Ben Shapiro Trashes Biden's New Background Check Rules

On Thursday, President Joe Biden announced that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) submitted its proposed gun dealer licensing rule for publication. The rule sets out what will determine when somebody selling firearms from their personal colletion must get a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and adds a few new ones. Biden said the changes were designed to force more gun sellers to conduct background checks before the sale can be completed. The rule points to several specific steps for determining if somebody is selling guns “predominantly for a profit” as a business. But it is still not specific on how many guns somebody can sell or how much money they can make before needing a license.

Stephen Gutsowski wrote over at The Reload (behind the pay wall) that it will likely impact how Americans sell guns, but not in the way most people probably think.

But, despite the fanfare and claims of the Biden Administration, it doesn’t significantly change the ATF’s position on who needs a license. Nor does it outlaw private sales by unlicensed people at gun shows or elsewhere.

It’s true the rule says there’s no specific number of sales that determines who needs a license. It says it doesn’t matter where a sale takes place. It says renting a table at a gun show could indicate somebody is engaged in the business.

But that’s what the ATF has been saying for a very long time. None of this is new. If you look back at a similar move under the Obama Administration in 2016, you’ll find many of the same talking points at play. One of the big talking points at the time was even those selling a single gun could have to get a license–something repeated in this rule.

“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett said at the time. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”

The ATF’s 2016 guide to determining whether you need an FFL hits all the major factors included in the new rule, too.

Podcaster Ben Shapiro addressed the issue today on his show and he said this is just one more piece of the radical Democrat agenda, and that it won't have any impact on crime.  Shapiro, a gun owner, said the rule is likely to be challenged in court like most of the other gun related rules the Biden Administration has released.

GOP Senator Counters Schumer Mental Health Proposal With NRA Backed Effort

Just days after N.Y. Senator Chuck Schumer and his actress cousin unveiled gun control legislation dressed up as a carrot and stick approach to get states to report more mental health information to the National Instant Check System (NICS), Texas Senator John Cornyn has come out with a counter proposal that has the dual benefit of insuring those who should be included in the NICS database are reported while at the same time protecting millions of Social Security recipients who also have a  “representative payee”, as well as veterans who aren't managing their own affairs.  From the report on Guns.com:

The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act aims to fix the existing background check system without expanding it, said U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in his announcement of the measure. The bill also aims to bolster treatment options for mentally-ill offenders, and response and prevention plans for local officials.

“While potentially dangerous mentally-ill individuals are often known to law enforcement and local officials, gaps in existing law or inadequate resources prevent our communities from taking proactive steps to prevent them from becoming violent,” said Cornyn, who voted down legislation in 2013 to expand background checks to include online and certain private sales.

The NRA has endorsed the measure not because of recent string of high profile mass shootings but because of a push by the Obama administration that would ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they’re determined to lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.

“We thank Senator Cornyn for his leadership in standing up to the Obama administration and introducing legislation that will take meaningful steps toward fixing America’s broken mental health system,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm.

The NRA-ILA alert notes the specific provisions of the legislation:

• The bill will stop the Obama administration’s Social Security Administration and other agencies from defining as “prohibited persons” those who meet arbitrary criteria such as having a representative payee assigned to their account.

• The bill will stop the Obama administration’s Veterans Administration (VA) from throwing veterans into NICS simply for having a fiduciary assigned to their account.

• Veterans who have been swept into NICS under previous VA rules will be given the opportunity to have their case reviewed in a full hearing. Requires a specific finding that the veteran is a danger to self or others. Veterans who are not found to be a danger will have their rights restored and will be removed from NICS.

• Requires that real adjudications take place before an individual can be determined a prohibited person under federal law. Full notice, hearing, the right to participate, and the right to counsel are required.

• Provides funding for the states to forward records of mental health adjudications which meet the new due process requirements outlined in the bill.

• Recognizes state orders restoring the firearms rights of individuals under state law.

• Requires AG to remove individuals from NICS in cases where rights have been restored or procedures failed to provide adequate due process protections, as with the VA program.

