CDC Finding Probably Not What Obama Expected

Rare.com has the story here:

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study revealed.

The report is titled Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. The report also notes:

As for gun control measures potentially having an effect on decreasing casualties, the report expresses uncertainty: “Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue,” and there is no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” It also stated that proposed  “gun turn-in programs are ineffective.”

Ten million to tell us what we basically already know.

Virginia Gun Sales Nearly Doubled During Obama Years

Fredericksburg.com reports that during Obama's eight years in office, Virginia gun sales almost doubled the number sold during the eight years of President George W. Bush:

Total firearm sales in Virginia during President Barack Obama’s presidency nearly doubled over President George Bush’s years in office, and surpassed a record half-million transactions in 2016 alone, new state data shows.

Estimated firearm sales based on mandatory criminal background checks on Virginia gun buyers totaled 3,153,220 during Obama’s eight years in office ending in 2016, compared with 1,712,607 transactions during the Bush years of 2001-2008, according to an analysis of Virginia Firearm Transaction Center data.

In what a state firearms center official described as a major milestone, the number of transactions reached 505,722 during Obama’s last full year in office in 2016—a 14 percent jump over 2015 and the first time state gun sales topped a half million.

“To double your yearly output in 16 years” is extraordinary, said Mike Matthews, senior supervisor in the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center.

This should come as no surprise given the increased calls for gun control from Obama after the Sandy Hook school shootings. He was for the most part quite on gun control up to that point. What I did notice in the article and think is the real take away is that even during the Bush years, gun sales were steadily increasing, though not as fast as during the Obama years.  The gun ban lobby likes to tell us that the number of Americans owning guns continues to decrease, all the while sales are increasing.  We are supposed to believe that all these new firearms are being purchased by people who already own guns and that no new gun owners are joining the ranks.  Try and tell that to all of the instructors whose classes are full or to the ranges running Women on Target events that fill up.

Obama Continues Rush of New Regulations Including Guns Before Leaving Office

Liz Sheld at PJ Media reports that the Obama administration has put the finishing touches on regulations that will strip the Second Amendment Rights of some Americans receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI):

Last week, the Obama administration put the finishing touches on a new policy that would deprive recipients of disability insurance and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) of their Second Amendment rights. The administration will now characterize those citizens as "mental defectives," thereby having their ability to own a firearm subject to the federal Gun Control Act.

Supplemental Security Income helps blind, disabled, and elderly people with little to no income.  Previously, it was understood that "mentally defective" referred to one's mental health. Citizens who have been institutionalized against their will are restricted from owning a firearm. The new definition of "mentally defective" has nothing to do with being mentally ill.

As Sheild put it, Obama has no problem emptying out Guantanamo Bay of dangerous terrorists and commuting the sentences of criminals that include those who broke federal firearms laws, but he doesn't like law-abiding American citizens possessing firearms.

Update: Dr. John Lott has more on this at National Review.

Katie Pavlich: Obama's Pardons Prove He Isn't Serious About Guns

Earlier this week, Townhall Editor and Fox News Contributor Katie Pavlich appeared on NRANews Cam and Company to discuss President Obama's commuting the sentences of 61 federal prisoners.  These prisoners were described as a non-violent, low-level drug offenders. Pavlich says however that a closer look reveals that 12 sentences included illegal use of a firearm during the commission of a drug trafficking crime, while others were charged with felony possession and use of a firearm. She said this proves that the president isn’t serious about his executive actions on gun control as a means of stopping violent crime. The below interview originally aired on Cam & Co on April 5, 2016.

The Hill: Gun Groups Launch Blitz to Counter Obama

Over the weekend The Hill had this story on recent steps by NRA and other pro-rights groups to counter President Obama's recent actions to restrict our rights and explain to the public what is really meant by Obama and Clinton when they talk about Australia's response to mass shootings:

The offensive includes a series of videos, newspaper ads and email alerts from the NRA, the Gun Owners of America and the National Shooting Sports Foundation in an effort to swing public opinion against the measures.

The gun lobby hopes to rebut Obama, who cast the actions as reasonable steps to prevent senseless gun violence. They also hope to make the efforts politically unpalatable for any candidate that may back them in the 2016 election.

