on their knees i would do so.”

    If you resist gun confiscation, you still expect to survive to go to prison? Why is that? How much resistance will you offer before you submit? Harsh words to your congressman? A letter to the editor? Sounds to me like you have already decided to submit.

  54. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 25, 2013 1:09 pm

    “Both parties would have to keep a copy, since it’s a crime for a prohibited party to purchase a firearm, not merely for a seller to sell it.”

    Nope. It’s up to the prosecutor to prove you committed a crime, not up to you to prove you didn’t.

    Of course, back here on the real world…

    The point I am making is that there is no THEORETICAL reason universal background checks must lead to registration. However the only ones you will hear discussed in the halls of power and by the Ministry of Propaganda are the type that DO amount to registration. Which makes a person realize they don’t give a damn about background checks after all; what they want is registration.

    Which is something we don’t need tinfoil hats to have figured out…

    “He was the one dreaming up ways to make begging the state for permission somehow acceptable.”

    If you can point out where I actually said or implied such a thing, you won’t be morally impelled to apologize to me.

  55. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 25, 2013 2:46 pm

    It just dawned on me that Bear might have been assuming that since I was arguing that checks without registration was possible, then I must be wanting it to happen.

    Nothing of the sort! I am an anarchist. I don’t want any laws (as opposed to voluntary agreements), never mind laws dealing with firearms. I don’t want background checks. I don’t want a list of prohibited persons to exist.

    Then why argue that it is possible?

    How about to show that these politicians don’t care about background checks at all? To show they are motivated by registration only? To show that they really do want to confiscate the guns? No news to us, but it might be to a lot of people who are still at least partly caught in the Matrix.

    We are already in a war. The war does not happen only on the battlefield; it happens in the minds of men and women also. We need to delegitimize government if we are going to have a prayer of winning.

  56. Bear
    Bear February 25, 2013 6:58 pm

    Paul: “Nope. It’s up to the prosecutor to prove you committed a crime, not up to you to prove you didn’t.”

    Hmm.
    “…get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.”
    “Testilying.”
    Voir dire.
    Charge piling.
    Federal “civil rights” trials after a jury found one innocent of criminal charges.
    Convictions for “lying to federal agents” for claiming to be innocent.

    OK.

  57. Paul Bonneau
    Paul Bonneau February 26, 2013 6:53 am

    Still waiting for that apology, Bear. Might as well add to that an apology for quoting me out of context. What I actually said was,

    “Nope. It’s up to the prosecutor to prove you committed a crime, not up to you to prove you didn’t.

    Of course, back here on the real world…”

Leave a Reply