Bill Exempting CHP Holders from Background Checks Advances in Senate Courts

Yesterday the Senate Courts of Justice Committee advanced all of the pro-rights bill on the docket, including HB2029, a bill that would exempt Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders from a background check when they purchase a firearm.  Federal law allows those who hold a CHP to be exempted from background checks if they have had a check performed in the last five years through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).  HB2029 would add that check to the processing of a CHP application or renewal.  Currently 23 states have this exemption as allowed by federal law.

The State Police, which has become a mouthpiece for the anti-rights McAuliffe administration this year strongly opposed the bill according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Tom Bradshaw of the Virginia State Police cited statistics showing that during the past five years, police sent 1,100 letters to circuit courts indicating a disqualified permit holder.

He said there were 227 permit holders who were subject to disqualification because of involuntary commitment to a mental health institution and 2,500 restraining orders were issued on holders of concealed handgun permits.

“During that five-year period a lot of things can actually occur,” Bradshaw said.

The bill now goes to Finance where it should be reported out as there is not fiscal impact due to an increase in the fee charged applicants to conduct the additional background check at the time of processing.

Also reporting yesterday were HB1329 which would recognize out of state CHPs as long as the out of state resident also has a government issued photo id on his or her person.  HB1329 was also referred to the Finance Committee.

Both bills may face vetoes from Governor McAuliffe.  Keep watching the blog for action alerts should the bills pass the Senate.  Gun owners will need to flood McAuliffe's office with phone calls and emails.

Finally, HB1666 advanced and moved to the Senate Finance.  HB1666 is Delegate Fowler's bill that permits a nonresident of the Commonwealth prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition because of a felony conviction or a juvenile adjudication of delinquency of certain offenses to petition the circuit court where his last felony conviction or adjudication of delinquency occurred for restoration of his right to possess, transport, or carry a firearm.  Current law does not provide for venue for a nonresident's restoration petition.

Are Lifetime Concealed Handgun Permits Right for You?

There are currently two bills in the General Assembly (one in the House of Delegates and one in the State Senate) that would create lifetime concealed handgun permits.  The House version (HB 1359) has not been acted on in committee.  The Senate Bill, SB 689 reported out of committee on Monday and should be up on final passage Thursday or Friday. The Senate bill gives applicants the choice of either the current five year permit, or a lifetime permit.  You may ask why the choice; wouldn't everyone want the lifetime option?

After the first VSSA legislative email alert went out last week, I received a reply from a VSSA Life Member who currently lives in South Carolina.  He's an FFL and said that in South Carolina, a concealed carry permit holder does not have to undergo a background check when they purchase a firearm because the South Carolina permit qualifies for a NICS check exemption (US Code Title 27 Chapter 478.102 (d)(1)(ii)).  That exemption requires that a NICS check is done at least once every five years.  Currently in Virginia, CHP background checks go through the State Police so Virginia does not qualify for the background check exemption.  If SB 689 passes, that could change.

SB 689 includes a provision that five-year permits also undergo a NICS background check in the processing. Also, there is a House Bill 2029 that would change Virginia's background check law to allow CHP holders to be exempt from the background check when purchasing a firearm in accordance with the above referenced exemption.

So, if a Virginia gun owner wants to be exempt from undergoing a background check every time they purchase a firearm, they would need to continue with the current five-year permit.  But, if SB 689 passes, you will also have the option of having a permit for life, you'll just have to continue going through the background check when you buy a firearm from an FFL.

News21's"Investigative" Series on Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

An outfit called News21 has an "investigative" news series called Gun Wars: The Struggle Over Rights and Regulation in America.  The pieces were posted on the organization's web site over the weekend and are running on news web sites like NBCNews, Philly.com, and USA Today among other partners.  The project bills itself as "an investigative-reporting project involving top college students across the country" funded by Carnegie-Knight and is based at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

The articles explore a number of topics like what they call "a resurgence of the gun control movement," as well as articles on background checks and the mentally ill, "Stand Your Ground" laws, the increase in female gun owners, and others. 