Here is the new NRA ad:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) full page ad referenced by The Hill ran last week in the Washington Post.  NSSF called it a "response to President Obama’s ongoing attacks on the men and women of America’s firearms and ammunition industry."

Hat tip to Sebastian and Breitbart.

Baltimore Sun Deputy Editor: Gun Owners Should be On a Registry Like Sex Offenders

A fellow blogger shared this article on his Facebook page, describing the author as "anti-gunner. Racist. Bigot."  He is exactly right.   The article, written by Tricia Bishop,  the Balitmore Sun's deputy editorial page editor is titled "Do you know the gun owners in your circle?"  She confirms her bigotry in the start to her article:

I'm less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners. I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore's illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by "the game." The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away.

You see, she can "self segregate" herself in a low crime neighborhood.  Because she dislikes guns, she doesn't think about those folks who can do the same and may need a firearm for self-defense.  Bishop worries about law abiding gun owners because there is no way for her to know who or where they are.  Her answer to that is to create a database.  That way, before someone moved into a neighborhood or allowed their children to go play at a neighbor's home, they could go online and see if there are guns in the home or neighborhood.  Now, if someone were to suggest a database based on race or ethnicity so that you knew who lived in particular neighborhoods, they would rightly be called out for bigotry.  But do that with gun owners, and you are some kind of champion to the gun ban crowd.    Here is the choice part of the article:

And so, as President Barack Obama announced plans this week to tighten background checks for gun buyers and increase gun tracking and research, I thought, that's all well and good, but how about adding something immediately useful: a gun owner registry available to the public online — something like those for sex offenders. I'm not equating gun owners with predatory perverts, but the model is helpful here; I want a searchable database I can consult to find out whether my kid can have a play date at your house.

That's right, Bishop thinks gun owners are like "sex offenders."  There is something wrong with us.  She tries to ameliorate the charge by saying:

Before the 33 percent of U.S. households containing a gun (half of which don't secure them) gets too worked up, they should know that it would likely include many of my relatives and their friends. My parents grew up in small town Minnesota, and hunting was a regular part of their lives before they left for other states, and it still is for many they know. My folks were taught how to handle guns and use them safely. But that doesn't do much to allay my fears; it's the simple presence of the weapon in the home and the possibilities it presents that terrify me.

She goes on to repeat the often used myth about how guns in the home are far more likely to injure someone in the home, even though unintentional deaths by firearm are at all time lows.   Maybe instead of worrying about law abiding gun owners, she should be more concerned with keeping some of those Baltimore criminals behind bars so they can't terrorize the less elite neighborhoods.

Even Obama's Own Party Know He is All Bark and No Bite

We need only look at this Roll Call article from Friday about Obama's threat not to campaign or vote for any candidate that doesn't support gun control:

“It sounds like a lot of tough talk that doesn’t affect too many Senate races,” said one Democratic strategist. “That’s kind of standard with this White House; they say something that doesn’t have a lot of teeth.”

That charge came after the article explained what anyone who follows politics knows, there aren't any Democrats running for re-election this year that don't support gun control.  But the larger point is even if there were, Obama's threat probably would not make much difference.

International Business Times Mischaracterizes "Townhall" Question From Mark Kelly

The International Business Times has this story about last night's so-called "Townhall" (VSSA heard from one of its members last night who attended and he said as a former resident of New Hampshire, he knows townhall meetings and this wasn't a townhall).  As I read the IBT article my eyes opened wide when it described the question late in the show from Mark Kelly asking how the government would go about confiscating firearms as "contentious":

The most contentious moment of the night came after a question from Mark Kelly, the former astronaut husband of former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., who was shot in the head at a 2011 political event. Kelly asked Obama how the government would hypothetically go about confiscating the nation's 350 million guns, as some conservative groups fear.

Obama flatly called that notion a conspiracy, even when Cooper called him out for the blunt description. "Are you suggesting the notion that we are creating a plot to take everybody's guns away so we can impose martial law is a conspiracy? Yes, it is a conspiracy," Obama said. "I mean, look. I'm only going to be here for another year. I don't know — when would I have started on this enterprise, right?"

