Bearingarms.com: Background Check Bills Heading for Possible Wednesday Vote

Reuters reports that we could be headed a vote on gun control legislation in the House by mid-week.  According to the report Nancy Pelosi will bring two bills dealing with background checks to the House floor for a vote on Wednesday.  Bearingarms.com's Cam Edwards spoke with the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb yesterday and Gottlieb said SAF has been hearing from a lot of SAF members who are strongly opposed to the anti-gun bills being pushed through the House by Nancy Pelosi.

“The one that would allow the FBI to not approve a sale for no reason, per se, and just hold it forever; obviously that’s a direct infringement on people’s rights to purchase a firearm,” Gottlieb explains. “And the waiting period that they’re trying to put through has a lot of devils in the details.”

That bill is HB 1446, and would allow the FBI ten days, instead of the current three, to conduct a background check on gun purchases. Even worse, if the agency doesn’t respond within ten days, the seller of the firearm still can’t release the gun to the purchaser. Instead, they would have to formally petition the government (in writing) for permission to complete the transaction. As Gottlieb says, a right delayed is a right denied, and this would absolutely have a chilling effect on the ability of law-abiding Americans to purchase a firearm.

So too would the so-called universal background check bill that’s also expected to get a vote on Wednesday. I asked Gottlieb if he saw a contradiction in the position of Democrats who are complaining about overpolicing and overincarceration while preparing to create a new crime out of thin air; and one that could result in a year-long stay in federal prison for those convicted of transferring a firearm without first conducting a background check.

“There’s a definite contradiction,” Gottlieb replied, “but hypocrisy and contradictions mark what our opponents are all about. None of this surprises me at all. You know, less police on the streets, higher crime, and then they take your right to keep and bear arms away from you so you can’t protect yourself. I don’t understand where they’re coming from, but again, it’s hard to understand crazy.”

Even if your representative is anti-rights, they need to hear from you that you opposed HR8 and HR1446.

ATF Raids Polymer80 - Maker of Firearm Build Kits

The Wall Street Journal broke the story last Friday:

The raid target, Nevada-based Polymer80, is suspected of illegally manufacturing and distributing firearms, failing to pay taxes, shipping guns across state lines and failing to conduct background investigations, according to an application for a search warrant unsealed Thursday after the raid took place.

The probe focuses on Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot Kit,” which includes the parts to build a “ghost” handgun. The kit, which Polymer80 sells online, meets the definition of a firearm, ATF investigators determined according to the warrant application. That means it would have to be stamped with a serial number and couldn’t be sold to consumers who haven’t first passed a background check.

Gun rights activist John Crump wrote on Ammoland:

The target of the raid centers around the company’s “Buy Build Shoot Kit,” which includes a slide, barrel, parts, the jigs, drill bits, and an 80% frame. The end-user would still need to mill out the frame to turn it into a working firearm. The ATF claims that because of the way the company sells the kits that these packages constitute firearms, and Polymer80 needs to serialize the frame.

After sharing the story on his web site, gun writer and radio host Tom Gresham asked the question "Is this the first of many moves to erode our 2nd Amendment rights or simply poor execution by Polymer80?"  Tom spoke with the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb in the first hour of Sunday's program.

VSSA · Gun Talk Radio Talks with Alan Gottlieb About ATF Raid

House Impeachment Inquiry Puts Brakes on White House Gun Control Talks

Yesterday, Cam Edwards of Bearingarms.com interviewed Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation.  Gottlieb talked discussed his thoughts on where congress may be headed.  At the beginning of the program, Cam mentioned that the White House has put the brakes on discussions related to gun control with the House of Representatives talk of impeachment.  You can hear Cam's report and the interview below.

Discontent Among Gun Groups Over Initiative 594

The Washington Post has a piece this morning on its GovBeat blog that says Washington State firearm advocates are asking where the NRA is in the battle to defeat Initiative 594, the ballot measure that would criminalize transfer of firearms between anyone, even at training sessions, that does not involve a background check:

“The NRA has really not been involved at all until very recently, and not in the area of spending significantly at all,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “I have no idea why. We have a coalition made up of all the gun rights groups in Washington, and they are not participating. They’re doing their own thing.”

Barron Barnett, a pro-gun rights activist, asked in a recent blog post: “Where the F*** is the NRA?!” “[T]he NRA is more than happy to take my money but then is no where to be found when things actually go sideways,” Barnett wrote.