I've found some things that don't appear to be completely accurate.  For instance, in the article on the pro-rights and anti-rights organizations, they seem to confuse total NRA income (membership dues which cover the operation of the organization including programs) with the political income for purposes of the chart on the web page.  The reason that the NRA has a budget of $256 million (their number) is because the NRA has 5 million members.  That money goes to running the various programs and the overhead of the organization.  That's not the political side of the house.  So, to compare the $16 million they say is raised by the gun ban lobby with the NRA member dues is comparing apples to oranges.

Another thing I don't think is completely accurate is in the article on armed teachers.  In that article the author states:

In 28 states, adults who legally own guns will be allowed to carry them in public schools this fall, from kindergarten classrooms to high school hallways. Seven of those states specifically cite teachers and other school staff as being allowed to carry guns in their schools.

A News21 examination of open-records laws in those states found that teachers or staff who choose to carry a firearm into their classrooms are not required to tell principals, other teachers or parents. Only five of those states have completely open access to concealed-carry permit information through public records requests. Some state's laws seal off those records, and others are silent on the issue.

In states where it is legal, parents may have no idea their child's teacher carries a gun into the classroom every day.

I could be wrong but I believe they are confusing the statutes that don't allow public access to a state's list of concealed carry permit holders with requirements related to schools allowing teachers to carry on school property.

Look for a whole list of articles by the group to continue appearing on news web sites.

IACP Uses Bogus Numbers to Push for Expanded Background Checks

At yesterday's close to the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Conference, a group known as the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence held a press conference to push for "expanded background checks."  From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Currently, only buyers who purchase firearms at gun shops are subjected to background checks, while the 40 percent of buyers who purchase their guns privately, including online and at gun shows, are not, said Baltimore Chief Jim Johnson, chairman of the partnership.

Chief Jim Johnson is no stranger to gun control as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year pushing for more gun control.  But these guys need to stop using the discredited talking points of the gun ban lobby. From that piece in the Washington Post that put the lie to the 40%:

Cash purchase from gun, hardware or department store, from pawnshop, or from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or through mail that respondent says “yes” was FFL [federally licensed dealer]: 22 percent 

Add cash purchase from seller at gun show, flea market or military, or though the mail that respondent says “probably was/think so:” 20 percent 

Add cash purchases, trades with family, friends/acquaintance that respondent says are or probably are FFL: 14 percent 

 In other words, rather than being 30 to 40 percent (the original estimate of the range) or “up to 40 percent” (Obama’s words), gun purchases without background checks amounted to 14 to 22 percent. And since the survey sample is so small, that means the results have a survey caveat: plus or minus six percentage points. 

Moreover, as we noted before, the survey was taken in late 1994, eight months after the Brady law went into effect, and the questions were asked about gun purchases in the previous two years. So some of the answers concerned gun purchases that took place in a pre-Brady environment. 

If only the media assembled at yesterday's press event at the Philadelphia Convention Center had pointed out the fallacy of IACP's numbers.

Governor McDonnell Stands with Freedom When Questioned on Navy Yard Shooting

Governor McDonnell has been a true friend to supporters of the Second Amendment during his time as Governor and in the aftermath of the Navy Yard murders, he continues to stand firm. This from the Tampa Tribune:

"I've yet to see any conclusive data that suggests that a waiting period would work. We have an instant background check in Virginia. We are one of the first states to have that some 20 years or so ago," the pro-gun Republican governor said on Tuesday morning's program.

The Tribune article noted that even though the Navy Yard killer had numerous mental health issues, he passed a background check. What the Tribune did not mention was he had never been adjudicated as mentally disturbed.

Thanks Governor McDonnell for standing with law abiding gun owners.

Terry McAuliffe Changes Subject When Asked About Support for Gun Ban

Yesterday, Kerry Picket of Breitbart News spoke with Cam Edwards on NRANews.com about her exchange with Democratic Candidate Terry McAuliffe on the subject of  so-called "assault weapons".  "Fast Terry" wanted no part of talking about the subject and instead tried to instead talk about how he is a gun owner, he takes his sons hunting, and that everyone should have to go through background checks before purchasing a firearm, even though just a little over six months ago he expressed support for gun bans.