It was nothing of the sort.  That was a softball question from someone favorable to Obama's actions intended for Obama to illustrate those of us who point out Obama's affection for Australia or British style gun control, which did involve confiscation, are conspiracy nuts.

It was clear from the first question that those on the pro-rights side were nervous in this environment which caused them to ramble at times.  No one picked up on the obvious falsehoods or headed off situations like the president's response to the question from rape survivor Kimberly Corban when he pointed out nothing he was proposing would keep her from acquiring a firearm to protect her or her children.  The environment was set up for someone like Obama who is skilled at deflection to stick to talking points.  There is a propensity to show respect to the President of the United States whether you agree with him or not and while there were some pointed questions, he is always given the last word in this format and there is never the opportunity to challenge him.

Obama constantly set up the NRA as the foil claiming that he was open to meet with them but only if it is based on facts and not "imaginary fiction."  This from a guy who regularly gets multiple "Pinocchios" from the Washington Post Fact Checker for his false statements related to firearms.

We learned nothing new last night.  If the President was looking to open an honest debate, he failed miserably.

Business and Conversation Brisk During Last Weekend's Nation's Gun Show

Both WTVR CBS6 and the Loudoun Times-Mirror covered the Nation's Gun Show held in Chantilly over this past weekend. Both Media Outlets found varying views on what was at the time speculation of what would actually come out of the White House.  First, the CBS 6 report.

I'm not sure the owner of Trader Jerry's would agree that his comments about those engaged in the business of selling firearms means he thinks laws should be more restrictive. While I don't know this, I am willing to bet he does not believe someone who sells one firearm from their personal collection at a gun show is in the business of selling firearms.

It should also be noted that CBS 6 did not go out of their way to try and portray the private sellers to which they spoke as some shady black market people but they were folks who, like most gun owners, wanted to make sure the folks they were selling their guns to were on the up-and-up.  They also were like most of the private sellers I have seen at gun shows - guys walking around with one gun on their shoulder, not someone trying to skirt the FFL law with a table full of firearms.

You probably noticed that reference to the show being so busy the ATM ran out of money.  Annette Elliot, the show promoted told the Loudoun Times-Mirror why the event was so packed:

“There are three reasons why people are waiting in line to get into our show,” Elliott explained. “One is ISIS. Two is McAuliffe. And three is Obama."

The Times-Mirror noted that more guns were sold in December than almost any other month in nearly two decades  according to federal data released on Monday.

VSSA Members Invited to Presidential Town Hall

VSSA have been invited to attend the Town Hall Meeting with POTUS this coming Thursday.  If anyone would like to attend please contact Allison Brennan via email :  allison.brennan@cnn.com.  Arrival Time will be at 6:30 PM, George Mason University Student Union bldg.  Secret Service requires names of attendees prior to attending.  

 

If you would like to attend please contact Ms. Brennan NLT 3:30 PM today. 

Four Reasons Why the Administration May Have Gone To Such Lengths to Release Such a Nothing Set of Actions

Jonathan Adler has a good piece at the Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy offering several possible reasons why the Obama Administration went to such lengths to issue actions on what constitutes a firearm dealer that many believe really don't do or change a whole lot.  Of the four listed, this one is likely the real reason:

A third potential reason for issuing a guidance of this sort is political: to respond to the political demand for action. Issuing a guidance document with substantial fanfare is a way to create the impression of action and satisfy relevant constituencies. To the typical, rationally ignorant voter, it may appear that the administration is doing something significant. (And insofar as Republicans complain and caterwaul about the administration’s actions, this purpose is more fully achieved.)

There is this incessant need in Washington to appear to be doing something.  Nothing illustrates that better than this graphic from National Journal:

The 114th Congress by the numbers https://t.co/Rv7eHioFh7 pic.twitter.com/QG6xtb5ElK

— National Journal (@nationaljournal) January 6, 2016

Most Americans are probably glad Congress only passed 100 bills last year. 