From what I can tell, NRA has been active getting the message out to defeat I-594. It was the cover story on this month's America's First Freedom. Cam Edwards has covered it a number of times on NRANews.com. But, it appears that some think that the NRA needs to match Billionaires Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, and others pushing the initiative dollar for dollar. NRA has been active in other ways too:

Andrew Arulanandam, a spokesman for the NRA in Virginia, said the group has had two full-time staff on the ground for months. He estimated that the NRA has spent a total of $300,000 to $400,000 so far against I-594, with that number likely to grow in the final two months before Election Day. That figure doesn’t include communications with members and those who receive the NRA’s magazines and publications, he said.

It's true that the pro-I594 forces have raised over $7 million. But, it doesn't serve our cause for pro-rights groups to complain that some are doing more than others to defeat the measure. And as Arulanandam told the Post, while money is important, the Milwaulkee County Sheriff's race proved the power of grassroots. That's where I-594 will be defeated. And the grassroots is the NRA's strength.

When Should Grandpa Give Up His Gun

NBC News had this fairly balanced report on a new paper published by two geriatric specialists on the topic of when it is and isn't safe for senior citizens to continue possessing firearms.

The paper, published June 4 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, lists “5 Ls” to ask an older gun owner: Is his or her gun “loaded” and “locked;” do “little” children visit the home; is the owner feeling “low,” and is he or she “learned” about proper use?

Pinholt, a firearm owner, said she and her co-author, a retired Army Ranger, “are not against guns,” and simply are seeking to reduce suicide risk and boost safety for visitors –- including home-health professionals. Some gun-rights advocates assert, however, the paper’s focus on the elderly is another attempt to try to chip away constitutional freedoms.

The reporter, Robert Briggs, reached out to the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb, to get another view:

“Should we prevent people from serving in public office into their 70s or 80s? Decisions they make could affect millions of citizens,” Gottlieb added. “Simply because someone is older does not mean they should begin to lose their firearms rights … One doesn’t lose his or her civil rights merely because we turn the page of a calendar."

Gotlieb also appeared on Sunday's Armed American Radio to discuss the article in a little more detail.

On a personal note, my grandfather had all of his firearms until his death at the age of 92.  I hunted with him until he was in his late 70's.  I never saw any activity by him that indicated he should not have continued owning his firearms.

Is Operation Choke Point Behind Google's "Increased" Restrictions on Firearms and Accessories?

Over the weekend Breitbart reported that Google was about to put forward increased restrictions on firearms, ammunition and firearm accessory ads.  Tom Gresham also mentioned it on his Gun Talk Radio program.  But as Sebastian and Bob Owens noted, these "increased" restrictions are not really much different than what they are already doing.  On Sunday night's broadcast of Armed American Radio, Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation wondered if Google's announcement of a policy change that isn't really a policy change is driven by Operation Choke Point.

For those not familiar with Operation Choke point, it is an initiative of the U.S. Department of Justice to put a whole host of industries, including firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers, on a "high-risk" list and urged banks to pay close attention to those industries.

So,  as Gottlieb asked, is Google making a big deal about it's policy change which isn't really a change in policy to make a point that it should not be targeted by Holder's DOJ goons?

Toomey: We Don't Have the Votes, Yet.

It appears that rounding up the necessary 60 votes to pass the Manchin-Toomey-Schumer background check amendment is proving to be as difficult as the task of finding the "A" rated GOP Senator to try and sell the issue.  From The Hill:

Republican lawmakers who were considered possible “yes” votes have backed away. GOP Sens. Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Dan Coats (Ind.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) have said they will vote against a compromise to expand background checks to cover sales at gun shows and over the Internet.

Isakson, Chambliss, Corker and Alexander were the targets of a new television ad launched Friday by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns to pressure senators to vote for the background-check legislation sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

 

Toomey on Monday said he doesn’t have the votes: “Not yet, but we’re working on it.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid played the CCRKBA card in a floor speech yesterday.  It is still unclear whether support for the amendment from the self-described "2nd Largest Gun Rights Orgainization" in the country will help get the needed votes. 