We need to hold McAuliffe's feet to the fire.  Tell every pro-Second Amendment supporter you know that Terry McAuliffe cannot be trusted when it comes to our rights.  In December when he thought gun control was popular, he was for banning sporting rifles and gun rationing.  Now, he wants to pretend he supports the Second Amendment.  Don't let him get away with it.

Democrats Push Gun Control, Recruit Pro-Gun Candidates

The Hill reports this morning that the National Senate Republican Campaign Committee is pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrat leaders who are pushing gun control at the national level while recruiting pro-rights candidates in states like Montana and South Dakota in the hope of retaining their senate majority:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) posted a message on its online action center Friday calling for people to sign up to support Obama’s agenda of immigration reform, commonsense gun control and equal rights. But it’s eyeing candidates in Montana and South Dakota who are not likely to support Obama’s gun control initiatives.

Two of those being recruited are former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-MT).  Both have "A" ratings from the NRA as past office holders and were popular in their states.  Herseth Sandlin lost a close race for re-election in the wave election of 2010 and is considered the strongest candidate among Democrats to hold on to the seat.  It is unclear whether either candidate would vote with their party to criminalize private sales but a political science professor at Montana State University said it is unlikely that Schweitzer would go along with that proposal.  Max Baucus, the individual that Schweitzer would be running to replace, also voted against the Schumer, Manchin, Toomey amendment and it turned out he was not planning to run for re-election.

Contrast what Baucus did with Virginia's own Mark Warner, who likes to portray himself as a  "bipartisan moderate" Democrat that is above party allegiance.  Warner has never bucked the administration on any important vote from Obamacare to the budget.  And he did not disappoint Obama on "expanded background checks."  I'm not counting the vote on the ban on sporting rifles or standard capacity magazines because even Obama did not push either of those other than giving lip service.  The line in the sand was drawn on background checks and on that test, Mark Warner failed.

Gun owners need to question candidates in 2014 on the issue of where they stand on private transfers.  Don't let them weasel word the issue.  Make them be specific.

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.

Will Manchin/Toomey/Schumer Pass or Will It Fail

Apparently depends on who you ask according to NPR:

It all sound much like what we wrote one week ago: "Blocked Or Breaking Through? Mixed Signals On Gun Bills." That was followed by the Manchin-Toomey "break through."

The only way to make sure it fails is to keep up the phone calls.  Obama's Organizing for America  (OFA) plans to flood (or at least that is the plan) Senate offices tomorrow with phone calls.  We need to counter that.  If you can't get through to the D.C. office, try the district offices.  They keep track of phone calls too.  You can find out all of your senator's contact information at www.senate.gov.

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.

Senate Judiciary Delays Consideration of Gun Control Bills

The Washington Post reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has delayed consideration of gun control legislation for one week to give them an opportunity to hear from more witnesses. From the Post:

"In light of the delay, Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the panel would reconvene March 7 to begin considering the four bills, a process that will go “as late as necessary.” He said he hopes the full Senate can begin debating whichever bills are approved by the committee before the end of March."

Less Than 1% of Background Checks Were Prohibited Persons Attempting to Buy Firearms

The Richmond Times Dispatch had this article today that will likely be used by the gun ban lobby in their push to criminalize private firearm sales but when you look at the numbers, the number of prohibited persons who tried to legally purchase a firearm are very close to what the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics found in study released in 2001 - that very few criminals attempt to buy their firearms legally.

In 2012, less than one percent of the background checks run were denied.  A total of  432,387 firearm transactions were conducted in Virginia last year (note that a single background check does not necessarily correlate to individual firearm sales as an individual could be purchasing two shotguns at one time and only one background check would need to be conducted).  In 2011, the total was right at 1%.  And not all of those denials were necessarily convicted felons or other prohibited persons attempting to purchase a firearm.  Some denials were individuals trying to purchase more than one handgun in a 30 day period, which was not legal from 1993 to July of 2012 with limited exceptions.