Adler also reinforces that the announcement dealt with guidance, not a new regulation. This is because it takes a lot more effort to put a new regulation in place and it is possible new regulations could not be completed before the end of the administration.  But guidance has no force in law, so, is the announcement meant to have a "chilling" effect (another possible reason offered by Adler) on private people selling their privately owned firearm to another private individual?  A way to control activity that they have so far been unable to do by law?  Is that the reason Attorney General Lynch mentioned there is court precedent for considering the sale of one firearm as being in the business?

Obama Continues to Collect Pinocchios From Washington Post Fact Checker on Gun Comments

Anyone still questioning the impact that social media has had on the information available to the public need only look at today's Washington Post Fact Check on one comment that President Obama made during his executive actions announcement yesterday:

“The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules.  A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.”

—President Obama, remarks on gun proposals, Jan. 5, 2016

The Fact Checker’s inbox just about exploded after the president made this comment in introducing new guidance for background checks and gun-safety proposals.  Here’s just a sampling:

Can’t wait for “fact” “checkers” to go to town on this one! https://t.co/CErTynLsb4

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 5, 2016

@GlennKesslerWP wow what a lie from the whitehouse https://t.co/zxV9sf6fZW

— Steven (@ArlingtonSteve) January 5, 2016

Waiting for the fact check on this whopper … @PolitiFact @GlennKesslerWP https://t.co/jikK1niOWa

— kelley currie (@mackiesmama) January 5, 2016

While watching the speech, I had the VSSA Twitter feed open and folks like Katie Pavlich, Dana Loesch and Bob Owens also called out the President.  So, Kessler wasted no time in looking at what the President said and whether it was true.  After parsing Obama's use of the word "Internet" and what people may understand him to mean (recall Clinton's famous "depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is) the final verdict was Two Pinocchios:

We agree that Obama’s language is slippery and could be confusing to the average person who doesn’t know anything about FFLs and interstate requirements. There is nothing unique about the Internet; the laws governing private transactions and interstate sales are exactly the same. It’s the same as offering to sell a gun on a bulletin board, except the bulletin board is significantly larger. The Internet, and eletronic payment systems such as PayPal and Bitcoin, have certainly facilitated transactions that in the past would have been more difficult to arrange.

Obama erred in saying the rules are different for Internet sellers. They face the same rules as other sellers — rules that the administration now says it will enforce better.

Yesterday's speech was full of out right lies.  Even with Kessler's parsing what Obama may have actually meant by the word "Internet" it was nice to see the mainstream media point out the fact in this case.

Public Ranks Guns/Gun Control 19th Out 23 Most Important Issues of 2015

As the President embarks on new "executive actions" to address "gun violence", Gallup has released a poll indicating the yearly average for people responding that guns/control was a top issue facing the country in 2015 was only 2%.  It ranked 19th out of 23 issues polled for the year.  The highest it polled during 2015 was 7% in October and December.  Even with all of the media attention immediately after the handful of mass shootings in 2015, the highest the issue polled was 7%.  At it's highest points, that is still less than half of the average for the top two issues of concern to respondents - Government/Congress/Politicians/ (top pick) and Economy in General (second).

Obama's Executive Actions on Guns Likely to Include Regulations on Lost, Stolen Firearms

It has been widely reported that Obama's so-called "Executive Actions" to get gun control he can't get from Congress will include something related to reclassifying at least some private sellers as FFLs.  This is Obama's attempt to "expand" background checks by requiring private citizens who sell an arbitrary number of firearms from their personal collection are classified as federal firearms licensees (FFLs).  This action would reverse a policy of Bill Clinton that sought to reduce the number of FFLs in the counrty in the mid 90s. 

Laws passed under the Clinton administration, such as the Brady Law and the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, changed the licensing procedures for federal firearms licensees by increasing fees and requiring gun dealers to submit photographs and fingerprints as part of their applications.

Primarily because of the increased regulation, the number of federal firearms licensees dropped from about 282,000 in 1993 to fewer than 104,000 by 1999.

“The complaints from the gun-control groups [in the 1990s] were that there were way, way too many FFLs, and the government needed to crack down on and reduce the number of licensees,” said Lawrence Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry’s trade association. “Now all of a sudden, we’re hearing the gun control groups say there aren’t enough licenses, and everybody needs to have a license.”