I posted yesteday about CCRKBA's support, using audio of Gottlieb talking to Gun Talk Radio host Tom Gresham so that readers would have the message straight from the messenger, and then laid out some of the analysis that contradicted Gottlieb's claims, most notably from Dave Kopel.  Others, like National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea went further.  Codera started with the first "goodie" about a fifteen-year prison sentence for creating a gun registry noting, asking "are we to expect Eric Holder to enforce that?"  Codrea concluded:

But really, all this is just arguing over dancing angels and heads of pins -- the only acceptable answer for hard core gun owners is going to be “No,” and arguments about “goodies” and “Christmas tree ornaments” are hardly going to be persuasive to men and women who take their Bill of Rights seriously, because they know it was secured with powder, lead, steel and blood.

Put simply, while NRA is correct that the Manchin-Toomey bill is “misguided,” those who are the force behind citizen disarmament are flat-out fascist evil, and this is just one more incremental step in their quest for more control. You just don’t give such an enemy a beachhead from which to launch the next assault. And when circled by starving jackals, you don’t throw them a scrap of flesh and think that will induce them not to devour you.

What CCRKBA has done is make your job and my job harder.  It creates a mixed message.  Now when we call Mark Warner he can do like Harry Reid and say "But CCRBA supports it so it can't be anti-gun."  Like Codrea, I don't believe Gottlieb or CCRKBA is a sell out.  I also don't believe he is naive.  He was just too cute by half in my opinion.  Given the comments on a number of 2A blogs that covered this over the last couple of days, it should be interesting at this NRA Annual Meeting booth depending on how this all turns out.

A Split in the Community

Over the weekend a split emerged in the pro-rights community on the Manchin/Toomey/Schumer background check amendment.  Alan Gottlieb announced that the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not only was supporting Manchin/Toomey/Schumer, but that they had a hand writing it and making the claim that the amendment has far more goodies for gun owners than bad measures.  Bitter at Shall Not Be Questioned posted about this yesterday complete with video of Gottlieb talking about CCRKBA's role in the "compromise."  Shortly after her post, Gottlieb appeared on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio program to discuss it further.  You can hear that discussion below.

In short, Gottlieb claims that we are only giving up private checks at gun shows and those advertized over the internet, but we are getting all these pro-rights pieces including:

• Interstate sales of handguns, 
• Veteran gun rights restoration, 
• Travel with firearms protection, 
• Divil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, 
• The guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry.”

Dave Kopel address the travel with firearms and gun registry here:

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.

Then Kopel address the travel provision that Gottlieb promotes:

But notice part (2) of the new definition: a new exclusion for any firearms crime punishable by more than year of imprisonment. In some states, such a crime includes merely not having a state-issued gun permit. So now let’s suppose that the Pennsylvanian is going to Maine. On the way, he travels through Massachusetts. Under current law, FOPA protects him. Under Manchin-Toomey, Massachusetts can arrest and imprison him, and he will have no federal defense. In Massachusetts, possession of a firearm without a state permit is punishable by imprisonment up to to 2 years. Possession outside one’s home or business is a sentence of 2.5 to 5 years, with a mandatory minimum of 18 months. New Jersey and New York City also have penalties of over one year for simple possession without a local permit.

Maybe the Pennsylvanian might qualify for some exemption under the laws of Mass., NYC, or NJ. Or perhaps not. What we know for sure is that today the Pennsylvanian is protected by FOPA, and if Manchin-Toomey passes, he will not be.

On a related note, Larry Keene addressed the issue on Bill Bennett's program this morning. As the trade association for manufacturers and retailers, he is looking at Manchin-Toomey from that perspective and sees a lot to not like in it.

Finally, the editors of National Review had this to say about the "compromise" amendment:

The provision would create new hurdles for law-abiding gun owners, requiring two private parties to seek out — and pay — a federally licensed intermediary before they could carry out a simple transaction. Worse, the vagueness of the legislative language would make it difficult for private sellers to determine if a given sale requires a check. The new regime would make even the most innocently intentioned of firearms transfers significantly more risky for the average American.

In addition to being difficult to comply with, the provision is likely to prove difficult to enforce. Because it would exclude a broad class of transfers, unscrupulous sellers would quickly establish methods of advertising their wares that hid in the lacunae of the legislative language, and adequate enforcement of the law would require police and prosecutors to devote considerable resources to the parsing of close cases and the ferreting out of intent. This mess would likely lead to the reappraisal of today’s legitimate and noncontroversial exclusions as tomorrow’s unacceptable loopholes. Indeed, the very same “gun-show loophole” Toomey/Manchin attempts to close was once a perfectly respectable member of the class of private sales the bill makes a show of protecting.

VSSA stands firm in opposition to Manchin/Toomey/Schumer.