It should also be noted that of those 3444 denials last year, the Times Dispatch reports only 531 resulted in an arrest.  Which begs the question, were some of those denials false positives as Professor John Lott has indicated?

Is NRA A Paper Tiger?

That's what Connecticut Democrat U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy told reporters in a telephone press conference covered by Roll Call earlier this week and he is not the first to make the claim.  Their reasoning is because the NRA spent so much money in 2012 and Obama won and several high profile U.S. Senate candidates lost, that the NRA's clout is overblown.

Murphy said his goal is to debunk “the continuing mythology about the power of the NRA” and to convince his colleagues on both sides of the aisle that “there is nothing to fear” from the NRA. He pointed to a Sunlight Foundation analysis showing that the NRA’s PAC spent more than $11 million in the 2012 elections but enjoyed a less than 1 percent return on its investment. Sunlight determined that many of the races in which the NRA spent the most money did not go its way.

I would assert that a number of factors played a role in Obama's victory, and we all know what sunk Todd Akin and Richard Murdock's campaigns.  The fact that Romney failed to turn out as many voters as McCain did in 2008 played a key role in his defeat.  And as Sebastian  over at Shall Not Be Questioned pointed out not long after the election, more than a few gun owners did not trust Romney and Obama largely ignored the gun issue with the exception of the one comment in a debate.

The most disgusting part is that people like Murphy and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) view the Sandy Hook shooting in a political light, using it to advance a decade old agenda that has been gathering dust, waiting for just the right tragedy to be dusted off.  Murphy and Mark Glaze of MAIG said on the call that Newtown has spawned well financed new groups to counter the NRA and have changed the politics.  Really?  Look at all of the articles reporting on yesterday's Senate hearing and almost every single one notes that the only consensus seems to be focused on changes to background checks and that the chances for legislation targeting so-called "assault weapons" and ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds appear to be dimming.  Even the White House seems to just be mouthing support for such legislation.

George Washington University law and history professor Robert Cottrel commenting to Roll Call that reports of the NRA's demise are greatly exagerated:

“I would be very cautious” about dismissing the NRA, Cottrol said, noting that Democrats leveled similar charges before enacting an assault weapons ban two decades ago, only to see Republicans seize House control in 1994. “Because essentially we heard the same drumbeat in ’92, ’93 and ’94, and it turned out to be totally false.”

One final note, in the same post by Sebastion referenced above, he suggested that if the NRA's power really is waning, it is because gun owners have become complacent and are going back to sleep.  He's right. The NRA is not Wayne LaPierre and that glass building on Rt. 50 in Fairfax.  It's millions of gun owners, including both those who choose to pay dues, and those who support the fundamental right to keep and bear arms but for whatever reason don't stroke a check for dues.  If we don't get out and vote and work against those who would take away our rights, we lose. 

I think we can say that gun owners have been awakened.  NRA membership has increased by 250,000 new members based on a number of reports. Closer to home, VSSA's membership has increased 10% since the talk of new gun control began. When gun owners see a serious threat, they respond.

2016 Democratic Hopefuls View Gun Control As Winning Issue

It is sickening that politicians take an event like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and decide that now they can use gun control to advance their career opportunities.  Democrats who have designs on the White House in 2016 have determined they have a "winning issue."  This from the Washington Post :

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O’Malley rolled out a sweeping plan Monday to ban military-style firearms and ammunition clips as well as overhaul mental health and school safety programs.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo reached agreement with state lawmakers to enact measures including the country’s toughest assault weapons ban, saying that “no one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer.”

And it's not just politicians in states known to be friendly to gun control.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is pushing to mandate universal background checks on all gun sales — a controversial move in a Western state where gun enthusiasts usually hold sway.

CSGV Spin on Gun Sales

Citing the number of media stories about the increase in gun sales, Josh Horwitz with the Coalitiion to Stop Gun Violence has put out an email that promotes "The Truth About Gun Sales."