One new proposal that CNN reported Sunday would also change the regulations related to how lost and stolen guns are investigated:

Gun control advocates are also anticipating that the administration will bolster regulations on the reporting of lost and stolen guns. Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is only required to investigate a gun theft if 10 or more guns are stolen and one of them is used in a crime. The administration is expected to tighten those requirements by reducing the minimum number of guns stolen that would prompt an investigation, and potentially eliminating the requirement that one of the guns is used in a crime.

While all of this was either foreshadowed by the President in his weekly radio address on New Years Day or leaked from sources in the administration, neither source has been asked or volunteered to show how either of these actions would reduce crime committed with firearms.  In fact, as Bearing Arms.com reported earlier this morning, per-capita homicides are their lowest levels since the Federal Bureau of Investigation began tracking that data in 1960.

Barack Obama is wasting no time when it comes to restricting our Second Amendment rights.  He will hold a staged event with CNN on Thursday at George Mason University dressed up as a "Townhall", then announce his unconstitutional actions on Friday after announcing his actions on Tuesday., the anniversary of the Arizona shootings that critically wounded former congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

Wall Street Journal Op/Ed: Guns Are What Liberals Talk About to Avoid Having to Talk About Islamist Terrorism.

William McGurn writes in the Wall Street Journal about how gun control for liberals is a theology to avoid talking about the real problem, in this case, Islamist terrorism.  According to McGurn, they did it during the cold war error to avoid talking about communism:

Yet while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.

Understand this, and you understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.

Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.

Also at the Wall Street Journal, editorial page editor Paul Gigot talked about why this debate is wasted effort.


Rather than talk about things like trying to identify threats from those who are mentally ill, like the Sandy Hook shooter, or terrorists like the San Bernadino shooters, they want to talk about guns.  But, as McGurn concluded, I guess if I were Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, I'd probably prefer to talk about guns than the failures of the anti-terror policy of the last seven years too.

Ruger Stocks up 66%, Smith and Wesson up 116% in 2015

The headline on the Market Watch article is "Gun stocks rally after Obama’s prime-time address on terrorism."   Note, this is after Obama only repeated what he has been doing since the summer, telling Congress to pass laws that would not have prevented any of the mass shootings that have take place in the last four months.  Given he was holding a prime time address and at least one member of  the administration said the president would address gun control, many gun owners probably thought Obama was finally going to drop the boom and use so-called "executive actions" to get the restrictions he can't get from Congress.  In the end, it was just more of the same.  That did not stop investors from being bullish on the two publicly traded firearm manufacturers:

Shares of the two publicly traded gun makers rallied on Monday, a day after President Barack Obama gave a prime-time address calling for a modest reduction in the availability of firearms.

Smith & Wesson SWHC, +2.25%  closed 8% higher and Sturm Ruger & Co. RGR, +5.85%  rose 6% on Monday.

Smith & Wesson has climbed 116% this year, and Sturm Ruger has jumped 66%.

Obama on Sunday night said no one on the no-fly list should be able to buy a gun and that it should be harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones used in the San Bernardino massacre.

But with Congress in paralysis on the issue, the logic on Wall Street is that the increased talk of gun restriction will spur more sales, as has happened in previous instances.

Market Watch also noted that November background checks, an indicator of gun sales though imperfect, were higher than they had been in 20 months and Black Friday numbers set records.  Look for that to continue in December.  A combination of more people looking to take steps to protect themselves and Obama pushing gun control is a recipe for increased sales.

Hat tip to Sebastian.

Katie Pavlich: Obama, Not the NRA, Sells Guns to Terrorists

Washington is all a twitter about resurrecting a 10 year-old proposal by the gun ban lobby to prohibit people on the government's "terrorist watch list" from purchasing firearms.  The recent terror attack in Paris has stoked this renewed interest.  Never mind that it is already almost impossible for a resident of France to own firearms.  That did not seem to stop the terrorists from carrying out their attacks.  Nor did it stop a New York newspaper from claiming the NRA wants to arm terrorists because the organization opposes using a list of names, that no one can say how it is compiled and includes the names of people who are not actually terrorists, as a means of keeping people from exercising a constitutionally protected right.