In reality, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (the gun industry's trade association) refues to provide the media and public with sales data, which is unheard of.  Instead, they offer reporters data on background checks.  But the FBI has mide it patently clear that these checks "do not represent the number of firearms sold."

That's right, and NSSF makes it clear the number they report is for background checks, not firearms sold. This from the most recent Bullet Points.

According to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), December 2011 set a new record for the most background checks in a single month (emphasis added). The December 2011 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,410,937 is an increase of 24.5 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,133,371 in December 2010. For comparison, the unadjusted December 2011 NICS figure of 1,854,400 reflects a 22.6 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,512,265 in December 2010. This marks the nineteenth straight month that NSSF-adjusted NICS figures have increased when compared to the same period the previous year.

It is very likely that one background check could be for the purchase of more than one firearm (i.e. a father buying a shotgun or rifle for each of two sons as Christmas presents - two firearms sold under one background check). So, CSGV, the number of firearms sold is likely higher that the number of background checks, which should make Josh even more unhappy. 

Update.  The Richmond Times Dispatch makes the same point for us here.

Virginia's Firearm Instant Background Check System Targeted for Elimination

The Virginian Pilot ran this report today that Virginia's instant background check, known as the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program, may be one of the issues debated at the 2012 Session of the Virginia General Assembly.

Gun-rights advocates have lobbied Gov. Bob McDonnell to scrap the program, arguing that it is redundant because a federal background check system can replace it.

As you can imagine, the gun ban lobby is less than happy about the prospect.  But the Governor's office has acknowledged that the idea is under review.

A spokeswoman for McDonnell said "informal discussions with interested parties" about the background check system have been held and the subject remains under review.

The idea first surfaced a couple years ago when State Senator John Watkins, who represents Chesterfield, Powhatan, and a small portion of the City of Richmond, proposed raising the current $2 transaction fee to $5.  The fee is charged to gun owners for the check.  At the time, the state police, claimed they no longer had the staff to efficiently run the background checks due to the surge in new purchases that began in the fall of 2008, and the increase would fund new staff to run the system.  The increase also coincided with what had become long delays in approvals, something that the Virginia system, unlike the federal system, had not been known for in the past.  Pro-rights groups, including VSSA, successfully lobbied to kill the bill in the House of Delegates after it sailed through the more liberal State Senate.

The Pilot reports that doing away with the system could be a two edged sword for the Governor.

Doing away with it would likely shrink the state bureaucracy and at least nominally reduce spending, areas where the governor has worked to distinguish himself. But it also invites potential blowback from gun-control and public-safety advocates at a time that McDonnell is nurturing vice-presidential aspirations.

Both the Virginia program and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) screen purchasers for criminal history, illegal presence in the country, drug offenses, dishonorable military discharge, mental health adjudications and protective orders against them.  While there is overlap as some pro-rights groups point out, the state system is not exactly the same as federal system, which has been around since 1998 and is overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

According to the state police, Virginia's check includes some standards are stricter than the federal prohibitions.  They say ending the state program would undercut aspects of state gun law.  For instance, state protective order rules apply to more family situations than the federal standards; Virginia's drug policy disqualifies buyers for longer periods of time; and rules on foreign-born purchasers differ.  Additionally, Virginia law prohibits people with juvenile felony convictions from obtaining a firearm. One reason for the disparity between the federal and state checks related to juveniles is the state has strict limits on access to state juvenile criminal records, therefore, information about youthful felonies doesn't appear in the federal background check system.

Handgun rationing (Virginia's one handgun-a-month) was also mentioned, though the Pilot links the background check to the rationing scheme.  While the background check is a way for the state police to know who has purchased a handgun in the last thirty days, the two are not officially linked.  And, VSSA has already stated to members that repealing handgun rationing is this year's top priority.  While Governor McDonnell is already on record as supporting repeal of handgun rationing, the pilot pointed out that Senator Watkins, who voted for the law in 1993, is also now in favor of repealing it.
 

This is good news because repeal is going to require people who voted for it to switch their vote.

This is going to be a very active and important legislative session.

Attend a Governor McDonnell Townhall on Government Reform

Last week, NRA-ILA sent an email alert encouraging gun owners to attend one of the town halls that Governor Bob McDonnell is holding around the Commonwealth on the subject of Government Reform. One suggesting for reforming Virginia government and saving taxpayers money would be to scrap the current Virginia Instant Check System for gun purchases and use the National Instant Check System (NICS). In April, I posted about the problem of background checks taking longer and the impact is has had on gun shows. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported at that time the reason according to the State Police:

Officials say it is tied to increased demand for firearms at the same time that budget and funding constraints have reduced the number of staffers available to handle the transactions.

Spokeswoman Corinne Geller said that since May 2009, the agency has lost 11 people from its 28-person staff at the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, including two federally funded full-time workers who used to attend gun shows and conduct the computerized checks on-site.

NRA believes that the best way to alleviate the problem is not allocate more money to the State Police, but to scrap the state system and have Virginia use the NICS. Such a suggestion is likely the type of government reforms ideas that Governor McDonnell may find appealing.

There are a number of town halls coming up in the next week and gun owners are encouraged to attend and suggest to Governor McDonnell that one efficient reform idea is for Virginia to stop doing its own checks and instead have them go through NICS. If you live near one of the town hall locations, please attend, then let VSSA know the Governor's response by posting a comment on this blog post.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 24
7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
412 Lee Hall at University of Mary Washington
1301 College Avenue in FREDERICKSBURG

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 25
7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
CIT Auditorium
2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 300 in HERNDON


THURSDAY, AUGUST 26
7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Montpelier Room of East Campus Dining Hall
James Madison University in HARRISONBURG

MONDAY, AUGUST 30
7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Great Hall of Institute for Advanced Learning and Research
150 Slayton Avenue in DANVILLE

TUESDAY, AUGUST 31
7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
J. Henry Kegley Meeting Room in Bristol Public Library
701 Goode Street in BRISTOL

VSSA had the opportunity to discuss this with NRANews.com last week.

Background Checks Taking Longer

If you have tried to purchase a firearm in the Commonwealth in the last year, you have likely experienced the trend that today's Richmond Times Dispatch reported - background checks are taking longer. What used to take a matter of minutes in most cases now can take as much as several hours.

The State Police are blaming the delays on reduced staff and buget cuts:

Spokeswoman Corinne Geller said that since May 2009, the agency has lost 11 people from its 28-person staff at the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, including two federally funded full-time workers who used to attend gun shows and conduct the computerized checks on-site.

Gun owners pay a $2.oo tax that goes to cover the cost of the instant background check. The tax has remained the same price since 1989. VSSA and other Virginia gun groups successfully defeated legislation in 2009 that would have increased the tax by 150%. The bill passed the Senate easily but thanks to our friends in the House of Delegates, the bill died an appropriate death. The patron of that legislation, Senator John Watkins wasn't very happy when the bill went down to defeat:

"...I couldn't even get it out of subcommittee," said Sen. John Watkins, R-Powhatan, who carried the 2009 legislation. "They want to have it both ways."

According to the State Police, an increase in the background check tax would enable them to reduce wait times and process more checks. They give as their reason for the delays the increase in the number of conditions under which someone can be disqualified from owning a firearm. With this, supposedly the checks are now more "labor-intensive", causing the prospective purchaser's information to be run through 13 different databases. The State Police said if one of the databases hits on a name, the application is automatically given what is called a "pending status" for the technician to do further research.

But at the same time, background checks have risen to record numbers, with 287,462 in 2009. When you multiply that by $2.00, that is a lot of money. But the state police say it is not enough.

VSSA continues to oppose a fee increase, as do other Virginia gun rights groups. We want to know why it takes $860,000, as the State Police claim, to run the background checks. If they were running them efficiently up until 2008, and they are collecting more in background check taxes from the increased sales that have occurred since 2008, something is not adding up.