On Monday, Townhall news editor Katie Pavlich wrote an OP/ED in The Hill that says it's not the NRA that arms terrorists, but it is the Obama administration that is selling guns to terrorists. She detailed how the administration allowed thousands of guns to walk across our southern border to the drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizents.  She appeared on NRANews' Cam and Company on Tuesday to discuss the article in more detail.

Obama: I'm Not Going to Take Anyone's Guns Away

That's what he said in his remarks to the IACP as reported by The Hill:

“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away,” he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

“Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, ‘Obama’s gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,’” he added. “Nobody’s doing that."

"We’re talking about common-sense measures to make criminals don’t get them, to make sure background checks work, to make sure that we’re protecting ourselves.”

He went on to claim that his proposals would protect the lives of law enforcement and held up Chicago's gun laws as the reason that national laws should be tightened, but did not mention that Chicago is one of America's most dangerous cities even though it has some of the nations most restrictive gun laws.  Obama and the gun ban lobby counter that most of the guns used in crime in the windy city come from out of state.  But a quick look at ATF trace data indicates that is simply not true.  Illinois is the largest source state for firearms used in a crime and traced in Illinois.  Even when you add up all of the other states, about half of the firearms traced originally came from Illinois.

Obama also included what has become his standard line about gun sales:

“It is easier for a lot of young people in this city, and in a lot of your communities, to buy a gun than buy a book,” he said. “It is easier in some communities to find a gun than to find fresh vegetables in a supermarket. That’s a fact.” 

The NRA immediately responded to Obama's remarks with this video from Wayne LaPierre:

Obama Urges Gun Control Advocates to be Single Issue Voters.

It has worked for pro-rights supporters so President Obama is hoping he can get gun ban advocates to do something they generally have not been known to do in the past - to vote solely on the issue of gun control. He's not quite ready to do what New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has suggested though, which is shutdown the government until Congress passes gun control.

Washington Post: Manchin, Toomey Interested in Reviving Gun Control Push

The Washington Post reports that West Virginia U.S. Senator Joe Manchin and Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Pat Toomey in separate interviews during a reception before a ceremony hosted by Sandy Hook families where Toomey was honored, expressed interest in reviving their effort to criminalize private firearm sales.

“We want to make sure we have the votes. Pat’s going to have to, and I’ll work with him, to get some of our colleagues on the Republican side,” Manchin said, adding that he hasn’t talked directly to Toomey about a revival.

Until last night, Toomey has been quiet on the subject since the bill went down in flames in April of 2013 but he offered no apologies for turning his back on law abiding gun owners when he accepted his award:

Accepting his award on Tuesday night, a visibly emotional Toomey said that despite some of the political fallout from his conservative base, he’d “do it again in a heartbeat.” He said he does have two regrets, however. One, that the 2013 bill didn’t pass. And, “that it took me so long before I raised my voice on this very important issue,” he said.

Talk of reviving the so-called "universal background check" bill began after last week's church shooting in Charleston.  President Obama during a much talked about podcast with Marc Maron however seemed to hold out little hope that will occur, and even suggested it is the one area he will not be able to address with his so-called "executive actions" and rule making.  From the Business Insider coverage of the podcast interview:

"Unfortunately, the grip of the NRA on Congress is extremely strong,” he said. “I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress, and I don’t foresee any real action being taken until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, ‘This is not normal. This is something that we can change and we’re going to change it.’”

Obama showed his frustration with Congress, but said that in many policy areas, he has been able to effect change through rulemakings and other executive actions -- even when Republicans in Congress have refused to work with him. Gun control, he said, has been the exception.

Obama even suggested in that podcast interview that mass shootings have been a financial boom for firearm manufactures:

While the president did not attack gun manufacturers directly, he did point out the irony that they tend to do very well financially in the wake of mass shootings.

“Right after Newtown, gun sales shot up, ammunition shot up, and each time these events occur; ironically, gun manufacturers make out like bandits, partly because of this fear that’s churned up that the federal government and the black helicopters are coming to get your guns.”

Maybe the President should point the finger at himself when he talks about churning up fear since he was the one who proposed banning the one of nation's best selling firearm.